Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:36 AM - Re: max gross weight test (Kyle Boatright)
2. 05:54 AM - Re: RV7-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance... (Dave Henderson)
3. 07:16 AM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (mr.gsun@gmail.com)
4. 07:20 AM - Re: max gross weight test (Ralph E. Capen)
5. 07:31 AM - Re: max gross weight test (Linn Walters)
6. 07:42 AM - Re: max gross weight test (jfogarty tds.net)
7. 08:58 AM - Re: max gross weight test (Andrew Zachar)
8. 11:28 AM - Re: max gross weight test (Louis Willig)
9. 02:37 PM - Re: max gross weight test (Linn Walters)
10. 02:44 PM - Re: max gross weight test (Andrew Zachar)
11. 03:07 PM - Re: max gross weight test (Scott)
12. 06:28 PM - Re: max gross weight test (HCRV6@comcast.net)
13. 08:03 PM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (Matt Dralle)
14. 08:39 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 Insurance... (HCRV6@comcast.net)
15. 08:54 PM - Re: Re: RV-8 Insurance... (vanremog)
16. 08:56 PM - RV6 fuel tank sealant (N81JG@aol.com)
17. 09:07 PM - links to common aviation insurers (vanremog)
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: | Re: max gross weight test |
I'm conserving vowls these days. ;-)
Kyle
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: vanremog
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: max gross weight test
I'll take the obvious cheap shot here (because I can) about taking
advice from a guy who can't even spell his own name, but Kyle is correct
about sneaking up on it. ;o)
I would go further and suggest that you take a big guy with you who
can also reposition the moment arm of the sand bags in the baggage area
while you fly the plane.
-GV
In a message dated 03/22/11 15:56:24 Pacific Daylight Time,
kboatright1@comcast.net writes:
One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's
published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage,
etc.) you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit. Better
to know test under those conditions (how much trim will you need? How
will the stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a
passenger on board.
My $0.02
Kyle Botright
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: | Re: RE: RV7-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Good Grief, I paid half that on $100,000 RV-7. I have the same amount of
hours in type and total. I suggest you contact my agent and ask her for a
quote: klehman@andreini.com Direct 650-378-4310 No harm in at least asking.
Dave Henderson RV-7
N925LW (Lord Willing)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:56 PM
rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance...
--> RV7-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my
RV-8. Can you guess which one I went with?
$1m/$100k Liability
$5000-$10000 Medical
$0 Deductible
$150k Hull Ground/Air
153 Hours, Aircraft
153 Hours in Type, Pilot
450 Hours Total, Pilot
242 Hours TW, Pilot
Avemco: $5811
EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year included Test & 1st
10 hours)
NationAir/Chartis $2888
AOPA/AIG $2475
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
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: RV-8 Insurance... |
Just for the sake of comparison, here is what I'm being gouged.
2004 RV7 $1790 thru Chartis $100K hull value
510 hrs total time on airframe
520 hrs total pilot time
350 hrs tailwheel time
IFR current
Greg
I'm thinking of just going to "not in motion" coverage.
do not archive
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bobby Hester
<bobbyhester@newwavecomm.net>wrote:
> RV-7A unpainted
>
> 1st year 2007
> 0 hrs TT (Hobbs), 5 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1702
> 2nd year 2008
> About 150 hrs TT, 135 (Tach) hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1621
> 3rd year 2009
> About 250 hrs TT, 200 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1465
> 4th year 2010
> About 320 hrs TT, 270 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1465
> 5th year 2008 still unpainted :-(
> About 400 hrs TT, 320 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1297
>
> Global Aerospace though NationAir
>
> ----
> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site:http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/RVSite.htm
>
>
> On 3/22/2011 8:05 AM, Gene Lee wrote:
>
> In the interest of seeing what others pay I=92ll offer mine.
>
>
> RV-7a
>
>
> 1st year=85
>
> 260hr TT, 0 in type, $95k hull = $2,200
>
>
> 2nd year=85
>
> 420hr TT, 130hr in type, $95k hull = $1,440
>
>
> Chartis Aerospace Ins.
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
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: max gross weight test |
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <sarg314@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
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: | Re: max gross weight test |
Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo. It would be nice to
take a fat friend for a ride!!!!
Linn
On 3/23/2011 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"<recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> I did mine in stages.
>
> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: thomas sargent<sarg314@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>> To: rv-list<rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>>
>> I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>> will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>> know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>> tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>>
>> Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>> still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>> that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>> 72.5".
>>
>> Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>> reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sargent
>
>
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: | Re: max gross weight test |
Great post Kyle. Thanks for sharing this information.
Jim
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Kyle Boatright <kboatright1@comcast.net>wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I recommend approaching the gross weight and aft CG gradually. IIRC, I was
> right in the envelope expansion process about 10 years ago. What I did was
> ballast the airplane about 50 lbs at a time to increase the weight up to
> gross. Then I adjusted ballast to move the CG rearward in ~1/2" increments.
