Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?=)
2. 01:57 AM - LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER (JDELPESO@terra.es)
3. 02:16 AM - Re: GRRRRRINNNNNNN !!!! N696WG First Flight !! (shirleyh)
4. 05:04 AM - Re: Wood prop torque? (Bob)
5. 06:12 AM - Partnership contract for building process (Patty Hamilton)
6. 06:20 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV (Bob)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Wood prop torque? (John Danielson)
8. 07:25 AM - Videos (bertrv6@highstream.net)
9. 07:28 AM - Insurance (bertrv6@highstream.net)
10. 07:39 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV (Denis Walsh)
11. 08:43 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV (Kevin Horton)
12. 08:54 AM - Re: Partnership contract for building process (linn Walters)
13. 09:14 AM - Re: Insurance (Richard Dudley)
14. 10:17 AM - Wanted Garmin 196 or 96 (Bryan Flood)
15. 10:54 AM - Re: Partnership contract for building process (Joseph Larson)
16. 11:44 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO ROLLS) ()
17. 11:49 AM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) ()
18. 12:19 PM - pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Larry E. James)
19. 12:42 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
20. 01:45 PM - Re: Partnership contract for building process (Puckett, Gregory [DENTK])
21. 01:54 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (David Leonard)
22. 02:05 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
23. 02:15 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Terry Watson)
24. 02:38 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (bill shook)
25. 02:39 PM - Re: Wood prop torque? (Ernie & Margo)
26. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Partnership contract for building process (Mike Robertson)
27. 03:19 PM - Re: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) (Kyle Boatright)
28. 03:43 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
29. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Darrell Reiley)
30. 03:59 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tim Bryan)
31. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tim Bryan)
32. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) (Dan Checkoway)
33. 04:10 PM - Landing an RV-9 sans flaps ... (Gerry Filby)
34. 04:15 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Tedd McHenry)
35. 04:15 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
36. 04:31 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
37. 04:42 PM - Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (Bob Collins)
38. 06:18 PM - Re: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) (Bob J.)
39. 06:56 PM - wigwag switch (Bob J.)
40. 09:47 PM - Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
41. 10:13 PM - Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M (rtitsworth)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV |
I feel that I must add my 2 cents as one very important issue has not
been
raised. All responses have said that before you try any aerobatics you
should train with a competent instructor. That=92s IOTTMCO (intuitively
obvious to the most casual observer). I did exactly that ' a total of
30
hours training on CAP 10 with two instructors. The first one trained me
in
all the basic manoeuvres (rolls, snap rolls, loops, hammerheads,
chandelles=85), the second one started out with spins, all sorts of
spins, and
how to get out of them. This was a real eye opener. I definitely believe
that one should be trained in recognizing and getting out of unusual
situations as you never know what position the plane will be in if you
mess
up a manoeuvre. An example, you try a loop and for some reason, you
enter it
with insufficient speed. Just as you get to the top, the plane stalls
upside
down. Question: what do you do? If you have not practice spins in
general,
not just simply the two turn spin, you might be in deep trouble.
This being said, I feel that the first instructor, with whom I started
aerobatic training, was negligent in not starting me on the flight
envelope
and spins.
Furthermore, it=92s fun. I for one enjoyed every minute of the Cap 10
training
and will go for more training as soon as circumstances allow.
Michele
RV8 Finishing
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob J.
Sent: lundi 15 janvier 2007 19:25
Subject: Re: RV-List: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV
Tim, a good book to read is "Better Aerobatics" by Alan Cassidy. I have
read/thumbed through a few aerobatic books, and by far this one is the
best.
A couple of years ago I went up in my -6 with Greg Koontz, and learned a
lot
of good stuff from him, which just reiterated some things I read from
the
book. Up until that point I went up with a few experienced guys who
showed
me the ropes. But for the most part you will have to teach yourself and
practice with plenty of altitude after you get someone competent to show
you
how, and I emphasize "competent" (someone who either does airshows or
competitive acro). You'll be better, safer and have more confidence if
you
are properly taught.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER |
I think this question and answer from vans can be usefull for some of
you
Asunto: Re: LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
go with the drawing .....van's
Subject: LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
Copies to: jdelpeso@teleline.es
Hi,
Acording with the instructions on page 8-17 to set the zero incidence
angle to the fuselage, I have to do the following steps:
1.- Set the F-810E 1/8" spacers underneath the front spar.
2.- Set a temporary 3/16" spacer underneath the rear spar.
3.- Check a zero incidence angle placing a ....... 1/16"........
spacer on top of the rear spar and use a carpenter level between
spars.
According with drawing 41 (leveling of horizontal stabilizer), once I
have leveled the stabilizer (steps 1 and 2 of the other paragraph), I
check the zero incidence placing a 1/8" spacer over the front spar
and
1/4" spacer over the rear spar, so the increment is...... 1/8".... In
the instructions on page 8-17 the increment is 1/16".
Wich value is the right one?
Thanks
Jose del Peso #80981
Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, rápido, fiable.
Prueba el correo Terra ( http://www.terra.es/correo ); Seguro, rpido, fiable.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GRRRRRINNNNNNN !!!! N696WG First Flight !! |
Congratulations! Sounds like you've done a great building job!
Shirley
RV6 50 hours now :-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=87972#87972
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop torque? |
>
>I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a wood
>prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque?
>
>Thanks in advance.
Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque to
312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours (per
manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, ie. from
real hot to real cold (winter vs summer).
Bob
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Partnership contract for building process |
Hi,
I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out
there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking for
ideas on how to deal with:
what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane is
completecharging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat
equal on man hours and cash)Who pays for ruin parts?In case of a death
or serious injury, before the airplane is completeAny other issues I
have not thought aboutThanks,
Patty Hamilton
Columbia, SC
RV-6 N996PJ
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV |
>At the risk of being politically incorrect and accused of advocating
>dangerous antisocial behavior, I do know of one guy who taught himself
>aerobatics. It was awhile back, of course, and his name was Bob Hoover.
>
>Disclaimer: My guess is that if he were starting over today, he would
>read the books and take the lessons.
I thought he was an Army Air Corps Pilot, trained by the Army. I know he
was trained in dog fighting, is that not the same as aerobatics? If he
went through the same WW II Army Flight Training (Aviation Cadets) as my
Uncle then he got aerobatic instruction from the Army.
Yes, there are a lot of people who are self taught in aerobatics. Some of
them, but not all, are dead! Some aerobatic pilots who are trained in
aerobatics are also dead due to aerobatics. Aerobatic training will not
insure success, it just puts more of the odds in your favor.
Bob
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wood prop torque? |
I used 240 to 280 inch pounds.
Can't remember where I got that. You might
Search the archives.
John L. Danielson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wood prop torque?
>
>I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a
wood
>prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque?
>
>Thanks in advance.
Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque
to
312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours
(per
manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, ie.
from
real hot to real cold (winter vs summer).
Bob
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello"
SORRY,
THE CONSTRUCTION VIDEOS BY R. HANSEN "BEEN THERE DONE THAT"
HAVE BEEN SOLD
BERT
RV6A
Do Not Archive
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi:
Time for renewal of my Rv6's Insurance Liability only...for now..
Any suggestions as to companies, with best rates?
(I do not want even to talk to AVEMCO", AFTER WHAT THEY DID TO ME)
BESIDES THEM, OTHERS WITH GOOD RATES?
THANKS
BERT
RV6A
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV |
Offered in the interest of fact finding:
Bob Hoover learned to fly at Nashville's Berry Field while working at
a local grocery store to pay for the flight training. He enlisted in
the Tennessee National Guard and was sent for pilot training with the
Army. He was sent to Casablanca where his first major assignment of
the war was test flying the assembled aircraft ready for service. He
was later assigned to the Spitfire-equipped 52nd Fighter group in
Sicily. After 58 successful missions, on the 59th his malfunctioning
Mark V Spitfire was shot down by a Focke-Wulf 190 off the coast of
Southern France in 1944 and was taken prisoner. He spent 16 months at
the German prison camp Stalag Luft 1 in Barth, Germany
Denis Walsh
On Jan 16, 2007, at 07:14 296990001, Bob wrote:
>
>
>> At the risk of being politically incorrect and accused of
>> advocating dangerous antisocial behavior, I do know of one guy who
>> taught himself aerobatics. It was awhile back, of course, and his
>> name was Bob Hoover.
>>
>> Disclaimer: My guess is that if he were starting over today, he
>> would read the books and take the lessons.
>
>
> I thought he was an Army Air Corps Pilot, trained by the Army. I
> know he was trained in dog fighting, is that not the same as
> aerobatics? If he went through the same WW II Army Flight Training
> (Aviation Cadets) as my Uncle then he got aerobatic instruction
> from the Army.
>
> Yes, there are a lot of people who are self taught in aerobatics.
> Some of them, but not all, are dead! Some aerobatic pilots who are
> trained in aerobatics are also dead due to aerobatics. Aerobatic
> training will not insure success, it just puts more of the odds in
> your favor.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV |
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:14:59 -0600
Bob <panamared5@brier.net> wrote:
>
>
> >At the risk of being politically incorrect and accused of advocating
> >dangerous antisocial behavior, I do know of one guy who taught himself
> >aerobatics. It was awhile back, of course, and his name was Bob Hoover.
> >
> >Disclaimer: My guess is that if he were starting over today, he would
> >read the books and take the lessons.
>
>
> I thought he was an Army Air Corps Pilot, trained by the Army. I know he
> was trained in dog fighting, is that not the same as aerobatics? If he
> went through the same WW II Army Flight Training (Aviation Cadets) as my
> Uncle then he got aerobatic instruction from the Army.
I've got Bob Hoover's autobiography. It explains that he learned to fly as a civilian
before the war, and that he did teach himself basic aerobatics. It also
describes him hitting a tree when doing a low level "buzz job" to impress some
friends. He is lucky to have survived the indiscretions of his youth.
Bob Hoover was a great pilot. But, just because he taught himself aerobatics back
in the 1930s is not a good argument for doing the same today. Things were
different back then, and the accident rate was much higher. I'm currently reading
Robert Buck's autobiography. He successfully taught himself to fly IFR before
getting hired by TWA in 1937. This is not recommended today either.
Kevin Horton
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Partnership contract for building process |
AOPA has generic partnership forms. A partnership agreement for a
flying plane should work for a builder partnership with some additions.
Read on for some suggestions.
Patty Hamilton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out
> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking for
> ideas on how to deal with:
>
>
> * what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane
> is complete
>
Then one partner buys out the other for 1/2 the COST of materials. Who
buys out who may be an agreement beforehand, or decided by a flip of the
coin .....
> * charging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat
> equal on man hours and cash)
>
You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the fact
that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the kit close
to home.
> * Who pays for ruin parts?
>
Equal shares. You are supposed to be doing the work together so a
screw-up is shared by both parties.
> * In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is
> complete
>
See the first answer.
> * Any other issues I have not thought about
>
Yes ..... who gets the repairmans certificate. Should be the most
mechanically inclined ...... or maybe the one most likely to survive the
other.
FYI, my Pitts started out as a project with three people ...... and over
the span of construction I bought out the other two participants at a
discount because they wanted to go on to other projects. We didn't have
a written agreement ...... just a handshake ...... and thank goodness we
didn't need one. It could have been messy.
Linn
do not archive
> Thanks,
>
> Patty Hamilton
> Columbia, SC
> RV-6 N996PJ
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bert,
Try EAA's agent: Falcon and AOPA
Regards,
Richard Dudley
bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
>
>
>Hi:
>
> Time for renewal of my Rv6's Insurance Liability only...for now..
>
> Any suggestions as to companies, with best rates?
>
> (I do not want even to talk to AVEMCO", AFTER WHAT THEY DID TO ME)
>
> BESIDES THEM, OTHERS WITH GOOD RATES?
>
> THANKS
>
>BERT
>
> RV6A
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wanted Garmin 196 or 96 |
Hello, all you people who got a 396 or 496 for X-mas, it's time to sell me
your old Garmin 196. I finished my rv-9a in August and it's a whole lot of
fun. Unfortunately long trips by pilotage and dead reckoning are a real
hassle. I can't afford the new whiz bang do everything GPS but I do need to
move into the current era of navigation. Instead of putting the old GPS in
the baggage compartment and flying it all over the US (dead weight) sell it
to me, you know you will probably never use it again. If you want to sell me
your old 96 or 196 please contact me at:
bryanflood@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Bryan
do not archive
_________________________________________________________________
>From photos to predictions, The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes has
it all. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline1
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Partnership contract for building process |
I've thought about this one... If one of the partners wants out of
the relationship, then the other person should have some control over
the process. Not a flip of the coin.
Let's say that my friend Bill and I decide to build a plane
together. We'd share all the costs, etc, and keep track of what we
spend. But let's say I take a great job in Alaska. Bill would then
have the choice of letting me buy out the plane or buying my half
from me. But it should be his choice, because I'm the problem in the
relationship -- I'm the one who is leaving.
You could also have an "auction" between the two of you. The one
willing to pay the most for the buyout keeps the airplane.
But I wouldn't flip a coin.
-J
do not archive
On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:56 AM, linn Walters wrote:
> AOPA has generic partnership forms. A partnership agreement for a
> flying plane should work for a builder partnership with some
> additions. Read on for some suggestions.
>
> Patty Hamilton wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out
>> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking
>> for ideas on how to deal with:
>>
>> what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane
>> is complete
> Then one partner buys out the other for 1/2 the COST of materials.
> Who buys out who may be an agreement beforehand, or decided by a
> flip of the coin .....
>> charging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal
>> on man hours and cash)
> You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the
> fact that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the
> kit close to home.
>> Who pays for ruin parts?
> Equal shares. You are supposed to be doing the work together so a
> screw-up is shared by both parties.
>> In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is complete
> See the first answer.
>> Any other issues I have not thought about
> Yes ..... who gets the repairmans certificate. Should be the most
> mechanically inclined ...... or maybe the one most likely to
> survive the other.
>
> FYI, my Pitts started out as a project with three people ...... and
> over the span of construction I bought out the other two
> participants at a discount because they wanted to go on to other
> projects. We didn't have a written agreement ...... just a
> handshake ...... and thank goodness we didn't need one. It could
> have been messy.
> Linn
> do not archive
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Patty Hamilton
>> Columbia, SC
>> RV-6 N996PJ
>>
>>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO ROLLS) |
Dear Acro Want-to-be's:
*Aerobatics is not a black art and we can talk about it.
*The plane flys the same upside down as right side-up.
*As a CFI, I recommend you get dual instruction.
*With that said there are many books on the subject.
*HERE IS MY RV ACRO "for dummies" explanation:
(note: I assume you are current and can fly all
private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls (accel,
power on/off) and slow flight, unusual attitude recover.
Go practice all PVT maneuvers till you are comfortable.
QUICK: What is nose low unusual attitude recovery?
(power back, wings lever, pitch up to recover, 1,2,3)
This should be done smoothly with rushing or panic.
**ACRO FOR RV's**
First consider a G meter? I don't do acro without
one and also a parachute.
You can do acro all day at 3 g's. Any more you
are doing it wrong.
A split-S started at cruise could kill you,
meaning speed will go over Vne easy if entered
at a speed that is too high, about 100-110 mph.
Get some dual with an experienced pilot. Fly
under acro gross weight. If you can't do that in
your RV use another RV for dual instruction. To
be legal with two people, both need a parachute.
Strangely solo you don't need a parachute.
(Anyone want to bet me? I could use the $20.)
The old joke: "Anyone who teaches them self to
do acro has a fool for an instructor." Many
famous acro pilots had fools for instructors. We
don't hear from those who where not successful
who taught there self.
General rules:
You should plan on starting (and finishing) all
maneuvers at Va or less, about 135-140 mph, at
altitudes at or above 3,000 agl. Also before
undertaking Acro, you should practice and be
proficient on all your private pilot maneuvers,
like: slow flight, steep turns, stall (power
on/off/accelerated from different attitudes),
unusual attitude recovery and explore initial stall
entry / recovery.
ROLLS
I break it down into two lessons. Lesson one
practice leading up to doing rolls starts with first
practicing pitching up smoothly to 30-45 degrees
and than neutralize the stick (release back
pressure). A quick (small) push forward so you
unload the plane, but no pitch down or zero g's,
just natural. That is the end of the first
maneuver. Just lower the nose, accelerate and
recover level. Repeat until you smoothly pitch up
to 45 and neutralize the elevator quickly and
naturally (remember speed 140 max, 3,000' agl
and look for traffic).
The second lesson: Series of rapid left and right
banks while staying on a heading or point - Start
with 20 degrees and increase the bank angle
until you can smoothly roll rapidly back and forth
w/ out the heading going all over. This teaches
you to use larger stick deflections than usual and
not to put pitch inputs into it. We all tend to
bank, than yank. You don't do that when you
roll. In fact you may add fwd stick with full stick
aileron deflection as you get more advance.
"THE ROLL" combines the two lessons. Start at
Va (about 135-140 mph) with the pitch up, than
stick relaxed. One is your natural 45 pitch
attitude, smoothly apply a large (near full)
aileron deflection in the desired direction and
HOLD IT THERE until the world looks right again.
Left is easier due to engine torque. You can keep
your feet flat on the floor for beginners. Wrong
rudder inputs are worse than none. Quickly
neutralize the stick when you come around 360
degrees of roll level. You should be in a slight
nose low attitude, close to your original heading.
Recover straight and level. DONE
Cautions:
DONT RELAX THE ROLL INPUT. HOLD IT ALL THE
WAY. It's common to not to put enough aileron in
or neutralize it during the roll as it progresses to
the inverted. Now you're inverted, diving.
Lesson is keep the roll going by keeping the
aileron into it. Get in trouble keep rolling.
DO release the back pressure before you roll or
you'll do a Barrel Roll or worse. That's not what
you are after. Too much back pressure can
result in a dive or a Split-S. Speed can build
quickly in a dive. Remember your unusual
attitude recovery and pull the power back to idle
if you get pointed down and going too fast, roll
to nearest wings level and recover.
I described a basic beginner RV aileron roll, not
a perfect one. That's the beauty of the RV's,
they roll very nicely with no rudder due to the
Frise type ailerons. There's more to it, but this
should keep you out of trouble. You can enter
these maneuvers faster, but it requires more
skill and control. You can pull the wings of the
plane if you pull/push to hard at higher speeds.
Fly Safe, George
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) |
Dear Acro Want-to-be's:
PART II - Loops
Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can
fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls
(accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few.
If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are
comfortable.
LOOPS
The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again
140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a
maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G-
meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED
A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G
pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice.
Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not
a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2
to 3 seconds or so.
Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but
DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up
you do smoothly and can be very near 1G;
there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you
will need to for a loop. In a loop however if
your initial pitch up G's are too low you might
stall before getting over the top. As you get
more advanced in aerobatics you will see
there are similar elements in all maneuvers.
At the beginning of the loop you will have the
max back pressure, it will be less thru the first
1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half,
where at the end or bottom of the loop you will
have the same back pressure as you did at the
entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and
altitude should be the same.
After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure
relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a
little; This is because as airspeed varies control
pressure changes. By looking outside the plane
you determine the pitching rate. It should be
constant. Remember you go from near 140mph
to near stall in the 50's mph, so control
pressure and control response change
throughout.
Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's
and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input
based on speed while looking outside to control
the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never
go upside down, but they are great practice
leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to
show you these maneuvers.
The entry is important. Too much elevator
(G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight
loop. This can result in excess airspeed and
altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you
really pull hard and keep the pressure up you
can do an accelerated stall in the vertical-
plane. Not what you want.
Too little pressure at the entry and you will not
get over the top and will stall or roll off
potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle.
Unfortunately most, including myself, make
oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve
that is with a ground observer, coaching you
over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for
fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's,
egg shaped and all.
As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon
over the nose so you need to look over you
head, behind you and mostly look off to the
right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level.
On the top of the loop, too much back pressure
can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax
the back pressure (as you do right side up).
When you are upside down you can check the
road or your refrence point and make
coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on
heading.
(Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers)
If you have a fixed prop you may need to make
adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm
w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set
RPM and forget it (nice).
Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are
making big control deflections and loading the
airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things
jam and parts break. Also you may screw up
and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very
safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the
acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the
subjects.
Also you have to look for traffic when doing
loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a
master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty
X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers
well, within the standards, you are ready. If
you are weak in any area you should practice
honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro.
However Acro improves your skill and
confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON
SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN.
Go buy and read some acro books.
Do at your own risk, solo with a chute.
Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in
Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of
$10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA.
First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not
crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue.
Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have
(and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression
system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have)
been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue.
Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger
seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed
up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's
control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the
control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good
practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also
common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight
controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two
items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also
the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and
have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the
PIC.
How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of
pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained
this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this
pilot's mistakes. This is sick.
If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or
if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be
talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should
go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their
husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I
mention that I have an opinion on this ????
Larry E. James
Pacific Northwest
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I'm really going to regret wading into this but in the interest of accuracy, from
my reading of the matter (not via ANN would was not very professional in its
coverage, imho)suit wasn't over the fact the plane crashed. The suit was about
the contention the pilot survived the crash but died because the responders
the EAA contracted with to provide services, took more than minutes to arrive.
The trial took 2 1/2 weeks, which is quite a long time in a trial so I'm going
to suggest that maybe the details that went into the verdict were considered
and were numerous, and beyond our present ability to judge the worth of the family
to continue living on this planet until we know a bit more.
I would advocate for more information before we lynch the family and burn down
the town.
In the meantime, I suspect that help on a runway is now less than 5 minutes away
at major fly-ins, so maybe some good can come of it.
Let's hold fire and learn more.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88090#88090
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Partnership contract for building process |
Patty,
Another thing you may want to consider is that, as I understand it, only
one person's name can go on the Airworthiness Certificate as the
'Builder'.
I'm not a Lawyer but, I would not be surprised that if the airplane were
ever sold to a third party, that person (the 'builder') may have his/her
neck stuck a bit further out. I have no idea how you would account for
this but, it's probably something to think about.
Greg Puckett
RV-8
N881GP
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out
>> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking
>> for ideas on how to deal with:
>>
>> what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane
>> is complete
> Then one partner buys out the other for 1/2 the COST of materials.
> Who buys out who may be an agreement beforehand, or decided by a
> flip of the coin .....
>> charging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal
>> on man hours and cash)
> You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the
> fact that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the
> kit close to home.
>> Who pays for ruin parts?
> Equal shares. You are supposed to be doing the work together so a
> screw-up is shared by both parties.
>> In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is complete
> See the first answer.
>> Any other issues I have not thought about
> Yes ..... who gets the repairman's certificate. Should be the most
> mechanically inclined ...... or maybe the one most likely to
> survive the other.
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Larry,
I couldn't agree more. I blame the lawyers much more than the family. The
lawyer seek out this kind of high profile incident, talk the family into
cooperating, then walk away with an outrageous proportion of the
settlement.
I submit that a large majority of Americans despise this practice (although
wouldn't turn down a few million bucks if offered by the legal team). This
practice is destroying America, our freedoms, and our economy. Medical
costs for example, a large percentage of the GNP, are driven largely by CYA
practices to keep the sharks away. There is no way to accurately estimate
this cost, but it is well in excess of 50% of all costs associated with
medicine.
But the American population is powerless to do anything about it because the
lawyers make the laws to suit their own interests.
A physician can loose his career and sometimes even get jail time for making
an honest mistake while doing his very best for a patient. Meanwhile, the
D.A. in the Duke case is immune from both civil an criminal action despite
the fact that his actions were clearly deliberate and ruined the lives of
many people.
Ok, time to stop, I am making myself really mad...
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
My websites at:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com
On 1/16/07, Larry E. James <larry@ncproto.com> wrote:
>
> I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in
> Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of
> $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA.
>
> First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not
> crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue.
> Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could
> have (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire
> suppression system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have
> (should have) been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue.
> Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the
> passenger seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this
> pilot messed up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an
> aircraft's control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to
> hold the control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and
> good practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is
> also common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all
> flight controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously
> these two items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error.
> This is also the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes
> can add up and have rather large consequences ........ and the person
> responsible is the PIC.
>
> How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of
> pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained
> this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this
> pilot's mistakes. This is sick.
>
> If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or
> if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be
> talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should
> go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from
> their husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh,
> did I mention that I have an opinion on this ????
>
> Larry E. James
> Pacific Northwest
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
wdleonard(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Larry,
> Medical costs for example, a large percentage of the GNP, are driven largely
by CYA practices to keep the sharks away. There is no way to accurately estimate
this cost, but it is well in excess of 50% of all costs associated with medicine.
Due respect and all. This is stated as fact so often that people accept it as such.
Do a Google search for "what drives medical costs" and you can see. My wife,
who's in the health care industry, insists that burdensome paperwork does
the same thing. Who knows. But the jury -- pun intended -- is still out.
Anyway, I can see this thread is heading for "talk radio" land so I'll just say..."hey,
how about those RV airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!"
I think they're pretty cool. How about you?
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88113#88113
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Larry,
Thanks for bringing this up here on the RV list where I think it needs to be
aired. I too was shocked and disappointed to read in the local papers about
the award. I knew Don Corbitt slightly; I had flown down to Scappoose and
back with him maybe a month or so before the accident at Arlington. I didn't
see the accident but I know some on this list were there and did see it. The
curious thing in the newspaper article and the Avweb version of the story
was the difference in the time it took the fire department to respond. I
think the Corbitt's layer said in the Seattle Times that it was half an
hour; others said less than 5 minutes.
My only disagreement with your description of what happened is about Don
having taken off with the stick still strapped down. My understanding is as
I described it in a discussion with a friend about it last night, that no
one knows for sure but it seems highly probable, given the evidence.
But regardless of the reason, I find it hard to imagine a pilot saying it
was anyone other than Don's fault that his plane crashed. But when bad
things happen, someone has to be blamed and if the most certainly culpable
person is already dead, it seems to be human nature to start casting about
for someone else to hang the blame on, and in today's world that means make
them pay and pay dearly. So instead of putting the blame on the pilot, we
put the blame on the people who couldn't save him from the fire after the
crash. I can just imagine the jury deliberations where a group of non-pilots
have no appreciation for the absolute responsibility that resides with the
pilot. I hope some appeal to the verdict backs it way, way down. I don't
think they every get dismissed.
The thing that this leaves me with is this: Don was a good man - smart,
full of energy and well liked and respected by those who knew him. But like
most of us, I don't think he realized just how far our responsibility
extends out behind us like some sort of wake turbulence when we climb into a
cockpit. I am sure he would have been devastated to know that his moment of
bad decision would not only take his life and cause enormous loss to his
family, but could possibly bring about the end of the annual Arlington EAA
air show. He was intent on bringing his talent and capitol to make
experimental aviation better; instead he lost everything and is dragging
many others off track too.
I understand that he left his wife and four small kids pretty well off.
Ironically, that may have contributed to the size of the jury's award. Since
he was capable of earning a lot more than most of us, then the financial
damage of his loss was greater than for most people, so the jury gives them
more.
I hate to be so cynical, but the only winner I see in this whole disaster is
Mrs. Corbitt's lawyer. Everyone else - Don and his family and friends, you
and I and the EAA and general aviation all lost.
Sorry to be so long winded.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry E. James
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in
Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of
$10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA.
First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not
crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue.
Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have
(and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression
system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have)
been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue.
Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger
seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed
up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's
control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the
control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good
practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also
common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight
controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two
items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also
the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and
have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the
PIC.
How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of
pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained
this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this
pilot's mistakes. This is sick.
If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or
if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be
talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should
go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their
husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I
mention that I have an opinion on this ????
Larry E. James
Pacific Northwest
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
There must be something in there that we are missing. Sure, lawyers are scum and
lawsuits can be bogus but I have to think that $10.5M is not awarded unless someone
did
something pretty bad. I don't know the details of this suit, but that kind of
money is
not just handed out. Taking responsibility for a fly-in is taking the world on
your
shoulders...I sure hope they are not doing so with nothing but volunteers making
safety
decisions. If they are...well, they are risking everyone who attends. Lets hope
there
is more foresight than that at work. All the good intentions in the world are
no
substitute for a professional in charge who understands safety. I nominate Charlie
Kuss.
Still..we could just hang all the lawyers.
Bill
-4 wings
--- "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com> wrote:
> I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in
> Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of
> $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA.
>
> First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not
> crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue.
> Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have
> (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression
> system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have)
> been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue.
> Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger
> seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed
> up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's
> control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the
> control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good
> practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also
> common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight
> controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two
> items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also
> the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and
> have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the
> PIC.
>
> How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of
> pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained
> this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this
> pilot's mistakes. This is sick.
>
> If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or
> if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be
> talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should
> go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their
> husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I
> mention that I have an opinion on this ????
>
> Larry E. James
> Pacific Northwest
>
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop torque? |
Wood props are "owned" by the manufacturer. Do not search the archives.
Look at the documentation supplied with the prop. My prop was supplied by
Ed Sterba. I was the first RV-9A builder to use a wood prop with a
O-235-N2C engine. He was very PARTICIPATIVE. Extremely helpful regarding
my flight profile, offering several reworks to make my prop perfect -
aircraft to engine to personal mission profile. The proven craftsmen take
your prop as a personal obligation. I have recently run my engine at full
strength - very quiet, little vibration, totally smooth. I am anxious to
repeat this with the canopy closed - and wearing my ANR headsets. It's
looking really good. I'm getting very itchy about spring ! !
Ernest Kells RV-9A C-FKEL
>
> I used 240 to 280 inch pounds.
> Can't remember where I got that. You might
> Search the archives.
>
> John L. Danielson
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a
> wood
>>prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque?
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>
> Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque
> to
> 312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours
> (per
> manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, i.e..
> from
> real hot to real cold (winter vs. summer).
>
> Bob
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Partnership contract for building process |
Close but not exact. The builder may place any name on the plane as a manu
facturer as long it is not the kit manufacturers name. For example if Mike
Jones and John Smith built the plane together they could call it the Smith
Jones RV-8A. They could even call it a Mike John RV-8A if they so desired
. I know of an RV-6A that uses all three last names of the partners that b
uilt that one. The key is that the name can't be the same as the kit manuf
acturers, I.E. Van's. But that is not to say that the Kit Manufacturers na
me (Van's) can't appear in the Model name, for example, Smith Jones, Van's
RV-8A.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
Subject: RV-List: Re: Partnership contract for building processDate: Tue, 1
6 Jan 2007 14:43:06 -0700From: Greg.Puckett@united.comTo: rv-list@matronics
.com
Patty,
Another thing you may want to consider is that, as I understand it, only on
e person=92s name can go on the Airworthiness Certificate as the =91Builder
=92.
I=92m not a Lawyer but, I would not be surprised that if the airplane were
ever sold to a third party, that person (the =91builder=92) may have his/he
r neck stuck a bit further out. I have no idea how you would account for th
is but, it=92s probably something to think about.
Greg Puckett
RV-8
N881GP
>> Hi,>> >> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone
out >> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking >
> for ideas on how to deal with:>> >> what if some one wants out of the ag
reement before the airplane >> is complete> Then one partner buys out the
other for 1/2 the COST of materials. > Who buys out who may be an agreeme
nt beforehand, or decided by a > flip of the coin .....>> charging an hour
ly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal >> on man hours and cash
)> You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the > fac
t that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the > kit clo
se to home.>> Who pays for ruin parts?> Equal shares. You are supposed to
be doing the work together so a > screw-up is shared by both parties.>> In
case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is complete> See th
e first answer.>> Any other issues I have not thought about> Yes ..... who
gets the repairman=92s certificate. Should be the most > mechanically inc
lined ...... or maybe the one most likely to > survive the other.
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help.
e=en-US&source=wlmemailtaglinenov06
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) |
I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 G's, so the
following is just my opinion:
In my light RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, I do
not believe the airplane would make it over the top of a 140 mph/3 G
loop. Instead, I'd get to experience a full power departure stall while
inverted. My entry speed and initial target G are both higher than
140/3...
If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a good
idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with someone who has an
airframe/engine/prop combination that is very similar to yours.
I'm sure a light RV-4 with a constant speed prop can be looped from far
slower speeds than my airplane.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
Dear Acro Want-to-be's:
PART II - Loops
Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can
fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls
(accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few.
If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are
comfortable.
LOOPS
The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again
140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a
maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G-
meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED
A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G
pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice.
Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not
a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2
to 3 seconds or so.
Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but
DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up
you do smoothly and can be very near 1G;
there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you
will need to for a loop. In a loop however if
your initial pitch up G's are too low you might
stall before getting over the top. As you get
more advanced in aerobatics you will see
there are similar elements in all maneuvers.
At the beginning of the loop you will have the
max back pressure, it will be less thru the first
1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half,
where at the end or bottom of the loop you will
have the same back pressure as you did at the
entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and
altitude should be the same.
After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure
relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a
little; This is because as airspeed varies control
pressure changes. By looking outside the plane
you determine the pitching rate. It should be
constant. Remember you go from near 140mph
to near stall in the 50's mph, so control
pressure and control response change
throughout.
Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's
and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input
based on speed while looking outside to control
the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never
go upside down, but they are great practice
leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to
show you these maneuvers.
The entry is important. Too much elevator
(G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight
loop. This can result in excess airspeed and
altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you
really pull hard and keep the pressure up you
can do an accelerated stall in the vertical-
plane. Not what you want.
Too little pressure at the entry and you will not
get over the top and will stall or roll off
potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle.
Unfortunately most, including myself, make
oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve
that is with a ground observer, coaching you
over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for
fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's,
egg shaped and all.
As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon
over the nose so you need to look over you
head, behind you and mostly look off to the
right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level.
On the top of the loop, too much back pressure
can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax
the back pressure (as you do right side up).
When you are upside down you can check the
road or your refrence point and make
coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on
heading.
(Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers)
If you have a fixed prop you may need to make
adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm
w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set
RPM and forget it (nice).
Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are
making big control deflections and loading the
airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things
jam and parts break. Also you may screw up
and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very
safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the
acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the
subjects.
Also you have to look for traffic when doing
loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a
master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty
X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers
well, within the standards, you are ready. If
you are weak in any area you should practice
honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro.
However Acro improves your skill and
confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON
SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN.
Go buy and read some acro books.
Do at your own risk, solo with a chute.
Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl.
Cheers George
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
--> http://forums.matronics.com
===========
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Terry Watson wrote:
> [img]cid:image001.gif@01C73978.5F4B2F10[/img]
> I can just imagine the jury deliberations where a group of non-pilots have no
appreciation for the absolute responsibility that resides with the pilot.
Again, perhaps I'm reading the wrong account but reading this thread seems to suggest
that the jury was asked to decide who was responsible for the plane crashing,
and suggested the jurors got it wrong.
I don't believe the jurors were asked to determine any such thing.
I would also contend that the fact someone makes a mistake and has responsibility
for it, does NOT give a pass to anyone else to be negligent.
Now, it seems to me we're roasting the lawyer, the court, and the award, but we
haven't really thought about what EXACTLY it was about.
IF the EAA hired someone to provide emergency services and IF that agency was negligent
in doing so (on this thread it seems to be anywhere from 5 minutes to
a half hour. Do anybody KNOW for certain what was entered into evidence.), and
if the pilot survived the crash but died as a result of that emergency service
not being provided, then there's a basis of culpability.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but not absolute personal respnsibility. If
a fire breaks out in my home, and I pay taxes for fire protection and the fire
department can't come because they're all drunk at the firehouse, then the
fact that I shouldn't have been building a house in that town in the first place
doesn't absolve the fire department for performing its responsibility for which
it was contracted.
Look, all I know is the jury heard the evidence and looked at the evidence and
listened to EXACTLY what the judge was instructing them to decide. And then they
decided.
Maybe we should consider that maybe -- just maybe -- they put more into it than
we -- so far -- have.
Let's get the whole story.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88148#88148
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
..."hey, how about those RV airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!"
We will all be saying this when nobody can afford to
insure and fly one. (RV Airplane)
GAR... (Get a rope)... and hang an attorney ;-)
Darrell Reiley
RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket"
N622DR Reserved
N469RV Reserved
CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner@yahoogroups.com
Get your own web address.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
I just have a couple of things to say on this. First, I was there and I did
see the crash. The emergency services did NOT take 30 minutes to arrive. I
don't know if it was 5 minutes as I didn't time it, but it wasn't much
longer than that. As far as a fire extinguisher; I have serious doubts if
he would have survived regardless of the fire. He came down very vertical
and very hard. I was shocked he survived the initial crash at all.
Bill, air show or not, this is a general aviation airport where this
accident could have happened even without the fly-in going on. I am
convinced they had more available services and professionals on site than
had this happened any other time. We all have an obligation to do our due
diligence every time we get in an airplane weather there is paramedics
standing by or not and weather there is a fly-in going on or not.
I will sadly hate if Arlington and other fly-ins get shut down because they
can't protect every pilot from themselves.
The loss is SAD! Very SAD! But nobody else is responsible for it.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill shook
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>
> There must be something in there that we are missing. Sure, lawyers are
> scum and
> lawsuits can be bogus but I have to think that $10.5M is not awarded
> unless someone did
> something pretty bad. I don't know the details of this suit, but that
> kind of money is
> not just handed out. Taking responsibility for a fly-in is taking the
> world on your
> shoulders...I sure hope they are not doing so with nothing but volunteers
> making safety
> decisions. If they are...well, they are risking everyone who attends.
> Lets hope there
> is more foresight than that at work. All the good intentions in the world
> are no
> substitute for a professional in charge who understands safety. I
> nominate Charlie
> Kuss.
>
> Still..we could just hang all the lawyers.
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
>
> --- "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in
> > Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of
> > $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA.
> >
> > First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had
> not
> > crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue.
> > Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could
> have
> > (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire
> suppression
> > system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should
> have)
> > been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue.
> > Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the
> passenger
> > seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot
> messed
> > up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's
> > control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the
> > control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good
> > practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is
> also
> > common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all
> flight
> > controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these
> two
> > items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is
> also
> > the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up
> and
> > have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is
> the
> > PIC.
> >
> > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series
> of
> > pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and
> maintained
> > this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for
> this
> > pilot's mistakes. This is sick.
> >
> > If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue.
> Or
> > if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be
> > talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We
> should
> > go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from
> their
> > husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I
> > mention that I have an opinion on this ????
> >
> > Larry E. James
> > Pacific Northwest
> >
>
>
>
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
> Games.
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
>
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List</a>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com</a>
>
> </b></font></pre>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Bob, I think you are absolutely right about most of this. However, I am not
sure I could agree with this:
IF the EAA hired someone to provide emergency services and IF that agency
> was negligent in doing so (on this thread it seems to be anywhere from 5
> minutes to a half hour. Do anybody KNOW for certain what was entered into
> evidence.), and if the pilot survived the crash but died as a result of
> that emergency service not being provided, then there's a basis of
> culpability.
Unless the pilot hired someone to provide those emergency services, how can
he than expect it would be provided. What the EAA or Arlington group
contracted for was their business only. Now if there was some published
document indicating certain services will be provided during this event,
maybe that could be construed as a failure.
Just my opinions
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>
>
>
> Terry Watson wrote:
> > [img]cid:image001.gif@01C73978.5F4B2F10[/img]
> > I can just imagine the jury deliberations where a group of non-pilots
> have no appreciation for the absolute responsibility that resides with the
> pilot.
>
>
> Again, perhaps I'm reading the wrong account but reading this thread seems
> to suggest that the jury was asked to decide who was responsible for the
> plane crashing, and suggested the jurors got it wrong.
>
> I don't believe the jurors were asked to determine any such thing.
>
> I would also contend that the fact someone makes a mistake and has
> responsibility for it, does NOT give a pass to anyone else to be
> negligent.
>
> Now, it seems to me we're roasting the lawyer, the court, and the award,
> but we haven't really thought about what EXACTLY it was about.
>
> IF the EAA hired someone to provide emergency services and IF that agency
> was negligent in doing so (on this thread it seems to be anywhere from 5
> minutes to a half hour. Do anybody KNOW for certain what was entered into
> evidence.), and if the pilot survived the crash but died as a result of
> that emergency service not being provided, then there's a basis of
> culpability.
>
> I'm all for personal responsibility, but not absolute personal
> respnsibility. If a fire breaks out in my home, and I pay taxes for fire
> protection and the fire department can't come because they're all drunk at
> the firehouse, then the fact that I shouldn't have been building a house
> in that town in the first place doesn't absolve the fire department for
> performing its responsibility for which it was contracted.
>
> Look, all I know is the jury heard the evidence and looked at the evidence
> and listened to EXACTLY what the judge was instructing them to decide. And
> then they decided.
>
> Maybe we should consider that maybe -- just maybe -- they put more into it
> than we -- so far -- have.
>
> Let's get the whole story.
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88148#88148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) |
You can't stall if you have no angle of attack...
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle Boatright
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO
LOOPS)
I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 G's, so the
following is just my opinion:
In my light RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, I do
not believe the airplane would make it over the top of a 140 mph/3 G
loop. Instead, I'd get to experience a full power departure stall while
inverted. My entry speed and initial target G are both higher than
140/3...
