RV9-List Digest Archive

Sat 09/27/03


Total Messages Posted: 3



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 01:21 PM - [ Henry Hore ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
     2. 01:36 PM - Re: EFIS & IFR (DellAngelo, Scott)
     3. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: EFIS & IFR (plaurence@the-beach.net)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:21:23 PM PST US
    Subject: [ Henry Hore ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
    From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
    --> RV9-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com> A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: Henry Hore <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com> Subject: Corrosion Inside Fuel Tank Cap http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com.09.27.2003/index.html o Main Photo Share Index http://www.matronics.com/photoshare o Submitting a Photo Share If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the following information along with your email message and files: 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to: 2) Your Full Name: 3) Your Email Address: 4) One line Subject description: 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic: 6) One-line Description of each photo or file: Email the information above and your files and photos to: pictures@matronics.com


    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
    Time: 01:36:29 PM PST US
    From: "DellAngelo, Scott" <SDellAngelo@usg.com>
    Subject: RE: EFIS & IFR
    --> RV9-List message posted by: "DellAngelo, Scott" <SDellAngelo@usg.com> Why is this? Because they are quick in roll? I am curious why people say this? I have never flown any IFR in them so I would like to know, unfortunately my only RV ride was a demo flight at Van's in N129RV. It seemed to be a very stable airplane to me. I guess it all depends on what one calls "serious" IFR too. Depending upon that answer one could argue that any plane without full de-ice, without real radar, without an engine driven by pistons, and the ability to climb well into the flight levels would really be any good. I plan to equip and use my plane IFR (I decided on the 9 because it seemed better for this). My IFR plans probably fall under most people's definition of "light" however. I just don't see how a 172 for instance would be really any better? Scott 90598 - wings on order >>>>>RV's are not appropriate airframes for "serious" IFR. Anyone saying otherwise has never flown "serious" IFR in them. An occasional IFR climb to clear destination is a much different story.


    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
    Time: 05:51:26 PM PST US
    From: plaurence@the-beach.net
    Subject: Re: RE: EFIS & IFR
    --> RV9-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net I'm puzzled by this also. I've flown my share of IFR in a Grumman Traveler. However, I have not flown an RV9. I suspect that it will be equivalent or better. Peter RV9A Empennage. On 27 Sep 2003 at 15:36, DellAngelo, Scott wrote: > --> RV9-List message posted by: "DellAngelo, Scott" > <SDellAngelo@usg.com> > > Why is this? Because they are quick in roll? I am curious why people > say this? I have never flown any IFR in them so I would like to know, > unfortunately my only RV ride was a demo flight at Van's in N129RV. > It seemed to be a very stable airplane to me. I guess it all depends > on what one calls "serious" IFR too. Depending upon that answer one > could argue that any plane without full de-ice, without real radar, > without an engine driven by pistons, and the ability to climb well > into the flight levels would really be any good. I plan to equip and > use my plane IFR (I decided on the 9 because it seemed better for > this). My IFR plans probably fall under most people's definition of > "light" however. I just don't see how a 172 for instance would be > really any better? > > Scott > 90598 - wings on order > > >>>>>RV's are not appropriate airframes for "serious" IFR. Anyone > saying otherwise has never flown "serious" IFR in them. An occasional > IFR climb to clear destination is a much different story. > > > advertising on the Matronics Forums. > http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report > ==== > > > > >




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   rv9-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV9-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv9-list
  • Browse RV9-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv9-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --