Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:29 AM - Private Pilot Training (Marcus Cooper)
2. 06:50 AM - Re: Private Pilot Training (David Maib)
3. 07:00 AM - Re: Private Pilot Training (Tim Olson)
4. 07:10 AM - Re: Private Pilot Training (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:14 AM - Re: Private Pilot Training (Tim Olson)
6. 09:14 AM - Re: Private Pilot Training (Marcus Cooper)
7. 01:03 PM - Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads (Andrew Johnson)
8. 01:21 PM - Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads (Tim Olson)
9. 05:39 PM - Re: Private Pilot Training (Bob Turner)
10. 05:56 PM - Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads (Bob Turner)
11. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: Private Pilot Training (Kelly McMullen)
12. 08:20 PM - Re: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads (Andy and Jen Johnson)
13. 09:45 PM - Re: CFI and complex aircraft. (Kelly McMullen)
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: | Private Pilot Training |
Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range
of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach
my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue and
thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue.
So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get access
to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected.
Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some
potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project
with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good
deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and
my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so that
might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to solo
and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using
the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues
which I am starting to look into.
Thanks for any and all thoughts,
Marcus
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: Private Pilot Training |
I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company said the
problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going to be very, very
expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I dont remember what
the costs were going to be, but it was enough to make me back off at the time.
However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her PPL in their new RV-14, so
he would have the most recent experience with the insurance issue.
David Maib
> On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range
of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach
my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue
and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue.
> So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get
access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected.
Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some
potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project
with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good
deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and
my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so
that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to
solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not
using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues
which I am starting to look into.
>
> Thanks for any and all thoughts,
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Private Pilot Training |
Hi Marcus,
*warning, very long (and boring if the topic doesn't excite you*
As you may already know, I have a perspective on that now after
almost being done going thru the same things.
I had the RV-10 and wanted to teach my Daughter to fly.
In exploring other airplanes to have her learn in,
I considered building first an RV-12, but that would make
me end up with an airplane that absolutely was NOT what I
wanted as a second plane, as I wanted 2 that could easily
cruise together at similar speeds. Then I considered a
7A, but I'm SO glad that I didn't go that route. The 7A
is FAR less comfortable than other options, and it's going
to be much more of a handful to learn in than your -10.
Also, the gear and the nose gear in particular is NOWHERE
near as strong as what you'd find on the -10 or especially
the lighter -14.
I was very lucky that Van's came along with the -14 when
they did. It really is probably the perfect *performance*
trainer out there, as the main gear is SUPER heavy duty, and
so is the nose gear. The -12 is probably the best general
trainer Van's would have.
The next issue I had was that if a CFI were to teach her in
either the -14 or the -10, they would need 25 hours in
type to be listed as a named pilot. That costs more money
that would be a waste. So...I wasn't a CFI at the time but
thanks to some encouragement on this very list
(Thanks Bob!), I decided to get my CFI.
Now I was all set from an airplane and CFI perspective.
Like you, normally I would say it would be hard to teach
family, and especially a spouse, but it actually worked
out real smoothly for the most part with my Daughter.
When we first started, before I was a CFI, I started
teaching her the basics of landings in the RV-10.
No, I wasn't insured for her to be flying it at that
time, but I wanted to give her the basics of landings
and then take her to another instructor to get her
the real deal. She did do 4 hours in a C-150, with
another instructor, which was probably valuable in
itself. It may be nice to do something similar as it
gives her the confidence that someone else is going to
teach her the same things. But, I wouldn't say it's
a necessary step.
Then at this point I still wasn't a CFI, but we kept
building the -14 and flying the -10. I ended up giving
her about 25 additional hours of non-loggable instruction
in the RV-10 before I was a CFI, and she was flying
fine, to the point that I was not having to do anything
with landings or anything else.
I will say that you are probably very correct that it
will take a little longer to both solo and complete
the training in the RV-10, and it is a bit like drinking
from a fire hose when you are doing pattern work. Whereas
the 172 is very slow and everything takes it's time to
happen, the RV-10 as you know, is not. What happened
to us is that she'd hit the throttle and we'd be
off the ground, and before her brain could wrap around
what was all happening, we were passing thru 500' and
turning left for the pattern. Often times she
wasn't mentally ready to even turn until 750-1000'
because it happened so fast, and then by the time
the short crosswind leg was over, we'd hit downwind and
could be a few hundred feet higher than wanted. It just
really took time for her to mentally keep up with all
the nuances of what you have to do, when the plane could
do them faster than she could think. It's this in
particular that I think makes maybe 5 hours of 172 time
a good idea, before flying the RV-10. At least they
can slowly get the processes figured out.
On the other hand though, if you drink from a fire hose
without getting your lips torn off, you can still get
hydrated and she did absorb the material...just took a
little longer to get comfortable with it.
And, I think once she learned all the skills, the
RV-10 is really the better plane to fly, even for
training. One of the primary reasons for his is the
discussion my wife and I had. We both didn't really
want her flying some 1950-something old plane, with it's
old airframe, old instruments, and old everything, that
wouldn't be as reliable as something new. There's no
reason NOT to have a nice engine monitor to give you
good information. There's no reason not to have a great
radio. And, here's a big one...there's a LOT of
added safety when your climb rate is 1500-2200fpm, to get
you away from the ground a.s.a.p. where you DO have
a chance for a glide back to the airport if something
goes wrong. That and the fact that go-arounds in the
RV-10 are a non-issue from a power perspective.
Also, I know from experience that crosswind components
of maybe 25kts aren't impossible in the RV-10,
and it does crosswinds better than the 172 for the
most part.
So ultimately, while I would recommend every private
pilot be burdened with the fast pace of the RV-10, I do
KNOW now that it's actually something that is doable.
I would not really think it necessary to build an RV-14,
but I think if you really WANT to build another RV,
definitely choose the -14, as it will be far more
durable and comfortable. But, unless you want the
resulting airplane permanently, it's probably a waste
of money.
My daughter now has over 100 logged hours, split between
the RV-10 and RV-14, and probably 30-35 non-logged hours,
and she flies darn near as well as most of the RV people
I know. Her checkride is coming up soon when she
turns 17, and other than some brush-up on some maneuvers
I absolutely know she's ready. A couple nights ago
I took her out because it was a windy day and all of us
in the family are doing lots of crosswind landings in prep
for a trip to the islands where there aren't multiple runways.
On the way to the airport I called the AWOS phone number
and it reported winds as 190@23G32, and we have runways
18/36 and 9/27. I cringed and gave up on crosswinds and
figured she'd have her hands full doing straight in's.
(Which was true, with all the turbulence) As we flew
though I told her: "Plan to FLY DOWN THE RUNWAY ONLY,
at 2-3', on Runway 27, and just hold it off but keep
your crosswind corrections in. If and only if, you can
get everything just perfect, you can land it." It blew
me away because she flew just fine and did a couple great
landings. I checked the AWOS after touchdown and
it was reporting 180@19G28. I don't think we must have
hit the 28kt gusts. :) At any rate, she did beautifully,
and so did the plane. So, I'm here to tell you that it
is absolutely possible and fun to learn in the -10.
Now for the insurance part. When it comes to insurance,
one of the reasons I build the RV-14 was because I assumed
that I would be unable to get insurance for the -10 for her
as a student. In the end, it was a waste of money building
the RV-14 (but a waste I'm glad I did), because I was able to
insure her right away. I put her on the RV-14 first and I
think it jacked me almost $1200. Then I went to put her
on the last 6 months of the year on the RV-10 and they
added her there for $250 (covering 6 months). That was
thru Hallmark, quoted through AJG (NationAir). I did
get a little shocker at renewal time as my normally
$1700 premium is now $2925, but she's a named insured, and
still a student, and that's an annual fee.
So, while you would think building an RV or buying an
RV would be a cost saver due to insurance, I think that
you just have to get over the fact that insurance may be
available but just at a lot higher cost. Still cheaper
than buying and insuring a second plane. There was only
one underwriter willing to cover us, so your options may
be limited, but you can always explore the costs.
If insurance is impossible to obtain, I guess I'd say that
I'd still stay away from the RV-7A idea and find other
options. There is a place here in my state where you
can even lease an airplane for a length of time. About
8-10 years ago I think, I leased a cherokee 140 for 32/hr
dry with the only stipulations being 1) need to hangar the
plane and 2) need to pay for a minimum of 10 hours per
month. But, learning in that plane was not as fun as
the RV.