If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a good
idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with someone who has an
airframe/engine/prop combination that is very similar to yours.
I'm sure a light RV-4 with a constant speed prop can be looped from
far slower speeds than my airplane.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
Dear Acro Want-to-be's:
PART II - Loops
Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can
fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls
(accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few.
If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are
comfortable.
LOOPS
The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again
140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a
maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G-
meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED
A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G
pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice.
Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not
a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2
to 3 seconds or so.
Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but
DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up
you do smoothly and can be very near 1G;
there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you
will need to for a loop. In a loop however if
your initial pitch up G's are too low you might
stall before getting over the top. As you get
more advanced in aerobatics you will see
there are similar elements in all maneuvers.
At the beginning of the loop you will have the
max back pressure, it will be less thru the first
1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half,
where at the end or bottom of the loop you will
have the same back pressure as you did at the
entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and
altitude should be the same.
After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure
relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a
little; This is because as airspeed varies control
pressure changes. By looking outside the plane
you determine the pitching rate. It should be
constant. Remember you go from near 140mph
to near stall in the 50's mph, so control
pressure and control response change
throughout.
Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's
and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input
based on speed while looking outside to control
the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never
go upside down, but they are great practice
leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to
show you these maneuvers.
The entry is important. Too much elevator
(G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight
loop. This can result in excess airspeed and
altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you
really pull hard and keep the pressure up you
can do an accelerated stall in the vertical-
plane. Not what you want.
Too little pressure at the entry and you will not
get over the top and will stall or roll off
potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle.
Unfortunately most, including myself, make
oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve
that is with a ground observer, coaching you
over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for
fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's,
egg shaped and all.
As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon
over the nose so you need to look over you
head, behind you and mostly look off to the
right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level.
On the top of the loop, too much back pressure
can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax
the back pressure (as you do right side up).
When you are upside down you can check the
road or your refrence point and make
coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on
heading.
(Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers)
If you have a fixed prop you may need to make
adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm
w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set
RPM and forget it (nice).
Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are
making big control deflections and loading the
airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things
jam and parts break. Also you may screw up
and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very
safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the
acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the
subjects.
Also you have to look for traffic when doing
loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a
master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty
X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers
well, within the standards, you are ready. If
you are weak in any area you should practice
honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro.
However Acro improves your skill and
confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON
SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN.
Go buy and read some acro books.
Do at your own risk, solo with a chute.
Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl.
Cheers George
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List the Web
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Landing an RV-9 sans flaps ... |
I'd be interested to hear other's experiences with flaps on the RV-9. So
far I haven't used them on takeoff per Mike Seager's teaching. I haven't
had much use for them on landing either. Admittedly its early days and I
haven't been able to really get into the pattern what with the brand new
engine, but she seems mushy and floaty with 1/2 flaps in the flare. With
no flaps it just parks with a touch more speed and directional control. T
his could be my Citabria experience speaking .. ain't got no flaps.
g
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Larry E. James wrote:
> We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit
> from their husband / father / son / client's death.
You'll be lynching the wrong people. If it's a jury trial it's the jurors who
are to blame. If not, then it's the judge. Or perhaps it's past juries and
judges who've set a precedent that was followed in this case.
It's generally a bad idea, though, to assume the results of a trial are unjust
unless you know all the details. It's in the same league as speculating on the
cause of a crash before the facts are known. But I agree that in this case
it's hard to see how anyone but the pilot could have been found negligent.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
//I just have a couple of things to say on this. First, I was there and I did
see the crash. The emergency services did NOT take 30 minutes to arrive.
Just for the record, the lawyer in the case never said, as near as I can tell,
that it took 30 minutes. On an EAA board, from what I read. he said five.
//I was shocked he survived the initial crash at all.
But he did and because he did, it must now be dtermined -- and this is a tough
task -- as to whether he could have survived had he not burned to death? I don't
have the answer to that. But, again, I'm not ready to say these jurors are
idiots because they don't know as much as I do about a case they heard and evidence
they viewed and deliberations they made that I didn't.
//Bill, air show or not, this is a general aviation airport where this
accident could have happened even without the fly-in going on.
The case, though, is about a legal contract. The EAA is not blameless because
as someone putting on an airshow, they had a responsibility to provide proper
services. The people they contracted with had an obligation because they signed
a contract and a contract is a legal document with -- and here's the key, I
think -- it's own set of responsibilities.
It may be true that nobody but the pilot is responsible when a plane crashes. OTOH,
if someone here bends an airplane tomorrow and the insurance company refuses
to pay, even though it had a contract, because, well, if you hadn't been flying
you wouldn't have had a loss, that we'd all be wanting to hang insurance
companies tomorrow and the idea of "personal responsibility" would be conveniently
forgotten.
The gentlemen who died had a responsibility to fly his plane correctly. He didn't
and he crashed as a result.
The people who were paid to provide emergnecy services had a responsibility to
provide those services. The fact he didn't fly his plane correctly doesn't alleviate
the others of THEIR responsibility.
Cases like this don't usually get to the jury if there isn't something to the case.
So in 2 1/2 weeks, I'm guessing the jury got some information that we haven't
considered in 2 1/2 hours.
Me? I'd personally start with the autopsy and the cause of death. I'd also like
to know exactly where the fire services were at the time of the crash. If the
equipment wasn't at the airport and there weren't people sitting IN the equipment
ready to go.... well... in my opinion y'all need another tree and more rope.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88159#88159
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
[quote="n616tb(at)btsapps.com"]Unless the pilot hired someone to provide those
emergency services, how can
he than expect it would be provided. What the EAA or Arlington group
contracted for was their business only. Now if there was some published
document indicating certain services will be provided during this event,
maybe that could be construed as a failure.
> --
I'm not a lawyer although I suspect there are plenty of RV owners who are (and
who are probably ducking this whole deal), but to the extent that one person's
negligent has an impact on someone else, I don't believe it's just the business
of those who had a contract.
The issue isn't whether the plane would or wouldn't have crashed through some action
of the EAA or the group contracted to provide services. The question, as
I read it, is whether the inaction of one party CONTRIBUTED to the death of another.
There's too many "ifs" here for me to give into the "ready, fire, aim" thing that
our emotions naturally lead us to do.
I'd very anxious to read more about this verdict because I believe if the actions
of the emergency crews and EAA are easily documented and defended, this case
never gets to a jury and it sure as heck doesn't take 2 1/2 weeks to get there.
Believe me, I love the EAA and I'd hate to see any of their airshows go away. On
the other hand, if you have an airshow and invite a thousand pilots to fly into
your field, you've got some responsibility to ensure as much safety as can
practically be provided.
The EAA's responsibility for that was right up until the moment when there was
no other expectation of an outcome other than the pilot's death.
