Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:59 AM - Re: N2GB - First Flight (AirMike)
2. 01:28 AM - Re: N2GB - First Flight (Patrick Pulis)
3. 04:55 AM - RV-10 Systems Components For Sale (Patrick ONeill)
4. 05:59 AM - Re: N44YH - First Flight (John Testement)
5. 06:10 AM - FS: RV-10 Tailkit or Trade for RV-7 / 8 (Mike Much)
6. 06:47 AM - Re: First Flight (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
7. 07:56 AM - KOSH Accommodation (Les Kearney)
8. 09:01 AM - Re: First Flight (Tim Olson)
9. 09:31 AM - Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
10. 10:49 AM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Rene Felker)
11. 11:34 AM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Brent P. Humphreys)
12. 11:52 AM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Bob Turner)
13. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
14. 03:40 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
15. 05:10 PM - Adding a filter to pitot line (Bill DeRouchey)
16. 05:13 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Bob Turner)
17. 05:27 PM - Re: Adding a filter to pitot line (Bob Turner)
18. 05:56 PM - Re: Adding a filter to pitot line (AirMike)
19. 05:57 PM - Re: Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
20. 05:59 PM - Re: N2GB - First Flight (AirMike)
21. 06:01 PM - Re: RV-10 Systems Components For Sale (WMD)
22. 07:11 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Jesse Saint)
23. 07:40 PM - Re: Adding a filter to pitot line (Miller John)
24. 08:10 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
25. 08:24 PM - Re: Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
26. 08:41 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (McGANN, Ron)
27. 09:12 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (ricksked@embarqmail.com)
28. 09:13 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Tim Olson)
29. 10:40 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Neil & Sarah Colliver)
30. 10:50 PM - Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training (Ben Westfall)
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: N2GB - First Flight |
wow Gary - you the man. Awesome job. looks great
--------
OSH '08 or Bust (busted) be there in "09
Q/B Kit - FWF end game
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245229#245229
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: N2GB - First Flight |
Gary, congratulations my friend on-another superb job on behalf of-the
RV-10 community, well done mate.=0A=0AThese three first flights of late and
the many other recent first flights are a true-inspiration to-builders
like me, who come behind (read as far behind) you pioneering souls.=0A=0AW
ishing you all safe and clear skies-from down-under.=0A=0A=0APatrick Puli
s=0A#40299=0AAdelaide, South Australia=0A=0A=0A=0A=0Aorchidman wrote:=0A> -
s like this weekend is a popular date for first flights.- Yesterday 2GB (
AKA the Pink Panther for now) took to the air for the first time.=0A> My wi
fe still has to climb a latter to get to me, I am so high.=0A> What a great
plane the -10 is.- A real pleasure to land.=0A>=0A> --------=0A> Gary Bl
ankenbiller=0A> RV10 - # 40674=0A> Final Finishing - SB=0A> (N2GB registere
d)=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A> http://forums.m
atronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245201#245201=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> Attachment
s: =0A>=0A> http://forums.matronics.com//files/pict0038_169.jpg=0A>=0A>=0A>
=0A=0A=0A Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter
now.http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2x2ZmNpBF9zAzIwMjM2MTY2MTMEdG1f
ZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzk3NwR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWd
saW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=14600t3ni/**http%3A//au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/t
agline/creativeholidays/*http%3A//au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset/%3Fp1=oth
er%26p2=au%26p3=mailtagline
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: | RV-10 Systems Components For Sale |
To help lower the price of my RV-10 project for sale, I have decided to sell
the unused system components separately from the project.
I am selling these items in case other builders are at the point where they
need them and want to save a few dollars. All were purchased from directly
from Vans. Items were opened for contents inspection, but are otherwise new
and unused:
Andair Fuel Valve FS20X7T: $175
ES Airflow Fuel Pump: $370
ES Airflow Filter: $100
Vans Wingtip Landing Lights: $70
Flap Positioning System (Vans: ES FLAP POS SWV 10): $180
Vans RV-10 Electric Aileron Trim: $270
Vans RV-10 VFR Wiring Kit (ES WH 10 KIT I(O)-540): $500
I'm also selling these two electrical tools since I won't be needing them.
Both are lightly used but in excellent condition:
Daniels DMC AFM8 Crimping Tool (M22520/2-01): $100
AMP Crimp Tool 59250: $100
If anyone is interested in any of these items, please feel free to contact
me off list.
Best Regards,
Patrick #40715
poneill@irealms.com
Do not archive
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: | N44YH - First Flight |
Conrats Jason. Quite an accomplishment!
John Testement
N311RV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jkreidler
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:29 AM
Subject: RV10-List: N44YH - First Flight
--> <jason.kreidler@regalbeloit.com>
Yesterday we took N44YH on its first flight. All parts landed in the same
formation they departed, so all is good.
Jason Kreidler
4 Partner Build - #40617 - Sheboygan Falls, WI Kyle Hokel Tony Kolar Wayne
Elsner Jason Kreidler
N44YH - FLYING!!!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245114#245114
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
08:16:00
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: | FS: RV-10 Tailkit or Trade for RV-7 / 8 |
Rv-10 Tail kit partially completed (VS done, Rudder near complete) For
my Micronics friends $2500.
Will trade for a RV-7 / 8 kit at any completion level.