So, explore the real insurance cost and see what you
find. Talk to Jenny at AJG and see what she says.
If you can get the insurance at any price, I'd say
go for it in the -10. And, if you build a plane,
go for the -14. It at least builds fairly fast, and
is comfortable.
Tim
On 05/02/2018 07:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>
> Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range
of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach
my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue
and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue.
> So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get
access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected.
Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some
potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project
with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good
deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and
my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so
that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to
solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not
using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues
which I am starting to look into.
>
> Thanks for any and all thoughts,
> Marcus
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Private Pilot Training |
I would think from an insurance perspective, getting training in either a
Cherokee or C172 would be easiest. Or even purchasing a C150/152 or
PA-28-140
with the intent to resell as soon as training is done would be easier. The
adding of HP rating shouldn't be but a few hours in C182.
As much as one would like to learn in what will ultimately fly, the solo
parts are tough. Anotherf minor complication, depending on how aircraft is
registered, AFAIK for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental
(for other than transition waiver) the student must have an ownership
interest in the aircraft.
A flying club may be the least expensive way to go for the license.
But my guesses aren't from recent experience, being grandfathered for
complex, HP, and tailwheel.
Kelly
Sent from my IBM-360 main frame
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:49 AM, David Maib <dmaib@mac.com> wrote:
>
> I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company
> said the problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going
to
> be very, very expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I
> don=99t remember what the costs were going to be, but it was enough
to make
> me back off at the time. However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her
> PPL in their new RV-14, so he would have the most recent experience with
> the insurance issue.
>
> David Maib
>
>
> > On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I=99ve searched the archives but came up short although I suspect
there
> are a range of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my
> RV-10 to teach my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics tha
t
> can be an issue and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is
> just not an issue.
> > So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was t
o
> get access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult
> than expected. Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the
> mission and have some potential partners to ease the financial burden. I
> saw an ad for a nice project with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is mo
re
> than desired but a very good deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really
> the difference between that and my -10 from a training perspective? In
> fact, the -10 is less responsive so that might be a benefit. It would
> definitely take her more time to be ready to solo and prepared for her
> checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not using the RV-10 for
> initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues which I am
> starting to look into.
> >
> > Thanks for any and all thoughts,
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Private Pilot Training |
Hi David,
I just hit send on a long, long email, that you can read, but here's a
quick comment.
1) She hasn't finished the PPL yet, but, she will soon! :)
2) The insurance gets more expensive but I wouldn't call it extreme.
That may be due to covering 2 planes with the same company. Each
plane in itself is what I'd say is reasonable considering the
situation...and she's insured on both planes.
3) There was no additional deductible. It was basically my same
policy(s), with her as named insured, and then send a check.
The additional fee for both planes was probably around $2500
total, or maybe $3000. Insuring up for the LODA for transition
training is about the same, actually.
So it wasn't too bad.
Regarding transition training, I've basically decided to just
give up the idea as some others did. I may still get a LODA
for the -10 like I did the -14, but I will probably never use it.
For all of 2017/2018's insurance period on the RV-14, there
is only one taker, and their insurance requirement is only 1 hour.
They want to fly for maybe 2 hours. With only 2 hours that
I'd bill, I'd lose so much money on offering the training with
insurance that I'm not willing to do it anymore. That and the
fact that even the nice people like to try to create scheduling
headaches for you and don't want to show up with a current BFR
or want you to come to them instead...and I'm not really
interested in offering transition training to someone who's not
willing to come to me as a CURRENT and non-rusty pilot.
Too much risk to the airplane. I'm shocked that pilots will
skip flying for years, then think they want 1-2 hours in
an RV before they do a first flight in theirs. I'm not willing
to use MY plane for that, and not particularly interested in
jumping in some other plane with that pilot either.
I now see why so many people offer it at first but then
decide not to do it anymore.
Tim
On 05/02/2018 08:49 AM, David Maib wrote:
>
> I was going to do the same thing a few years ago. My insurance company said the
problem would be student pilot solo flight. Insurance was going to be very,
very expensive and would likely come with high deductibles. I dont remember what
the costs were going to be, but it was enough to make me back off at the time.
However, Tim Olson recently got his daughter her PPL in their new RV-14,
so he would have the most recent experience with the insurance issue.
>
> David Maib
>
>
>> On May 2, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range
of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach
my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue
and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue.
>> So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get
access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected.
Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some
potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project
with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good
deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and
my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so
that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to
solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not
using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance
issues which I am starting to look into.
>>
>> Thanks for any and all thoughts,
>> Marcus
>>
>>
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: Private Pilot Training |
Tim,
Thanks so much for your response, to be honest I was hoping you would weigh in
as I knew you had a similar situation. You touched on all of my concerns and
impressions and while I had anticipated a different response you make some excellent
points that I have been realizing myself. The cost of even partnering
in a 172 will be the initial buy-in, probably $9,000 on the only options Ive found
so far, plus another $1500/year overhead. Not bad, but that would buy a
lot of insurance and fuel for the RV-10. I also honed in on your point about
it being a better, and safer airplane once the results of the fire-house have
dissipated.
Great quote I will use by the way, in the multitude of training programs I have
done Im well versed in the fire house effect but had not yet heard it put so
well as, if you drink from a fire hose without getting your lips torn off, you
can still get hydrated ;)
I will check out the insurance options, and thanks Jenny for chiming in. My plan
for now will be to go do some flying and see if I can dumb down the G3X a bit
to make it more simple to interpret and let her have a go at the learning curve
to see how she does. Id hate to be overly pessimistic and go down a far
more expense path for nothing.
Thanks to all for the thoughts, this group has been a great lifeline for the 12
years we had the -10. Just another reason I love this airplane so much.
Marcus
On May 2, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
Hi Marcus,
*warning, very long (and boring if the topic doesn't excite you*
As you may already know, I have a perspective on that now after
almost being done going thru the same things.
I had the RV-10 and wanted to teach my Daughter to fly.
In exploring other airplanes to have her learn in,
I considered building first an RV-12, but that would make
me end up with an airplane that absolutely was NOT what I
wanted as a second plane, as I wanted 2 that could easily
cruise together at similar speeds. Then I considered a
7A, but I'm SO glad that I didn't go that route. The 7A
is FAR less comfortable than other options, and it's going
to be much more of a handful to learn in than your -10.
Also, the gear and the nose gear in particular is NOWHERE
near as strong as what you'd find on the -10 or especially
the lighter -14.
I was very lucky that Van's came along with the -14 when
they did. It really is probably the perfect *performance*
trainer out there, as the main gear is SUPER heavy duty, and
so is the nose gear. The -12 is probably the best general
trainer Van's would have.
The next issue I had was that if a CFI were to teach her in
either the -14 or the -10, they would need 25 hours in
type to be listed as a named pilot. That costs more money
that would be a waste. So...I wasn't a CFI at the time but
thanks to some encouragement on this very list
(Thanks Bob!), I decided to get my CFI.
Now I was all set from an airplane and CFI perspective.
Like you, normally I would say it would be hard to teach
family, and especially a spouse, but it actually worked
out real smoothly for the most part with my Daughter.
When we first started, before I was a CFI, I started
teaching her the basics of landings in the RV-10.
No, I wasn't insured for her to be flying it at that
time, but I wanted to give her the basics of landings
and then take her to another instructor to get her
the real deal. She did do 4 hours in a C-150, with
another instructor, which was probably valuable in
itself. It may be nice to do something similar as it
gives her the confidence that someone else is going to
teach her the same things. But, I wouldn't say it's
a necessary step.
Then at this point I still wasn't a CFI, but we kept
building the -14 and flying the -10. I ended up giving
her about 25 additional hours of non-loggable instruction
in the RV-10 before I was a CFI, and she was flying
fine, to the point that I was not having to do anything
with landings or anything else.
I will say that you are probably very correct that it
will take a little longer to both solo and complete
the training in the RV-10, and it is a bit like drinking
from a fire hose when you are doing pattern work. Whereas
the 172 is very slow and everything takes it's time to
happen, the RV-10 as you know, is not. What happened
to us is that she'd hit the throttle and we'd be
off the ground, and before her brain could wrap around
what was all happening, we were passing thru 500' and
turning left for the pattern. Often times she
wasn't mentally ready to even turn until 750-1000'
because it happened so fast, and then by the time
the short crosswind leg was over, we'd hit downwind and
could be a few hundred feet higher than wanted. It just
really took time for her to mentally keep up with all
the nuances of what you have to do, when the plane could
do them faster than she could think. It's this in
particular that I think makes maybe 5 hours of 172 time
a good idea, before flying the RV-10. At least they
can slowly get the processes figured out.
On the other hand though, if you drink from a fire hose
without getting your lips torn off, you can still get
hydrated and she did absorb the material...just took a
little longer to get comfortable with it.
And, I think once she learned all the skills, the
RV-10 is really the better plane to fly, even for
training. One of the primary reasons for his is the
discussion my wife and I had. We both didn't really
want her flying some 1950-something old plane, with it's
old airframe, old instruments, and old everything, that
wouldn't be as reliable as something new. There's no
reason NOT to have a nice engine monitor to give you
good information. There's no reason not to have a great
radio. And, here's a big one...there's a LOT of
added safety when your climb rate is 1500-2200fpm, to get
you away from the ground a.s.a.p. where you DO have
a chance for a glide back to the airport if something
goes wrong. That and the fact that go-arounds in the
RV-10 are a non-issue from a power perspective.
Also, I know from experience that crosswind components
of maybe 25kts aren't impossible in the RV-10,
and it does crosswinds better than the 172 for the
most part.
So ultimately, while I would recommend every private
pilot be burdened with the fast pace of the RV-10, I do
KNOW now that it's actually something that is doable.
I would not really think it necessary to build an RV-14,
but I think if you really WANT to build another RV,
definitely choose the -14, as it will be far more
durable and comfortable. But, unless you want the
resulting airplane permanently, it's probably a waste
of money.
My daughter now has over 100 logged hours, split between
the RV-10 and RV-14, and probably 30-35 non-logged hours,
and she flies darn near as well as most of the RV people
I know. Her checkride is coming up soon when she
turns 17, and other than some brush-up on some maneuvers
I absolutely know she's ready. A couple nights ago
I took her out because it was a windy day and all of us
in the family are doing lots of crosswind landings in prep
for a trip to the islands where there aren't multiple runways.
On the way to the airport I called the AWOS phone number
and it reported winds as 190@23G32, and we have runways
18/36 and 9/27. I cringed and gave up on crosswinds and
figured she'd have her hands full doing straight in's.
(Which was true, with all the turbulence) As we flew
though I told her: "Plan to FLY DOWN THE RUNWAY ONLY,
at 2-3', on Runway 27, and just hold it off but keep
your crosswind corrections in. If and only if, you can
get everything just perfect, you can land it." It blew
me away because she flew just fine and did a couple great
landings. I checked the AWOS after touchdown and
it was reporting 180@19G28. I don't think we must have
hit the 28kt gusts. :) At any rate, she did beautifully,
and so did the plane. So, I'm here to tell you that it
is absolutely possible and fun to learn in the -10.
Now for the insurance part. When it comes to insurance,
one of the reasons I build the RV-14 was because I assumed
that I would be unable to get insurance for the -10 for her
as a student. In the end, it was a waste of money building
the RV-14 (but a waste I'm glad I did), because I was able to
insure her right away. I put her on the RV-14 first and I
think it jacked me almost $1200. Then I went to put her
on the last 6 months of the year on the RV-10 and they
added her there for $250 (covering 6 months). That was
thru Hallmark, quoted through AJG (NationAir). I did
get a little shocker at renewal time as my normally
$1700 premium is now $2925, but she's a named insured, and
still a student, and that's an annual fee.
So, while you would think building an RV or buying an
RV would be a cost saver due to insurance, I think that
you just have to get over the fact that insurance may be
available but just at a lot higher cost. Still cheaper
than buying and insuring a second plane. There was only
one underwriter willing to cover us, so your options may
be limited, but you can always explore the costs.
If insurance is impossible to obtain, I guess I'd say that
I'd still stay away from the RV-7A idea and find other
options. There is a place here in my state where you
can even lease an airplane for a length of time. About
8-10 years ago I think, I leased a cherokee 140 for 32/hr
dry with the only stipulations being 1) need to hangar the
plane and 2) need to pay for a minimum of 10 hours per
month. But, learning in that plane was not as fun as
the RV.
So, explore the real insurance cost and see what you
find. Talk to Jenny at AJG and see what she says.
If you can get the insurance at any price, I'd say
go for it in the -10. And, if you build a plane,
go for the -14. It at least builds fairly fast, and
is comfortable.
Tim
On 05/02/2018 07:27 AM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
> Ive searched the archives but came up short although I suspect there are a range
of opinions so would like to ask the question about using my RV-10 to teach
my wife to fly. First I recognize the marital dynamics that can be an issue
and thankfully we are in a place where that, for now, is just not an issue.
> So my main concern is using the -10 for initial training. My plan was to get
access to a 172 for the training but that is proving more difficult than expected.
Then I thought about building another RV-7(A) for the mission and have some
potential partners to ease the financial burden. I saw an ad for a nice project
with a 200hp IO-360 and C/S prop which is more than desired but a very good
deal. Then it occurred to me, what is really the difference between that and
my -10 from a training perspective? In fact, the -10 is less responsive so
that might be a benefit. It would definitely take her more time to be ready to
solo and prepared for her checkride, but given that any other thoughts on not
using the RV-10 for initial training? There do appear to be some insurance issues
which I am starting to look into.
> Thanks for any and all thoughts,
> Marcus
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: | Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads |
Folks
I dont often post on here but figured I would share an interesting development
in the FAA rules and also query for some help on my brakes.
First, and inspired by Tim Olson, I just concluded my commercial checkride enroute
to getting a CFI. Whats most noteworthy is that I was able to do all my checkride
in my 10. FAA just eliminated the reqt for doing any part in a complex
for commercial or CFI. Amusingly the arrow that I had been training with has
been down for three weeks for a stick governor cable that caused me to abort
my initial checkride during the run up. Im going up for my CFI later this month
with spin endorsement this weekend. Thank Tim.
Second I guess Im one of the lucky ones that got Grove wheels and brakes. Their
pads and alignment are just slightly different than Cleveland, and after just
speaking with Grove, Ive now learned that the Grove wheels are custom to a small
set of RV 10s and they are suggesting I have to order everything from them.
I have had problems from the start with their pads sticking and being brittle
and I want to get something like the Rapco discs and pads but my concern is
that the discs and pads wont fit my wheel and calipers. Does anyone else have
Grove and have suggestions on what to do?
Thanks in advance.
Andy Johnson
N13UB
Sent from my iPhone
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: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads |
Andy,
AWESOME on the Commercial! I saw that change in the rules and I think
it's great! No reason now NOT to get a commercial ticket. I sure wish
I would have had that option.
Good luck on the CFI ticket! Hopefully that will go well.
I know mine would have gone even better had I been able to use
the RV-10.
I can't answer on the Grove thing though. I have grove on the -14
but have no idea what to do about replacements other than that I
ordered my linings from Grove. And, whereas my first set of
linings on the -10 lasted 170 hours or so, as a newbie to
these planes, my first set only lasted just over 100 on the RV-14.
So I may be going thru them faster than normal on that plane.
Tim
On 05/02/2018 03:00 PM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
>
> Folks
>
> I dont often post on here but figured I would share an interesting development
in the FAA rules and also query for some help on my brakes.
>
> First, and inspired by Tim Olson, I just concluded my commercial checkride enroute
to getting a CFI. Whats most noteworthy is that I was able to do all my
checkride in my 10. FAA just eliminated the reqt for doing any part in a complex
for commercial or CFI. Amusingly the arrow that I had been training with has
been down for three weeks for a stick governor cable that caused me to abort
my initial checkride during the run up. Im going up for my CFI later this month
with spin endorsement this weekend. Thank Tim.
>
> Second I guess Im one of the lucky ones that got Grove wheels and brakes. Their
pads and alignment are just slightly different than Cleveland, and after just
speaking with Grove, Ive now learned that the Grove wheels are custom to a
small set of RV 10s and they are suggesting I have to order everything from them.
I have had problems from the start with their pads sticking and being brittle
and I want to get something like the Rapco discs and pads but my concern is
that the discs and pads wont fit my wheel and calipers. Does anyone else have
Grove and have suggestions on what to do?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Andy Johnson
> N13UB
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Private Pilot Training |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK
for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition
waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft.
>
The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in any way,
for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair assumption that
Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane.
Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father is "compensation".
-:)
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479785#479785
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads |
Just so everyone's clear: The rule change applies to the check ride, only. Commercial
applicants still need to have 10 hours of RG instruction logged. As far
as I know this still has to be in an actual retractable gear airplane. (I have
previously suggested that a -10, with a "gear up -gear down" switch that actually
does nothing other than turn on or off a few lights, should be adequate.
Maybe some software that produces horrible scrapping noises if you land "gear
up". -:) )
And, for the CFI: for the initial CFI certificate you need to go thru the FSDO,
and they will either give you the check ride, or assign you to one of a few Designated
examiners that they have approved for doing this. Does anyone know if
the FSDO inspectors or "special" DPEs will fly in an EAB? I believe they have
the right to say no.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479787#479787
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Private Pilot Training |
I agree with you. The flip side, is an experimental, whether
individually owner or in a flying club where members own a share
can be used for flight training of any of the owners, because the owners
are not compensated, only the instructor gets paid. That is part of
EAA's current program to assist formation of flying clubs.
Kelly
Pres. Chapt 1445
On 5/2/2018 5:38 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> Kelly McMullen wrote:
>> Another minor complication, depending on how aircraft is registered, AFAIK
for an instructor to teach for hire in an experimental (for other than transition
waiver) the student must have an ownership interest in the aircraft.
>>
>
>
> The actual rule is that the EAB airplane owner may not be compensated in any
way, for the use of his airplane. In this case, I think it's a fair assumption
that Tim is not charging his daughter for the airplane.
> Unless some over-zealous lawyer wants to argue that being a proud father is "compensation".
-:)
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479785#479785
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads |
Speaking from my own experience, the DPE I flew with was one of two at the
FSDO approved for doing CFI checkrides. And yes, he was willing to fly in
my 10. He took a few laps around it to check it out, but he was already
pretty familiar with RVs, and showed no apprehension to flying in it. As
you state, you still go to the main FSDO, and then the FSDO decides who goes
on your checkride. I'm still very optimistic I can do it in the 10. I know
of some inspectors that have said no to the normal certificated aircraft
because they deemed them unairworthy.
And he also stated the 10 hours 'complex' was still a rule that hadn't been
changed, but that it was being seriously looked at after the tragic accident
in Florida with an old Arrow being taken on a commercial checkride and
having a wing fall off.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Turner
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 8:54 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Looking to upgrade from Grove discs and pads
Just so everyone's clear: The rule change applies to the check ride, only.
Commercial applicants still need to have 10 hours of RG instruction logged.
As far as I know this still has to be in an actual retractable gear
airplane. (I have previously suggested that a -10, with a "gear up -gear
down" switch that actually does nothing other than turn on or off a few
lights, should be adequate. Maybe some software that produces horrible
scrapping noises if you land "gear up". -:) )
And, for the CFI: for the initial CFI certificate you need to go thru the
FSDO, and they will either give you the check ride, or assign you to one of
a few Designated examiners that they have approved for doing this. Does
anyone know if the FSDO inspectors or "special" DPEs will fly in an EAB? I
believe they have the right to say no.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=479787#479787
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: CFI and complex aircraft. |
Define "old". The Arrow in question was 2007 model. It had somewhere
around 7500 hours on it. Preliminary report indicated metal fatigue of
some sort, but no corrosion. OTOH, I flew last weekend, safety pilot, in
an Archer with similar background but just old enough to have steam
gauges, and 15,000+ hours on it. Prior to my -10, I owned a 1965
aircraft with about 6500 hours on it, prior to that a 1953 aircraft with
maybe 4500 hours.
The biggest problem with the complex requirement is that I think only
the Arrow is being produced these days. Don't know about the C172RG, the
C177RG was discontinued in 1978. The 200 hp Mooney was discontinued in
the 90s. So the majority of aircraft available are at least 30 years old.
On 5/2/2018 8:17 PM, Andy and Jen Johnson wrote:
>
> And he also stated the 10 hours 'complex' was still a rule that hadn't
> been changed, but that it was being seriously looked at after the tragic
> accident in Florida with an old Arrow being taken on a commercial
> checkride and having a wing fall off.
>
>
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! --
|