Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Steve Sampson)
2. 05:02 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Mike Hoover)
3. 06:11 AM - Power Plant Models (Randy)
4. 08:01 AM - RV9A-Turbulence (Nigel Goad)
5. 08:41 AM - Re: Power Plant Models (Glenn Brasch)
6. 08:42 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Glenn Brasch)
7. 09:11 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Harold Kovac)
8. 09:12 AM - Re: Dynon Pitot (Harold Kovac)
9. 09:15 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Harold Kovac)
10. 09:34 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Tim Coldenhoff)
11. 11:11 AM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Leon Noodle)
12. 12:15 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Dean)
13. 01:18 PM - Turbulence (Nigel Goad)
14. 04:02 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Richard Scott)
15. 04:35 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Bill Repucci)
16. 04:58 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Mike Hoover)
17. 07:43 PM - Re: RV9A-Turbulence (Charlie England)
18. 11:09 PM - Organisational advice to our new builder. (Rob W M Shipley)
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Harold, is that just the place you chose or did Dynon VANS suggest it? Also
what fitting doiid yiou use to connect onto the Dynon provided ally tubes?
Thaks, Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harold Kovac
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
Hi,
I have a Dynon non heated Pitot with a Gretz Aero mount.
It's located just outboard of the 4th rib from the wingtip, probably less
than a foot from the Van location.
Harold Kovac,
finishing up the wings so I can begin the fuselage
Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
---
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" <mikehoover@sc.rr.com>
Hey Ken,
I just finished positioning my GretzAero pitot mount kit. I am using Dynon's
heated pitot as well. I placed mine on the inboard side of the third from
outboard end rib. I first wanted to place it on the fourth rib from
outboard, but that is very close to the tie down ring and the bellcrank
bracket.
Mike
SC
90709 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hill
Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Ken Hill" <khill5@indy.rr.com>
Has anyone mounted the Dynon Pitot tube? Did you mount it in the location
specified by Van's? Is there another mounting bracket other than the Gretz
that is recommended?
I plan to use the Dynon heated unit, and would like to have the mounting
bracket ready when they begin to ship them.
Ken Hill
Plainfield, IN
Canopy, and much more to go.
N470JK (reserved)
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | Power Plant Models |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Randy" <rer51@lincsat.com>
I am building a -9a What are best model numbers of 0-320 & 0-290 for installation
as per cowling, nosewheel and other necessary clearances. I guess what I
am looking for, is the least amount of modifications. Randy
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a recent
EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces. A
Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much activity on
9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by
many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any thoughts on this before
I start writing checks.
Thanks
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: Power Plant Models |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
I think you will find all that info in your builders manual. Glenn in
Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy" <rer51@lincsat.com>
Subject: RV9-List: Power Plant Models
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Randy" <rer51@lincsat.com>
>
> I am building a -9a What are best model numbers of 0-320 & 0-290 for
installation as per cowling, nosewheel and other necessary clearances. I
guess what I am looking for, is the least amount of modifications. Randy
>
>
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
I would like to know who told you that and what he based his information on.
Glenn in Arizona -9A wings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Goad" <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a
recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much
activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias
against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any
thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
> Thanks
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
What do you want to do, aerobatics, or a lot of reasonably fast flying from
point A to B .
Stall speed is another consideration, compare the #'s on the Van site, then
you are more likely make an informed decision.
Harold Kovac, 9, wings nearly complete
-- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Goad" <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a
recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much
activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias
against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any
thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
> Thanks
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
Hi Steve, I just picked the place closest to the original Vans positios so
as not to interfere with the aileron controls.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Subject: RE: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
<SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> Harold, is that just the place you chose or did Dynon VANS suggest it?
Also
> what fitting doiid yiou use to connect onto the Dynon provided ally tubes?
>
> Thaks, Steve.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Harold Kovac
> To: rv9-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
>
>
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
>
> Hi,
> I have a Dynon non heated Pitot with a Gretz Aero mount.
> It's located just outboard of the 4th rib from the wingtip, probably less
> than a foot from the Van location.
> Harold Kovac,
> finishing up the wings so I can begin the fuselage
> Subject: RV9-List: Dynon Pitot
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
An addendum, if you check, the RV9 is rated utility category, which is as
best I can determine, better than Pipers or Cessnas
Harold Kovac
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Goad" <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a
recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much
activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias
against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any
thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
> Thanks
>
>
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Tim Coldenhoff <rv9a_000@deru.com>
Nigel Goad wrote:
> I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces.
Obviously a 6/7 builder must have told you this. Trust Van's instead.
> There also seems to be alot of bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers.
And I am biased against the 3/4/6/7/8 which is why I am building a 9a.
--
Tim Coldenhoff
#90338 - Finishing!
http://rv9a.deru.com
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Leon Noodle <vcordero@juno.com>
Nigel,
Maybe "they" are referring to the maneuvering speed (speed to not exceed
in turbulent air) of the VA which is about 112Kts and much lower than
that of other RV's, about 130kts. Also the Vne speed ( never exceed
speed) of the RV9 is lower than that of other RV's. While other RV's are
build for acrobatics the RV9 is not and has a lower positive and negative
G force rating.
No problem. That's why I am also building the RV9A.
Victor (#90317)
Daytona Beach, FL
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
Nigel
Quite some time ago, Van published the RV-9A V-N diagram in the RVator. It
shows the aircraft to be a 3.8 g Normal Category design at the 1750 pound
gross weight. Above the 3.8 g Limit Load and below the 5.7 g Design Load
there can be structural deformation but no catastrophic failure. Also this
aircraft was designed under the Part 23, 50 foot per second sharp-edged gust
criteria as opposed to the 30 fps criteria that most of the single engine
Cessnas and Pipers were designed to. The 50 fps gust does not impose 3.8 g
until airspeed reaches 180 mph IAS Design Cruise Speed and approx 4.2 g at
the 210 mph IAS Vne ( Redline ). I consider the 9A to be a very sound
design and readily accept that it does not meet the 6 g Limit and 9 g Design
loads of the Aerobatic Category. I don't have the numbers on the RV-7 and
RV-8, but the RV-6 only meets the Aerobatic Category at a reduced weight.
In addition, the 7 mph reduction in landing speed of the 9/9A is all
goodness in my book. I admit that my primary interest is in a good
cross-country airplane and I consider that the RV-9A is the best bang for
the buck in that category. I hope this information will help you make the
same decision that I did.
Dean Van Winkle Retired Aero Engineer
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Goad" <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a
recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much
activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias
against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any
thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
> Thanks
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks for all the responses.
I guess shock value should be left to the like's of Mr Stern.
I look forward to starting the 9A soon.
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have
a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something.
The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look
macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want
tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane.
I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane
rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really
fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving
300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some
getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off
altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is
less work to fly.
Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who
want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids,
midgets or small dogs.
Richard Scott
At 07:57 AM 5/15/2004, you wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At a
>recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
>forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not
>much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of
>bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear
>any thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
>Thanks
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Bill Repucci" <bill@repucci.com>
I just checked Van's web site, there are now 88 RV-9/9A's flying. If
the wings "would break in 3-4 g turbulence forces." then there would be
-9/9A parts all over the country and we would have all heard about the
wing failures.
Do you remember when the -8/8A first came out and there was a wing
failure on a demo flight? Killed in the crash was Van's demo pilot,
who's name I can't remember, and a potential customer. There was a LOT
of talk that the new spar design wasn't as good as the laminated design
used in the 3/4/6, bla, bla, bla. Well Van's tested a set of wings
built by a customer because they felt that customer built wings wouldn't
be as good as a set built by Van's staff. The wings held up to a load
greater than the design limit and 8/8A sales continues to climb and the
critics stopped being so critical. No one knows for sure what happened
but the "rumor" is that the customer just yanked on the stick and pulled
the wings off. The same thing could happen to any of the Van's designs,
if enough G's are pulled.
I also remember talking to a USAF friend of mine who said if you pulse
the stick back and forth, you can over load it very quickly w/o
deviating from your altitude and pull snap the wings very quickly. Who
knows if that happened but it is a possibility.
Note: I'm not passing judgment on either of the two people who perished
in the tragic accident, just trying to make a point. I wasn't there and
don't know what happened and the only two who do know can't say.
The short of it is, build the airplane you like and build it well.
Bill R.
RV-9
SN: 90737
Ailerons
PS. Just returned from the first Mid Atlantic Fly in in Lumberton, NC.
A friend invited me to join him in his Europa, a very nice plane but a
little to small for me. For a first event, it was fantastic! I saw a
bunch of RV's there including a very nice -9A, I didn't get the N-number
but it was nice. Spoke briefly to the owner/builder but we never
exchanged names, dumb move on my part.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Scott
Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they
have
a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something.
The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to
look
macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who
want
tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane.
I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the
plane
rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level.
Really
fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or
diving
300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some
getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts
off
altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely,
is
less work to fly.
Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who
want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids,
midgets or small dogs.
Richard Scott
At 07:57 AM 5/15/2004, you wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
>I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A. At
>a
>recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g
turbulence
>forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not
>much activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot
of
>bias against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to
hear
>any thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
>Thanks
>
>
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" <mikehoover@sc.rr.com>
Good to hear reinforcing info from professionals. It's easy to let the mind
wander off track and start worrying about stuff like this when you are up to
your elbows in ProSeal and producing more great four letter words than
bucked fuel tank rivets. I was just a sideline listener to this topic, but
thanks for the reality check. There is an article in the June 2004 Flying
magazine on page 98 that has a lot of interesting info on this very subject.