> What I found was that the last 75 pounds of weight and the last inch or two
> of CG travel were very noticeable.
>
> One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's
> published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage, etc.)
> you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit. Better to know
> test under those conditions (how much trim will you need? How will the
> stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a passenger on
> board.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Kyle Botright
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* thomas sargent <sarg314@gmail.com>
> *To:* rv-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> *Subject:* RV-List: max gross weight test
>
> I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
> will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
> know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
> tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
> Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
> 72.5".
>
> Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Re: max gross weight test |
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight
from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane
because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be
a
handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:
-Higher takeoff speed.
-Longer takeoff run.
-Reduced rate and angle of climb.
-Lower maximum altitude.
-Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel requi
red).
-Reduced cruising speed.
-Reduced maneuverability.
-Higher stalling speed.
-Higher landing speed.
-Longer landing roll.
-Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=92s
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the
pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you ca
n
watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends,
instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces)
can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <recapen@earthlink.net>wro
te:
>
> I did mine in stages.
>
> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: thomas sargent <sarg314@gmail.com>
> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> >To: rv-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
> >
> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs
> and
> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.)
I
> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in
> my
> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
> >
> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
or
> >72.5".
> >
> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
> >
> >--
> >Tom Sargent
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave
us your "day job" description. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since
many members on this list have so much more
experience than I have. However, as a 12 year
RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG
guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the effects
of extra gross weight each time we take off after
refueling, or take off or land with a
passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as
often is the effects of pushing close to the CG
limits. We are constantly making small
adjustments in trim while always
remaining within the envelope. It would be a
shock to most of us if we made these adjustments
to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with
a passenger who weighed 240#. I don't know how he
even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was
stupid). When landing, I failed to add extra
speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped
a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this,
in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a
novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the
ground but you would have thought I was two feet
high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This
problem is probably more acute in the -4's and
-8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to
advise anyone how to fly their RV. I just thought
I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens
the stick feel under some circumstances (when you
are already slow and trimmed forward) and can
help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. :-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7,
>but I have a little insight from my day job.
>
>We approach weight and CG changes with great
>care and in many small steps. Generally, someone
>like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the
>airplane because outside of those limits, some
>limit may be exceeded (this could be a handling
>requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>
> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:
>
>Higher takeoff speed.
>Longer takeoff run.
>Reduced rate and angle of climb.
>Lower maximum altitude.
>Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required).
>Reduced cruising speed.
>Reduced maneuverability.
>Higher stalling speed.
>Higher landing speed.
>Longer landing roll.
>Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
>
>The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>
>FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can
>reduce the airplanes capability to recover from
>stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
>moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
>AFT CG also yields very light control forces.
>(This makes it easy for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>
>Anyway, the point is that by expanding the
>envelopes during testing, you can watch for
>these effects. If you do it slowly, you can
>watch for trends, instead of just going to the
>endpoint all in one go and getting yourself into
>a situation where something (like light
>longitudinal control forces) can get you into
>trouble if you aren't expecting it.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>-az
>
>On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen
><<mailto:recapen@earthlink.net>recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
><<mailto:recapen@earthlink.net>recapen@earthlink.net>
>
>I did mine in stages.
>
>It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: thomas sargent <<mailto:sarg314@gmail.com>sarg314@gmail.com>
> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> >To: rv-list <<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
> >
> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
> >
> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
> >72.5".
> >
> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
> >
> >--
> >Tom Sargent
>
>
>=======================
>get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>==========
>http://forums.matronics.com
>==========
>le, List Admin.
>="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>==========
>
>
>--
>Andrew Zachar
><mailto:andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com>andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Good post Louis. If you're gonna push the CG limits, don't push the aft
one. When things get hairy an aft CG is the worst to recover from, and
unfortunately it gets hairy close to the ground. Having said that, when
you find what loading gets you close to aft CG ...... make a note in
your aircraft manual what those weights are, and when you have large
passengers/baggage, take the time to check. Oh, and use your calibrated
eye .... all us overweight people lie about our weight. :-P
As for your 'plop' .... it was an educational experience ..... and we
re-learn all to frequently. Embarrassing? Shouldn't have been ..... you
get to use the plane again.
Here's a video of a bad landing ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aydbBl6_W0... Feel better???
Linn
On 3/23/2011 2:09 PM, Louis Willig wrote:
>
>
> Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
> description. It sounds interesting.
>
> I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this
> list have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year
> RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us
> quickly feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off
> after refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't
> "feel" as quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the
> CG limits. We are constantly making small adjustments in trim while
> always remaining within the envelope. It would be a shock to most of
> us if we made these adjustments to a plane that was loaded near the
> edge to start with.