Email me if interested or have a proposal...
mkmuch@gmail.com
Mike
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: First Flight |
Congratulations!!
The grin is spreading
egohr1 wrote:
>
> This morning N410EG, SN40271 broke the surly bonds of the earth for the first
time.
>
> The RV grin will not wash off the pilots face.
>
> Eric Gohr
>
> --------
> eric gohr
> EGOHR86@alumni.carnegiemellon.edu
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245166#245166
>
>
>
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: | KOSH Accommodation |
Hi Everyone
For those of you whose RV has three wheels and a prop and those who don't
want to risk WI thunderstorms while at KOSH, I do have an alternative. For
the past 10 years I have been staying at a private residence that backs on
to the EAA museum grounds. It is a two minute walk to the shuttle to the
field and so is ideally located for KOSH visitors. Accommodations are basic
but quite functional. The beer fridge is always well stocked, the showers
hot and the company always fun. Accommodations are functional - dorm style
accommodations for those inside or campers etc for those outside. During my
stays my travelling buddy and I have always taken a camper. Aviation is
spoken here - over the years I have met many interesting pilots from Qantas
captains, P51 owners, builders of all sorts, Czech air force pilots, sub
drivers, wannabes , FAA tower crews etc etc. The hosts have been doing this
for 25+ years so they now to do EAA and do it well.
If RV10 Central is near the same place as last year, it is only a 10-15
minute walk away.
The only downside to staying here is that the owners are rabid Packers fans
and ViQueen oops Viking fans will be mocked!
If you are interested, send me a note off list with and I will send you the
contact info.
Cheers
Les
KOSH '1x' or bust
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: First Flight |
Congrats to you Eric, and to you too Gary B! That's great that you two
both got to fly on this long weekend! As you get nice photos to share
and things, feel free to pass them on. I've been trying to keep
the builderslist updated with the flying RV-10's and photos.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
egohr1 wrote:
>
> This morning N410EG, SN40271 broke the surly bonds of the earth for the first
time.
>
> The RV grin will not wash off the pilots face.
>
> Eric Gohr
>
> --------
> eric gohr
> EGOHR86@alumni.carnegiemellon.edu
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245166#245166
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
(160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
of the airplane.
If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
and then move on from there...still spending a little more
dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
$1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
it's just on my mind.
The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
price?
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
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: | Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Tim, I might have one for you. It has been so long since I have used it, I
don't remember the make and model. I will try to swing by the hanger
tonight. I don't have a need for it (my plane and the club planes all have
4 place now), and will let you have it cheap.....
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:22 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
(160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
of the airplane.
If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
and then move on from there...still spending a little more
dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
$1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
it's just on my mind.
The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
price?
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
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: | Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Tim
I have a 4 place portable intercom just sitting around here collecting
dust. I would be willing to loan It out indefinitely if you would like
to use it.
Also, I don't have any way to fly down here while I am building my -10.
I would be very interested in a lease arrangement like what you have.
Did you arrange it through a company or an individual?
I have a small chance of something similar for a Warrior. It belongs to
the widow of one of our chapter members. She doesn't want to sell, so
we may be able to work something out that is mutually beneficial.
--
Brent Humphreys
RV-10 Tailcone
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Tim,
Interesting observations. Many people forget the "extra" costs, like insurance,
when they're making these decisions. Of course, so did you, sort of! Around here
(San Francisco Bay area), the "...all I needed to do was provide a hangar..."
would be a real deal breaker, as people grow old and die waiting for their
names to come up on hangar waiting lists!
On your first right-seat landings, did you tend to land on the right side of the
runway centerline? Just curious, it's very common, in my experience.
As to the intercom: Since all you need is a mixer, have you thought about building
your own? If you're handy with a soldering iron, you can do it in one evening.
The most expensive parts are the jacks and plugs; the integrated circuits
are dirt cheap these days.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245297#245297
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
You're definitely right Bob. I didn't forget the extra cost
of the hangar, but it was just insignificant to the whole
deal for me. Around here hangars aren't that bad. I figure
for the <6 months I'll have the plane, I'll have somewhere
around $1000 in hangar and insurance. Consider that that's
for 50-60 hours of flying as a minimum, and it's being split
3 ways...my dad needs a plane to fly, and we have the 2
students. So, each person has the plane for about $350 total
plus $32/hr + fuel.....for the entire summer/fall. Can't
work out too much better than that! I feel bad for the
folks on the coast where hangars cost a lot of money.
Around here it's a bargain.
As for the right seat landings, I didn't really find a
problem lining up with the runway...that part was good.
Finding the proper "look" to a centered straight landing
took a little feeling. I had to lean into the center
of the plane for a bit to get a look at what straight
was. For me the hardest things were getting my left
hand coordinated on the throttle to be smooth, and
feeling comfortable with the dang door tight to my
right side. Just unusual feeling is all.
I did briefly think about a mixer, and I love D-I-Y
projects, but a couple things drove me away from that.
First is that I'd have to buy a pile of jacks and a
couple plugs and order them, but then I'd have to find
a good box, and the hardest part was the time. In
the end, I don't know that the savings would be
all that great. Probably would be worth it over
buying new, but a used intercom is probably the
quickest and not terribly expensive. If I were
going to dig in to a D-I-Y project, I'd probably
consider grabbing an A&P and swapping the intercom
in the plane to a 4-place and just wiring jacks.
That would be nice if the owner would allow it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Bob Turner wrote:
> <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>
> Tim, Interesting observations. Many people forget the "extra" costs,
> like insurance, when they're making these decisions. Of course, so
> did you, sort of! Around here (San Francisco Bay area), the "...all I
> needed to do was provide a hangar..." would be a real deal breaker,
> as people grow old and die waiting for their names to come up on
> hangar waiting lists!
>
> On your first right-seat landings, did you tend to land on the right
> side of the runway centerline? Just curious, it's very common, in my
> experience.
>
> As to the intercom: Since all you need is a mixer, have you thought
> about building your own? If you're handy with a soldering iron, you
> can do it in one evening. The most expensive parts are the jacks and
> plugs; the integrated circuits are dirt cheap these days.
>
> -------- Bob Turner RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245297#245297
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Hi Brent,
I think I'm set on the intercom now, but that is really great of you
to offer it!
I got my plane lined up through a nearby FBO owner who runs a leasing
company. I'll shoot you the info off-list. I know they also have
a Cessna 172 for $35/hr right now. My thought would be if you can
ask around to all the local airports, my guess is someone
knows someone who does leasebacks and leases. This guy's place
was actually an aircraft leasing operation. So, you may be
able to find one local to you. I definitely like the terms,
in my situation. It is also handy to have them fairly local, as
they are willing to pay for the maintenance and oil changes if
we bring it to them too. So, there's benefit to staying local.
If you were far away, I'd say maybe it would be easier to build
a 4 or 5 person partnership. My guess is there are lots and
lots of people these days who'd love to participate...it's just
tough to find one willing to start it all off.
Oh, and on insurance, I found it was actually BETTER not to list
individually all of the pilots. If you list more than 3 pilots,
they lock the insurance to named pilots only. If you left it at
3 you could ask for an open policy with time limitations and then
could automatically cover a few additional people. Interesting
how it all worked out.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Brent P. Humphreys wrote:
>
> Tim
>
> I have a 4 place portable intercom just sitting around here collecting
> dust. I would be willing to loan It out indefinitely if you would like
> to use it.
>
> Also, I don't have any way to fly down here while I am building my -10.
> I would be very interested in a lease arrangement like what you have.
> Did you arrange it through a company or an individual?
>
> I have a small chance of something similar for a Warrior. It belongs to
> the widow of one of our chapter members. She doesn't want to sell, so
> we may be able to work something out that is mutually beneficial.
>
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: | Adding a filter to pitot line |
Over the years I have thought again and again about adding a filter to my p
itot line to stop dust and other crap from working its way up the line and
into-all the instrumentation.-
-
Theoretically, particles should not move along this path as it carries pres
sure not flow and is also uphill to the panel. However, if there is even a
tiny leak then it becomes a flow.
-
I found a light weight fuel filter from NAPA (1003) with a plastic shell th
at lets you see any debris caught. I am confident that it would equalize th
e pressure in/out and not affect the instrumentation. This would be install
ed-inside the wing aft of the pitot tube.
-
Any of you folks think this is a good idea or a very bad idea? Water/ice pr
oblems?
-
Bill DeRouchey
N939SB, flying
-
-
-
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Tim,
I agree with the left hand on the throttle (and, in Cessnas, trim) thing. I attributed
it to being right handed.
I would urge caution about flying under an "open pilot" clause. Read the policy
very carefully, what you're looking for is a "waiver of subrogation". Most policies
don't have one. What this means is that if there's damage to the airplane
(or a person), the insurance company will pay the claim - but they reserve
the right to sue the pilot who was flying to get their money back, unless he or
she is a "named insured", not just on the open pilot clause. In fact, our policy
specifically states that we will do nothing to hinder, and will help the
insurance company, with their lawsuit against the person.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245331#245331
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: Adding a filter to pitot line |
I have never seen such a filter on a certified airplane, which suggests to me that
it is either unnecessary or hazardous.
You are correct about there being no flow unless there's a leak. And if there's
a leak in the line, the dirt will only flow to that point. It only goes into
the ASI if the leak is internal to the instrument, in which case you'll need to
get it fixed anyway. The dirt may even plug the leak!
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245334#245334
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: | Re: Adding a filter to pitot line |
Not so sure that it is needed or helpful.
It might even induce a delay of the pressure reaching the sensors
But just to add my anecdote.
I flew for 20 years without ever covering the pitot head, then I took off in Truckee
Calif one day in my C182. By the time that I waited for the A/S to come
alive, I was airborne and climbing out. Fortunately I had 300+ hrs. in type and
I just landed knowing the flap settings and back of the seat feel. In taking
the system apart a "mud dauber" had nested in the pitot head and fully blocked
the airflow. Very small but signifiucant blockage. Now I suggest always keep
a cover on the pitot head.
--------
OSH '08 or Bust (busted) be there in "09
Q/B Kit - FWF end game
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245338#245338
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Well now you done got me curious. I'll get the policy and check it
out. I did make my intentions known to the agent, and he does have
lots of experience, but i'll have to ask this specific question.
Thanks for bringing it up here! Ain't these lists handy for helping
out?!
Tim
Do not archive
On May 25, 2009, at 7:10 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I agree with the left hand on the throttle (and, in Cessnas, trim)
> thing. I attributed it to being right handed.
>
> I would urge caution about flying under an "open pilot" clause. Read
> the policy very carefully, what you're looking for is a "waiver of
> subrogation". Most policies don't have one. What this means is that
> if there's damage to the airplane (or a person), the insurance
> company will pay the claim - but they reserve the right to sue the
> pilot who was flying to get their money back, unless he or she is a
> "named insured", not just on the open pilot clause. In fact, our
> policy specifically states that we will do nothing to hinder, and
> will help the insurance company, with their lawsuit against the
> person.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245331#245331
>
>
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: N2GB - First Flight |
Hey Gary - I am still very excited and happy for you. Can you give us all a report
on how it felt , squawks, etc
--------
OSH '08 or Bust (busted) be there in "09
Q/B Kit - FWF end game
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245340#245340
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: RV-10 Systems Components For Sale |
Patrick,
Email sent on Andair and DMC
Thanks,
Bill
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245341#245341
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
the last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it
is all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
don't know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training,
but I know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put
it through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
flying in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern,
and is even easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and
trim on the stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate
than a C152 or a Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
get comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes
mentioned. I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better
visibility or what, but I have done the same number of landings right
seat in the -10 and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the
-10 much much better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any
right seat in the -10?
do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>
> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
> of the airplane.
>
> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>
> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
> it's just on my mind.
>
> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
> price?
>
> --
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
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: | Re: Adding a filter to pitot line |
Don't put anything in your pitot line!!
grumpy
N184JM
On May 25, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Bill DeRouchey wrote:
> Over the years I have thought again and again about adding a filter
> to my pitot line to stop dust and other crap from working its way up
> the line and into all the instrumentation.
>
> Theoretically, particles should not move along this path as it
> carries pressure not flow and is also uphill to the panel. However,
> if there is even a tiny leak then it becomes a flow.
>
> I found a light weight fuel filter from NAPA (1003) with a plastic
> shell that lets you see any debris caught. I am confident that it
> would equalize the pressure in/out and not affect the
> instrumentation. This would be installed inside the wing aft of the
> pitot tube.
>
> Any of you folks think this is a good idea or a very bad idea? Water/
> ice problems?
>
> Bill DeRouchey
> N939SB, flying
>
>
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
(currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
requiring it more and more.
I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent the
> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I don't
> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training, but I
> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable flying
> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is even
> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or a
> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>
> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to get
> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility or
> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the -10
> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the -10?
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>
>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>> of the airplane.
>>
>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>
>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>> it's just on my mind.
>>
>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>> price?
>>
>> --
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Key here is named insured on the policy....subro rights are always reserved by
the insurer...first thing you'll be presented with in the event of a claim is
an" ROR" reservation of rights....which allows the insurer to operate their investigation
for coverage as long as they need to determine coverage...bottom line..name
and disclose all pilots on the policy...in the insurance biz...disclose
disclose....then pony up your premium....if ya feel like flaming me feel free...I
can produce and adjust insurance claims in Nevada....I love to talk insurance....can't
speak of other states...
Rick S.
N246RS
------Original Message------
From: Bob Turner
Sender: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: Rv
Sent: May 25, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training
Tim,
I agree with the left hand on the throttle (and, in Cessnas, trim) thing. I attributed
it to being right handed.
I would urge caution about flying under an "open pilot" clause. Read the policy
very carefully, what you're looking for is a "waiver of subrogation". Most policies
don't have one. What this means is that if there's damage to the airplane
(or a person), the insurance company will pay the claim - but they reserve
the right to sue the pilot who was flying to get their money back, unless he or
she is a "named insured", not just on the open pilot clause. In fact, our policy
specifically states that we will do nothing to hinder, and will help the
insurance company, with their lawsuit against the person.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245331#245331
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
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: | Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Geez Tim - you've just given away all my secrets.
I'm a low time pilot by any standard (<150 hrs). I had not flown PIC
for the last 4 years of my build. There is no way that I considered
myself current to fly the -10. Jon Johanson did a marvellous job of
shaking down the airframe.
I umm'ed and ahhre'd about regaining some currency in a 172 or arrow
before I launched into the -10. But I was convinced by Jon J and others
to just get some dual with an instructor in -10, and 'get on with it'.
Best decision I ever made.
I found that flying was a bit like riding a bike. I now have about 6
hours PIC on my -10. I am obviously still feeling my way and have a lot
to learn. But, ALL of my landings, circuits (patterns) and general
flying have been better than what I recall in the past. Yes the plane
is quick and you have to be careful to not let her get in front of you.
But man, what a wonderful - WONDERFUL aeroplane. She is a delight to
fly and makes me look a much better pilot than I know I am.
Cheers,
Ron
VH-XRM in Oz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
(currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
requiring it more and more.
I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
the
> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
don't
> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training, but I
> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
flying
> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is
even
> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or
a
> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>
> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
get
> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility
or
> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the
-10
> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the
-10?
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>
>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>> of the airplane.
>>
>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>
>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>> it's just on my mind.
>>
>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>> price?
>>
>> --
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
Gotta agree with you Ron....lol...hmmm Tim's wife and her friend...nuther woman....oops...is
Tim saying women can't handle the -10....com' on Tim you make the
RV-10 sound like some kinda hot fighter plane....over the fence in the -10 at
70 vs over the fence in the 152 at 58/60?? Never flown one..don't make it more
than it is...put a 16 year old who is not afraid to yank and bank in the -10
and he/she will fly the crap outta it.....with age comes reservations....and
fear of the precise response of the RV....