Regards,
Mike
SC
90709 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dean
Subject: Re: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
Nigel
Quite some time ago, Van published the RV-9A V-N diagram in the RVator. It
shows the aircraft to be a 3.8 g Normal Category design at the 1750 pound
gross weight. Above the 3.8 g Limit Load and below the 5.7 g Design Load
there can be structural deformation but no catastrophic failure. Also this
aircraft was designed under the Part 23, 50 foot per second sharp-edged gust
criteria as opposed to the 30 fps criteria that most of the single engine
Cessnas and Pipers were designed to. The 50 fps gust does not impose 3.8 g
until airspeed reaches 180 mph IAS Design Cruise Speed and approx 4.2 g at
the 210 mph IAS Vne ( Redline ). I consider the 9A to be a very sound
design and readily accept that it does not meet the 6 g Limit and 9 g Design
loads of the Aerobatic Category. I don't have the numbers on the RV-7 and
RV-8, but the RV-6 only meets the Aerobatic Category at a reduced weight.
In addition, the 7 mph reduction in landing speed of the 9/9A is all
goodness in my book. I admit that my primary interest is in a good
cross-country airplane and I consider that the RV-9A is the best bang for
the buck in that category. I hope this information will help you make the
same decision that I did.
Dean Van Winkle Retired Aero Engineer
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Goad" <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RV9-List: RV9A-Turbulence
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Nigel Goad <sirlegin@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I am on the verge of becoming a new builder and my choice is the 9A.
> At a
recent EAA fly in, I was told that the 9A would break in 3-4 g turbulence
forces. A Vans rep said this was not the case. Apparently there is not much
activity on 9A kit sales at present. There also seems to be alot of bias
against the 9A by many 6 and 7 builder/flyers. I would like to hear any
thoughts on this before I start writing checks.
> Thanks
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: RV9A-Turbulence |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Richard Scott wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Richard Scott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>
>
>Personnel at Van's have told me that when going cross country, if they have
>a choice, the ALL take the RV-9A. That tells me something.
>
>The only reason for choosing a -7 over a -9 is to do aerobatics or to look
>macho as one who does aerobatics. The -8 is the choice for those who want
>tandem seating, the -3 for people who want a single place plane.
>
>I have ridden in a 4 and a few 6's, but not 7's or 8's. In the 6 the plane
>rolls so nicely that you just don't want to fly straight & level. Really
>fun, but you have to stay on it or you can easily start climbing or diving
>300 fpm without realizing it. Pitch feel is really light and takes some
>getting used to. A friend with close to 300 hrs in his -6 still drifts off
>altitude without feeling it. The 9, although it doesn't roll as nicely, is
>less work to fly.
>
>Why people buy the -4 is a mystery as it is only suitable for those who
>want a 2 place with tandem seating but have no friends other than kids,
>midgets or small dogs.
>
>Richard Scott
>
A couple of good reasons are:
1. MONEY (my reason for both I've owned). -4's are much cheaper than
-6's if you are buying one already flying.
2. Handling. Boy, do they fly nice; noticably better than -6's.
If they are built light, you can still carry normal sized humans +
luggage in the back; you just have to watch GW if you have a back-seater
& you want to do acro.
Charlie
Slobovia Outernational Airport
(Those of you in striking distance of central Mississippi, please come
on down for some BBQ June 5.)
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: | Organisational advice to our new builder. |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob@robsglass.com>
Tad wrote:-
For hand tools etc. The Yard Store. And for specility tools
Cleveland or Aircraft supply. The best is a fellow finished
I second this and it's worth noting that if you call them by phone and ask about
used tolls you may be able to get good quality serviceable tools even cheaper.
I got a US Tools 3X rivet gun for $89. Excellent buy.
Regarding the organisation of the small parts. I'd finished my empennage and started
the wings before I finally decided that it was far more efficient to empty
the bags of rivets and nut plates and organise them in the small parts boxes
you can get from places like Home Depot, Sears or Dixieline. They come in
different sizes and the StackOn ones were the best I found. Put all your 470
rivets in one box and all the 426s in another. Spares can be left in the bags
until needed. Unlike the parts bins these can be closed securely when you aren't
taking rivets out. This also keeps dust, metal filings and dirt out. They
work well for nut plates, #6 and #8 screws, rod ends, grommets, bearings, AN
pipe fittings and also the smaller nuts bolts and washers. I suggest a separate
box for each kind of fastener. Label each partition with a printed label
or a Sharpie. I assume you've cut up the packing crate and used it to make a
shelf under your work bench - if so this is the perfect place to stack your parts
trays.
The rivets are far easier to use like this since the entire tray can be taken to
the part of the plane you are working on. You will also find it necessary to
place several different sizes when filling a line across the skins. The box
will put them in easy reach while you are working.
Just my .02.
Good luck everyone.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
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! --
|