That's why I want to know if the pilot could've survived his crash.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88164#88164
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo wrote:
> We will all be saying this when nobody can afford to
> insure and fly one. (RV Airplane)
>
Well, keep in mind, that insurance is a matter of spreading around the responsibility
for paying for your mistakes. I suppose the ultimate expression of personal
respnsibility would be to fly without it. (g)
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88171#88171
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) |
You can fly well below the stall speed at zero-g. If you feel the onset of
a stall at the top of a loop, unload the airplane and you won't stall. I
have done rolls at the top of a loop at zero-g below the stall, what's neat
about zero-g is there is no adverse yaw so when you roll out you be spot-on
your intended heading. Whenever I do ballistic rolls I always unload the
airplane, and can watch the ball stay close to center without touching the
pedals, and end up on heading, feet off the pedals.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 1/16/07, Kyle Boatright <kboatright1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 G's, so the following
> is just my opinion:
>
> In my light RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, I do not
> believe the airplane would make it over the top of a 140 mph/3 G loop.
> Instead, I'd get to experience a full power departure stall while inverted.
> My entry speed and initial target G are both higher than 140/3...
>
> If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a good
> idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with someone who has an
> airframe/engine/prop combination that is very similar to yours.
>
> I'm sure a light RV-4 with a constant speed prop can be looped from far
> slower speeds than my airplane.
>
> KB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:49 PM
> *Subject:* RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
>
> Dear Acro Want-to-be's:
>
> PART II - Loops
>
> Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can
> fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls
> (accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few.
> If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are
> comfortable.
>
> LOOPS
> The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again
> 140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a
> maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G-
> meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED
> A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G
> pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice.
> Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not
> a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2
> to 3 seconds or so.
>
> Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but
> DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up
> you do smoothly and can be very near 1G;
> there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you
> will need to for a loop. In a loop however if
> your initial pitch up G's are too low you might
> stall before getting over the top. As you get
> more advanced in aerobatics you will see
> there are similar elements in all maneuvers.
>
>
> At the beginning of the loop you will have the
> max back pressure, it will be less thru the first
> 1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half,
> where at the end or bottom of the loop you will
> have the same back pressure as you did at the
> entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and
> altitude should be the same.
>
> After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure
> relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a
> little; This is because as airspeed varies control
> pressure changes. By looking outside the plane
> you determine the pitching rate. It should be
> constant. Remember you go from near 140mph
> to near stall in the 50's mph, so control
> pressure and control response change
> throughout.
>
> Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's
> and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input
> based on speed while looking outside to control
> the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never
> go upside down, but they are great practice
> leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to
> show you these maneuvers.
>
> The entry is important. Too much elevator
> (G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight
> loop. This can result in excess airspeed and
> altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you
> really pull hard and keep the pressure up you
> can do an accelerated stall in the vertical-
> plane. Not what you want.
>
> Too little pressure at the entry and you will not
> get over the top and will stall or roll off
> potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle.
> Unfortunately most, including myself, make
> oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve
> that is with a ground observer, coaching you
> over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for
> fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's,
> egg shaped and all.
>
> As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon
> over the nose so you need to look over you
> head, behind you and mostly look off to the
> right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level.
> On the top of the loop, too much back pressure
> can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax
> the back pressure (as you do right side up).
> When you are upside down you can check the
> road or your refrence point and make
> coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on
> heading.
> (Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers)
>
> If you have a fixed prop you may need to make
> adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm
> w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set
> RPM and forget it (nice).
>
> Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are
> making big control deflections and loading the
> airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things
> jam and parts break. Also you may screw up
> and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very
> safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the
> acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the
> subjects.
>
> Also you have to look for traffic when doing
> loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a
> master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty
> X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers
> well, within the standards, you are ready. If
> you are weak in any area you should practice
> honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro.
> However Acro improves your skill and
> confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON
> SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN.
>
> Go buy and read some acro books.
> Do at your own risk, solo with a chute.
> Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl.
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> ------------------------------
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://%3Cpre%3E%3Cb%3E%3Cfont+size=2+color=>the Web href="
> http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ==========
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For those of you looking to to wire your landing lights through one switch
and also have a wigwag position, like the 4TL1-10 shown in Electric Bob's
wigwag diagram but not ridiculously expensive and simpler to wire up, I have
found a switch that is perfect. It is made by Carling and the part number
is 2GP51-73. No distributors seem to carry this switch as an in-stock item,
but if someone like Steinair (Stein are you listening) could order/stock it,
it would be a simpler and better solution than any of the diagrams in
Electric Bob's wigwag diagram. The switch is a DP3T toggle, OFF-ON-ON so
you can wire it to be OFF-WIGWAG-ON for both landing lights yet still keep
both lights in separate circuits/fuses when they're not "wagging". I have
obtained an engineering sample of this switch from Carling and verified that
it will do the job.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV |
In a message dated 01/16/2007 10:46:55 AM Central Standard Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
I'm currently reading Robert Buck's autobiography.
Yo, Kevin- put down that book, get out in da shop and finish that dang
airplane!
8-)
>From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark & do not archive
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M |
Bob,
I totally agree with you.
Hopefully, my local airport and others take heed to the logic inferred by
your statement/opinion that the EAA has a responsibly to provide "proper"
service to GA pilots who crash as no direct result of the airport (or EAA,
or whoever) - especially with respect to "proper" being defined by an
arms-length jury thinking that it is the airport's (or EAA, or whoever has
$) responsibility to save pilots from crashes, even if he/she was in the
perfect position to avoid it in the first place, or worst yet, caused it.
If setting the rules and guidelines for "proper" (emergency) service is left
to a preponderance of the pilots who might potentially use the service, and
who have a likely stake in the economic cost, we are probably not going to
get nearly as much "proper service" as we will with a jury of the general
public with little or no stake in the costs.
Hopefully this realization will catch on and we'll have ever increasing
levels of emergency services at all venues and airports. After all, I'm
just a likely to have an incident at a desolate remote strip as at an
airshow, perhaps more, so it should apply to all.
If an airport or airshow can't justify the "proper" service levels because
of infrequent activity, or whatever, then it should probably be closed.
Anything less would be unsafe.
Likewise, if some of the good (still alive) pilots can't pony up the added
implicit $ to cover the costs of the increased services for the bad (dead,
or soon to be dead) ones, then they should just fly less, in the name of
safety.
NOT!
If anything, pilots have a responsibility to safely operate their airplane
(explicitly mandated in the FARs). Thus in this case, the EAA should be
suing the pilot's estate for recovery of the entire cost of having whatever
safety provisions were provided (regardless of their ultimate mortal
affectivity) since this pilot was clearly the ex-post-fact causal need for
those contract services to be provided (versus spreading the cost onto all
the other good pilots and spectators that participated safely).
Additionally, the suit should also cover all the other added costs
associated with the crash caused by the pilot's carelessness and negligence,
including compensation to "all" pilots and attendees that may have been
impacted and/or economically disadvantaged.
For those interested enough, sounds like a class action suit against the
negligence of the pilot (his estate). Seems there might be $10 million in
the kitty, but then again that might not be enough.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
... The case, though, is about a legal contract. The EAA is not blameless
because as someone putting on an airshow, they had a responsibility to
provide proper services ...
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|