Rick S.
N246RS
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training
Geez Tim - you've just given away all my secrets.
I'm a low time pilot by any standard (<150 hrs). I had not flown PIC
for the last 4 years of my build. There is no way that I considered
myself current to fly the -10. Jon Johanson did a marvellous job of
shaking down the airframe.
I umm'ed and ahhre'd about regaining some currency in a 172 or arrow
before I launched into the -10. But I was convinced by Jon J and others
to just get some dual with an instructor in -10, and 'get on with it'.
Best decision I ever made.
I found that flying was a bit like riding a bike. I now have about 6
hours PIC on my -10. I am obviously still feeling my way and have a lot
to learn. But, ALL of my landings, circuits (patterns) and general
flying have been better than what I recall in the past. Yes the plane
is quick and you have to be careful to not let her get in front of you.
But man, what a wonderful - WONDERFUL aeroplane. She is a delight to
fly and makes me look a much better pilot than I know I am.
Cheers,
Ron
VH-XRM in Oz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
(currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
requiring it more and more.
I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
the
> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
don't
> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training, but I
> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
flying
> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is
even
> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or
a
> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>
> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
get
> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility
or
> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the
-10
> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the
-10?
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>
>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>> of the airplane.
>>
>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>
>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>> it's just on my mind.
>>
>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>> price?
>>
>> --
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
That's great that you jumped right back on the bike! I do think that
if you're a pilot who had done a lot of flying in a short amount of
time....perhaps even years ago...like say you put in 100 hours in
one year, or better yet, had 200 hours over 2 years, I think that
helps. I think if someone has flown that much, they're likely to
have evolved their skill level somewhat to a higher level at one
point, and that from there on they're probably going to retain it
much much better after a long lapse. You didn't say how long it took
you to get near 150 hours, but the shorter the time the better, would
be my guess.
Part of this comes from past experience as a low-time private pilot.
I remember that when I could hardly get air time, I tried to fly
at least once a month. That was OK....I kept current enough to
land the plane and be reasonable. But, when I waited more
than 30 days to fly, the cockpit just felt so foreign to me every
time I sat down. It was much harder to feel comfortable.
Once after a 3 month lapse, I really wasn't very comfortable at
all. But, after I had put in the year for my instrument rating,
I think I did 100 hours that 12 month period since I owned a 1/2
share finally, and did my inst. training, and flew on some trips,
and after that point there just wasn't the same feeling anymore
after a 1 or 2 or 3 month lapse. Now days I have skipped a month
a few times over winter, even 2 months, and I don't really notice
a thing anymore. And I think if I skipped a year I'd still retain
a bunch. So of course everyone will be different, but yeah, if you
have over 100 hours, I'd probably just agree with Jon and say
go get some dual in the -10 and get on with it. If your 100
hours were 5 or 10 years ago, maybe it would be different...but
it is all such a personal thing it's hard to say what will work
for everyone.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
McGANN, Ron wrote:
>
> Geez Tim - you've just given away all my secrets.
>
> I'm a low time pilot by any standard (<150 hrs). I had not flown PIC
> for the last 4 years of my build. There is no way that I considered
> myself current to fly the -10. Jon Johanson did a marvellous job of
> shaking down the airframe.
>
> I umm'ed and ahhre'd about regaining some currency in a 172 or arrow
> before I launched into the -10. But I was convinced by Jon J and others
> to just get some dual with an instructor in -10, and 'get on with it'.
> Best decision I ever made.
>
> I found that flying was a bit like riding a bike. I now have about 6
> hours PIC on my -10. I am obviously still feeling my way and have a lot
> to learn. But, ALL of my landings, circuits (patterns) and general
> flying have been better than what I recall in the past. Yes the plane
> is quick and you have to be careful to not let her get in front of you.
> But man, what a wonderful - WONDERFUL aeroplane. She is a delight to
> fly and makes me look a much better pilot than I know I am.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
> VH-XRM in Oz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:33 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
> Training
>
>
> I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
> seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
> a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
> than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
> me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
> and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
> my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
> the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
> are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
> basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
> very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
> to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
> like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
> way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
> handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
> too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
> you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
> ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
> had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
> the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
> and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
> wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
> the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
> it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
> some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
> that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
> years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
> (currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
> take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
> just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
> in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
> hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
> me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
> sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
> not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
> to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
> to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
> for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
> rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
> with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
> over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
> being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
> requiring it more and more.
>
> I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
> Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
> private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
> and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
> be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
>
> Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
> It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
> They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
> from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
> later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
>
> What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
> I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
> few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
> to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
> the
>> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
>> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
>> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
> don't
>> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training, but I
>
>> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
>> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
> flying
>> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is
> even
>> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
>> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or
> a
>> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>>
>> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
> get
>> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
>
>> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility
> or
>> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the
> -10
>> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
>> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the
> -10?
>> do not archive
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>>
>>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>>> of the airplane.
>>>
>>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>>> it's just on my mind.
>>>
>>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>>> price?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> "Warning:
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
> your computer."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
As an aside, I would like to know how many women there are who have
RV10 type ratings. My wife is about to start flying again after the
usual 6 month break around childbirth. And again, as usual, she'll get
her confidence up in a C152, & then progress to the RV10. Just wisdom.