>
> I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who
> weighed 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he
> did. And I didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When
> landing, I failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled
> sharply, dropped a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, in
> the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a novice like me. I was only
> 6 inches off the ground but you would have thought I was two feet
> high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is probably more
> acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
>
> Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to
> fly their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG
> lightens the stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already
> slow and trimmed forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer"
> routine very quickly. :-)
>
> Louis
>
>
> At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>> I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
>> insight from my day job.
>>
>> We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small
>> steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on
>> the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be
>> exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified
>> airplane, etc.).
>>
>> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
>> aircraft:
>>
>> Higher takeoff speed.
>> Longer takeoff run.
>> Reduced rate and angle of climb.
>> Lower maximum altitude.
>> Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
>> required).
>> Reduced cruising speed.
>> Reduced maneuverability.
>> Higher stalling speed.
>> Higher landing speed.
>> Longer landing roll.
>> Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
>>
>> The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>>
>> FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>> AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplanes
>> capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and
>> elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control
>> surfaces).
>> AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for
>> the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>> FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>>
>> Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing,
>> you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch
>> for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and
>> getting yourself into a situation where something (like light
>> longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't
>> expecting it.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
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: max gross weight test |
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys who
are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledge
comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in
Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before
embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a
litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a
test) for which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience,
data, or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test
are a bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm
actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did
they expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
> description. It sounds interesting.
>
> I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list
> have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4
> veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly
> feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after
> refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as
> quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We
are
> constantly making small adjustments in trim while always remaining withi
n
> the envelope. It would be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustme
nts
> to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.
>
> I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed
> 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
> didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I
> failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wi
ng,
> and raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no
> telltale to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you
> would have thought I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing.
> This problem is probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more
> attention to CG.
>
> Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly
> their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens t
he
> stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimme
d
> forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly.
> :-)
>
> Louis
>
>
> At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>> I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
>> insight from my day job.
>>
>> We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small step
s.
>> Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airpl
ane
>> because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could
be a
>> handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>>
>> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
>> aircraft:
>>
>> =B5=D9igher takeoff speed.
>> =B2onger takeoff run.
>>
>> =AF=C3educed rate and angle of climb.
>> =B2ower maximum altitude.
>>
>> =CAhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
>> =AF=C3educed cruising speed.
>> =AF=C3educed maneuverability.
>> =B5=D9igher stalling speed.
>> =B5=D9igher landing speed.
>> =B2onger landing roll.
>>
>> =C0hxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
>>
>> The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>>
>> FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>> AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=B7=F6
>> capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevat
or
>> moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
>>
>> AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for th
e
>> pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>> FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>>
>> Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you
>> can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for tren
ds,
>> instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
>> into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces
)
>> can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> -az
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <<mailto:
>> recapen@earthlink.net>recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> recapen@earthlink.net>recapen@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>> I did mine in stages.
>>
>> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: thomas sargent <<mailto:sarg314@gmail.com>sarg314@gmail.com>
>> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>> >To: rv-list <<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>rv-list@matronics.com>
>> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>> >
>> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs
>> and
>> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.)
I
>> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far i
n
>> my
>> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>> >
>> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it'
s
>> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown i
t
>> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
>> or
>> >72.5".
>> >
>> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Tom Sargent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Zachar
>> <mailto:andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com>andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
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: max gross weight test |
Especially one you could jettison overboard if things go South ;)
On 3-23-2011 14:27, Linn Walters wrote:
>
>
> Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo. It would be nice to
> take a fat friend for a ride!!!!
> Linn
>
>
--
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: max gross weight test |
My own experience with aft CG loading was an eye opener and scary. After a
long day of reassembling a friends RV-7A after painting, a friend in the ov
er 200 lb class and I tossed all our tool boxes and several jugs of gallons
of liquid speed polish in the back of my RV-6. I was down to less than 10
gallons of fuel and with a light Catto prop up front I have to be aware of
potential for aft CG loading, but that day I was tired and not thinking. We
took off for a less than 5 minute flight to a nearby airport where fuel wa
s cheaper and I did not notice anything particularly different about my RV'
s handling until I slowed for landing. I very quickly realized that the nor
mal light stick force in pitch had become close to zero or possibly even ne
gative. I added power and made a fast wheel landing, and vowed to never get
beyond Van's aft CG again. I later calculated that while we were well unde
r max gross, the CG was almost a inch aft of Van's specified range.
In short , I highly recommend approaching aft CG loading very cautiously.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Zachar" <andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:38:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: max gross weight test
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys who
are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledge c
omes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in Flig
ht Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before embar
king on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a litiga
tion attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a test) f
or which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience, data,
or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test are a
bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm actu
ally most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did they
expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig < larywil@comcast.net > wrote
:
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job" descript
ion. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list ha
ve so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4 veteran,
I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the
effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after refueling, or tak
e off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as often
is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We are constantly making
small adjustments in trim while always remaining within the envelope. It w
ould be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustments to a plane that
was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed 24
0#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I didn't
realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I failed to a
dd extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wing, and raise
d my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to
a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you would have tho
ught I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is
probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly the
ir RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens the st
ick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimmed fo
rward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. :-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight
from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane
because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be
a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft
:
=E8=8F=B1igher takeoff speed.
=E7-=A2onger takeoff run.
=E7=B4=90educed rate and angle of climb.
=E7-=A2ower maximum altitude.
=E7=99=BEhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
=E7=B4=90educed cruising speed.
=E7=B4=90educed maneuverability.
=E8=8F=B1igher stalling speed.
=E8=8F=B1igher landing speed.
=E7-=A2onger landing roll.
=E9=AB=ADxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=E7=97=B4
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the p
ilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you ca
n watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends, i
nstead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself int
o a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces) can
get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <<mailto: recapen@earthlin
k.net > recapen@earthlink.net > wrote:
.net > recapen@earthlink.net >
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <<mailto: sarg314@gmail.com > sarg314@gmail.com >
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list <<mailto: rv-list@matronics.com > rv-list@matronics.com >
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
========================
get="_blank"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
--
Andrew Zachar
<mailto: andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com > andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
===========
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com
==
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
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: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Matt,
Just to put your mind at ease I was informed by Nationair a year ago that the AIG
that carried my insurance was a completely separate group from the AIG that
received the bailout. I assume that was the truth but who knows?
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:59:20 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance...
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
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: RV-8 Insurance... |
The linked article would seem to support this viewpoint as factual.
http://www.gwbaa.com/news060615.pdf
-GV
In a message dated 03/23/11 20:03:48 Pacific Daylight Time, dralle@matronics.com
writes:
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
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: | RV6 fuel tank sealant |
New subject---
Does anyone have experience with the sloshing agent used to seal the fuel
tanks prior to about 1994? I have heard of the agent sloughing off and
blocking fuel pickup. Is this a sudden occurrence without any warning? Sho
uld
all the sloshed tanks be replaced with Prosealed tanks? This is not a prob
lem
with my RV7A, but the tanks in a friend's RV6A.
John Greaves
RV7A N781JG
Redding, CA
In a message dated 3/23/2011 2:44:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com writes:
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys
who are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledg
e
comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in
Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before
embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a
litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a
test)
for which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience, data
,
or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test are a
bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm
actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did t
hey
expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig <_larywil@comcast.net_
(mailto:larywil@comcast.net) > wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <_larywil@comcast.net_
(mailto:larywil@comcast.net) >
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
description. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list
have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4
veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly
feel the
effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after refueling, or
take off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as
often is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We are constantly
making small adjustments in trim while always remaining within the envelo
pe.
It would be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustments to a plane
that was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed
240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I fa
iled
to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wing, and
raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no tellta
le
to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you would hav
e
thought I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This
problem is probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attent
ion to
CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly
their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens th
e
stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimmed
forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly.
:-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
insight from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the
airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this
could
be a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
aircraft:
=E8=8F=B1igher takeoff speed.
=E7-=A2onger takeoff run.
=E7=B4=90educed rate and angle of climb.
=E7-=A2ower maximum altitude.
=E7=99=BEhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
=E7=B4=90educed cruising speed.
=E7=B4=90educed maneuverability.
=E8=8F=B1igher stalling speed.
=E8=8F=B1igher landing speed.
=E7-=A2onger landing roll.
=E9=AB=ADxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=E7=97
=B4
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the
pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you
can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends
,
instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces)
can
get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen
<<mailto:_recapen@earthlink.net_ (mailto:recapen@earthlink.net) >_recapen@e
arthlink.net_
(mailto:recapen@earthlink.net) > wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
<<mailto:_recapen@earthlink.net_ (mailto:recapen@earthlink.net) >_recapen@e
arthlink.net_
(mailto:recapen@earthlink.net) >
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <<mailto:_sarg314@gmail.com_
(mailto:sarg314@gmail.com) >_sarg314@gmail.com_ (mailto:sarg314@gmail.com)
>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list <<mailto:_rv-list@matronics.com_
(mailto:rv-list@matronics.com) >_rv-list@matronics.com_ (mailto:rv-list@mat
ronics.com) >
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs an
d
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in
my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
=======================
get="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
le, List Admin.
="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
--
Andrew Zachar
<mailto:_andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com)
>_andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com)
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Andrew Zachar
_andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar@gmail.com)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: | links to common aviation insurers |
http://www.insurancestates.com/aviation.html
-GV
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! --
|