Her heart would fly the RV10 tomorrow, but it takes time to polish
rusty skills, and at 200mph, sometimes there's not enough time to
balance checks, calls & nav. It's not just the speed, but a steam
driven C152 seems a lot simpler than some of our Star Trek panels.
Plus, our grass strip is not quite straightforward at 550m & obstacles
at either end & an active airforce base a mile away.
Neil
ZK-RVT
On 26/05/2009, at 4:00 PM, ricksked@embarqmail.com wrote:
>
> Gotta agree with you Ron....lol...hmmm Tim's wife and her
> friend...nuther woman....oops...is Tim saying women can't handle the
> -10....com' on Tim you make the RV-10 sound like some kinda hot
> fighter plane....over the fence in the -10 at 70 vs over the fence
> in the 152 at 58/60?? Never flown one..don't make it more than it
> is...put a 16 year old who is not afraid to yank and bank in the -10
> and he/she will fly the crap outta it.....with age comes
> reservations....and fear of the precise response of the RV....
>
> Rick S.
> N246RS
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
>
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:05:46
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and
> Flight Training
>
>
> >
>
> Geez Tim - you've just given away all my secrets.
>
> I'm a low time pilot by any standard (<150 hrs). I had not flown PIC
> for the last 4 years of my build. There is no way that I considered
> myself current to fly the -10. Jon Johanson did a marvellous job of
> shaking down the airframe.
>
> I umm'ed and ahhre'd about regaining some currency in a 172 or arrow
> before I launched into the -10. But I was convinced by Jon J and
> others
> to just get some dual with an instructor in -10, and 'get on with it'.
> Best decision I ever made.
>
> I found that flying was a bit like riding a bike. I now have about 6
> hours PIC on my -10. I am obviously still feeling my way and have a
> lot
> to learn. But, ALL of my landings, circuits (patterns) and general
> flying have been better than what I recall in the past. Yes the plane
> is quick and you have to be careful to not let her get in front of
> you.
> But man, what a wonderful - WONDERFUL aeroplane. She is a delight to
> fly and makes me look a much better pilot than I know I am.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
> VH-XRM in Oz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:33 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and
> Flight
> Training
>
>
> I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
> seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
> a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
> than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
> me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
> and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
> my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
> the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
> are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
> basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
> very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
> to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
> like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
> way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
> handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
> too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
> you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
> ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
> had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
> the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
> and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
> wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
> the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
> it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
> some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
> that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
> years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
> (currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
> take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
> just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
> in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
> hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
> me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
> sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
> not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
> to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
> to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
> for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
> rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
> with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
> over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
> being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
> requiring it more and more.
>
> I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
> Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
> private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
> and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
> be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
>
> Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
> It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
> They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
> from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
> later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
>
> What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
> I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
> few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
> to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> <jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>
>> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
> the
>> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
>> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
>> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
> don't
>> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training,
>> but I
>
>> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
>> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
> flying
>> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is
> even
>> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
>> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or
> a
>> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>>
>> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
> get
>> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
>
>> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility
> or
>> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the
> -10
>> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
>> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the
> -10?
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>>
>>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>>> of the airplane.
>>>
>>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>>> it's just on my mind.
>>>
>>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>>> price?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "Warning:
> The information contained in this email and any attached files is
> confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
> attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
> in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
> taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
> however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
> sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
> checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
> your computer."
>
>
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: | Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight Training |
All RV's are "hot fighters" compared to just about any normally available GA
airplane. I'm sure I'll get a lot of shit for this but personally I error
on the conservative side and I don't thinks it's prudent to fly any RV w/o
at least 200-250 hours of logged total time (and that's pushing it in my
mind).
I started flying at 22 years of age in 1996. I flew my first RV, which was
an RV4, in Nov 99 after accumulating about 450 hours in all sorts of
cessna's from 152's to 206's to twins and some J3 time. I felt like a
pretty competent pilot at that point but holy crap did I get my ass handed
to me in the RV. Fortunately it stayed in one piece and I lived to tell
about it. Turn a 24-25 year old loose in an RV-4 and look out.
I don't consider them all that hard to fly but there is sooo much to learn
why rush it? I do consider it cheating when you don't even have to think
much about density altitude or takeoff/landing distance on a grass runway or
gee I cannot climb above those clouds in my path or Vx takeoff and
climbouts... being a great aviator should not be rushed (I don't claim to be
one but hopefully some day).
I like to feel like I "wear" an airplane whether it's upside down, right
side up, on a hot day, or a shitty rainy one w/crappy visibility or an
airport you're not familiar with whether it's at sea level or 5000+ft. That
takes time period. RV's are easy to fly if you know "how to fly" but don't
forget to really learn how to fly.
Don't be in a rush to "move up". Make sure you've eeked every bit of
knowledge from the plane you're learning in. Find a cheap trainer and fly
it till the wheels fall of, fix it, and do it again. If you can afford to
build a 10 you can afford to buy a 150/152 or equivalent and learn how to
fly. Don't rush. You might be able to get that 10 built pronto but take a
few years during the build and get several hundred hours. You'll never
regret it and your not ready to fly that shiny new 10 anyway.
Let's keep it to only having to learn the tough lessons from Dan Lloyd.
Given more time he may have never learned but we'll never know.
-Ben Westfall
#40579 (finishing kit so what's that about half way?)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ricksked@embarqmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
Gotta agree with you Ron....lol...hmmm Tim's wife and her friend...nuther
woman....oops...is Tim saying women can't handle the -10....com' on Tim you
make the RV-10 sound like some kinda hot fighter plane....over the fence in
the -10 at 70 vs over the fence in the 152 at 58/60?? Never flown one..don't
make it more than it is...put a 16 year old who is not afraid to yank and
bank in the -10 and he/she will fly the crap outta it.....with age comes
reservations....and fear of the precise response of the RV....
Rick S.
N246RS
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "McGANN, Ron" <ron.mcgann@baesystems.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
Geez Tim - you've just given away all my secrets.
I'm a low time pilot by any standard (<150 hrs). I had not flown PIC
for the last 4 years of my build. There is no way that I considered
myself current to fly the -10. Jon Johanson did a marvellous job of
shaking down the airframe.
I umm'ed and ahhre'd about regaining some currency in a 172 or arrow
before I launched into the -10. But I was convinced by Jon J and others
to just get some dual with an instructor in -10, and 'get on with it'.
Best decision I ever made.
I found that flying was a bit like riding a bike. I now have about 6
hours PIC on my -10. I am obviously still feeling my way and have a lot
to learn. But, ALL of my landings, circuits (patterns) and general
flying have been better than what I recall in the past. Yes the plane
is quick and you have to be careful to not let her get in front of you.
But man, what a wonderful - WONDERFUL aeroplane. She is a delight to
fly and makes me look a much better pilot than I know I am.
Cheers,
Ron
VH-XRM in Oz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight
Training
I would agree that it seems easier to land the RV-10 in the right
seat than a yoke-equipped plane. I think it is the stick....it's
a little more ambidextrous capable I think...just more natural
than a yoke. The throttle is really the only part that messes
me up. And, I'd agree that in the pattern once you get comfortable
and you are no longer behind the airplane, I think that the -10 in
my case is easier too, due to the trim/flaps/goodies and all, and
the added size and weight for stability. The key is "once you
are comfortable". You need to have a good feel for all of the
basic flight maneuvers. Steep turns and even normal turns are
very simple for us...but for a new student, it doesn't take much
to get out of whack high or low in a turn in a light-feeling plane
like the -10. The cherokee is much much more mushy and easy that
way during learning. Now, once you have experience and have a good
handle on everything, the -10 is a VERY easy plane to transition
too, and it will make you look like a far better pilot than
you probably even are. It lands easier than most any plane I've
ever flown...if you fly it the way it needs to be. I've NEVER
had plane that was as consistently smooth touching down as
the -10. The Sundowner I had a significant amount of time in,
and was very good at flying, but my "beautiful landing" percentage
wasn't nearly what it is in the -10. And although I can make
the Cherokee be halfway smooth too already, in the right seat,
it too has just no comparison to the -10. So once a person has
some experience the -10 isn't very hard to deal with. I'd think
that if a zero hour pilot flies 100 hours and they did it over 2
years or less, they'd probably easily be able to transition.
(currency matters) If you're under 100 hours, I think it'll just
take a little more work. Under 60 and I think it would be best
just to do some dual for a bit before thinking of any solo work
in the -10. I know I scared myself a few times in my first 100
hours...I'd have been a disaster in the -10. What really helped
me gain experience though was going into my instrument training
sometime not long after the 100 hour mark. Then I was focused
not on how to fly the plane, but to fly the plane according
to some precise path....and the "handling" part just started
to become second nature with the added 40 hours I had to do
for instrument. To me, an instrument rating is the most valuable
rating you can get...even simply due to a dual-time experience
with an instructor. By the time you've done both you'd have
over 100 hours guaranteed, and you'd be far along the path to
being a lesser insurance risk...hence the reason they are
requiring it more and more.
I do hope to spend more time in the Right seat on the -10, too.
Ultimately, once I get done helping these 2 through their
private pilot stuff, I want to get in gear to do my commercial
and CFI, just for the heck of it. I don't want to be paid to
be a CFI, but it would come in handy some times.
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the visibility in the -10.
It's unparalleled for forward viz. The Sundowner was also excellent.
They both are far better cockpits than the 172/182/cherokees
from an ergonomic and visibility perspective. (I'm talking the
later model Sundowners, like my 1977 I had)
What blows me away lately is how CHEAP that cherokee is to fly.
I fly for hours and hours and go to fill it up and put in a
few drops of gas. Man, now that is a different feeling compared
to local, rich of peak flying in the RV-10.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> I agree almost completely with your conclusions, Tim. Having spent
the
> last year going from first solo through 95 RV-10 hours (250TT), it is
> all fairly fresh in my mind. I definitely would recommend getting
> something that is easier to stay on top of while getting going. I
don't
> know how the RV-10 landing gear holds up under initial training, but I
> know that it is hard to hurt the gear on a 172, and I know I put it
> through its paces starting out. Once you get fairly comfortable
flying
> in general, the -10 isn't hard to stick with in the pattern, and is
even
> easier in some respects, especially with the flaps and trim on the
> stick. It is certainly hard to get cheaper to operate than a C152 or
a
> Cherokee, especially when counting the insurance costs.
>
> One thing I will add, however, is that I think it is much easier to
get
> comfortable right seat in the -10 than in the other planes mentioned.
> I'm not sure if it's the stick over the yoke or the better visibility
or
> what, but I have done the same number of landings right seat in the
-10
> and the 172 and the Cherokee 180, and I can land the -10 much much
> better than the other two. Tim, have you flown any right seat in the
-10?
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
>
> On May 25, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>> For those of you who followed the past discussions we had about
>> learning to fly in an RV-10, I've gotten to see first-hand some of
>> what happens to new pilots again, to refresh my memory. Recently,
>> my wife and another lady have been flight training. One has about
>> 20 hours now, and one has 40+. They both flew a rental Cessna 152
>> for the first 90% of the hours. I'd been hemming and hawing on what
>> to do for a plane, because I hated the idea of paying $76-80/hr wet
>> for a stinkin' C-152. That's a ripoff. But, they were flying that
>> plane and learning. Then one day after they had about the
>> above mentioned hours, we jumped in the RV-10 and I gave them a
>> shot at flying that plane. It was very easy to see how they
>> were instantly over their head...although the one with 40 hours
>> had a better handle on the airplane, of course. Things just
>> come at you too fast, and in fact, one of the instructors that
>> we've now had them spending time with usually insists on full-stop
>> landings for a good amount of time too, because there is too
>> much in rapid-fire when you try to do touch-n-go's early on.
>>
>> Recently they've both transitioned into a different airplane. Get
>> this.... I found a place that I can lease a Cherokee 140 Cruiser
>> (160hp) for $32/hr dry + insurance. I only need to hangar the
>> airplane and fill it with fuel and insure it. The insurance for
>> myself, the 2 students, and an "open policy" allowing anyone
>> with 250 hours to fly it, was $914/yr...and of course we get 90%
>> credit back for the unused months when we return the plane. So,
>> it was a no-brainer to take that deal, and I wish I'd have
>> started that way when they wanted to learn how to fly. That plane
>> is a little better for them to learn in, too. Transitioning
>> to the plane didn't take too long, however it's still a very
>> forgiving plane that is not as hard to stay behind as the RV-10.
>> Not only that, but it was a good plane for me to self-learn how
>> to be comfortable in the right seat. So I've been putting some
>> time in lately with that plane. There are things that are easier
>> in my RV-10...like you don't have to set a DG, you have electric
>> flaps and trim, the spring gear makes for quiet touchdowns,
>> and things like that. But from a perspective on how rapid-fire
>> things go in the pattern, it is much much faster. Yesterday I
>> got back in my own left seat and did a couple landings just to
>> see the comparison, and it was really something to be able to
>> take off, climb out, and be at pattern altitude before I even
>> hit the downwind leg. When my wife tried doing a few patterns
>> in the RV-10, by the time her brain caught up to the climb
>> and turn, we'd be 600-700' high on downwind....things just
>> happened way too fast. Anyway, it's been quite the experience
>> watching 2 new pilots develop. I think that once a person has
>> obtained a certificate, if they extended their training a bit
>> into the RV-10, it wouldn't be such a bad experience. The one
>> with 40-45 hours is much closer to being able to stay in front
>> of the airplane.
>>
>> If someone were to insist on learning in their RV-10, I'd kind
>> of think that perhaps a way to go about it would be to just
>> expect that you're going to do more like 30-40 hours of dual
>> up front, followed by some solo work. If you have a good
>> instructor in there with you, it wouldn't be un-do-able, but it
>> will definitely hinder your rate of learning to have that much
>> going on in the beginning, so planning accordingly would
>> be good. My best guess is that whereas 40 hours would be a
>> minimum for private pilot, to learn to fly in an RV-10 might
>> take that same person more like 60 hours. If you would have
>> taken 60 hours, maybe it will take you 80 now. So I would
>> say it might be better for your airplane and it's engine to
>> just rent/lease/buy something cheap to get the training done in,
>> and then move on from there...still spending a little more
>> dual with the instructor. If you noticed, I paid less than
>> $1000 for the insurance for those 2 new pilots, in a ~$30,000
>> airplane. That would be cheaper than spending the additional
>> THOUSANDS if I could even find a place to insure a student in
>> mine. Also, since I have that lease deal worked out, my wife
>> can now put in a bunch of time of her own if she wants, and
>> keep flying and logging time after she gets a certificate, until
>> she builds the minimum of maybe 100 hours before any company
>> would even touch her for the RV-10. (there was a slight chance
>> that with 100 hours I could get insurance for $1000 or more
>> add-on...but most companies won't touch you without 250)
>>
>> Sorry for the long story, but I'm sitting in a terminal building
>> hanging out while one of them is out with the instructor, so
>> it's just on my mind.
>>
>> The other thing on my mind is....this Cherokee only has a
>> 2 place intercom. We sometimes stuff 3 (or maybe will even
>> try 2 kids) into the back. So I need to pick up a cheap
>> portable intercom. I used to own a Flightcom, and I'm hoping
>> to find something like a used Flightcom IIsi. Anyone have one
>> that they aren't using that they'd want to sell for a decent
>> price?
>>
>> --
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
"Warning:
The information contained in this email and any attached files is
confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended
recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any
attachments is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been
taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,
however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the
sender's responsibility. It is your responsibility to ensure virus
checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to
your computer."
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4103 (20090525) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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! --
|