Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:02 AM - Re: Considering 640 Input Needed (steveadams)
2. 12:04 PM - Re : Re: Considering 640 Input Needed (cj.tremblay@videotron.ca)
3. 01:51 PM - Re : Re: Considering 640 Input Needed (steveadams)
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: Considering 640 Input Needed |
I'll throw in my 2 cents worth since I have over 700 hours flying the 640. While
both the 640 and the RV-10 are both all metal 4 place aircraft, they are really
not in the same class. The RV-10 is bigger, faster, more difficult to build,
and much more expensive to build and maintain. With that said, if you understand
the 640's limitations and have realistic expectations, the 640 is a wonderful
aircraft. It has great performance off the runway, is extremely stable and
easy to fly(great for IFR), has decent performance numbers in cruise, and has
been easy and inexpensive to maintain. The controls are a bit heavy at cruise
speed, but very responsive and balanced. It has a great useful load, but does
suffer from a cramped rear cabin area. If I could make one change to the plane,
I wish they would have stretched the fuselage a bit to open up the rear cabin.
As it is, I still fly with my 3 kids (ages 15, 11, and 11) fairly comfortably.
At 6'5" you will need to have the front seat pretty far back which will
effectively make it a 3 seater. Since I built from a quickbuilt kit, I can't
comment on the difficulty of building from plans. While there were a few glitches
with the kit, overall there was good support from the factory and the plans
and documentation were very good in my opinion.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280208#280208
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: Considering 640 Input Needed |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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: Re : Re: Considering 640 Input Needed |
Christian,
My plane does have the change to the rear seat, moving it back about 4 inches.
The way my plane is finished, 2 normal sized adults cannot fit comfortably in
the rear seats. I do have pretty thick seats (2 1/2 inches of foam and 1/2 inch
plywood) which does take away quite a bit of room when your talking about a
space where a few inches could make a real difference. The thinnest seat foam
you can comfortably get away with would probably be the easiest way maximize the
available space. The nice plush seats look good and are comfortable but do
waste space. An adult sitting in back will have their knees up against the seat
back. This is aggravated by the elevated floor in the rear (which brings the
knees up higher where the space is the least due to the rearward slant of the
back of the front seat). You could try decreasing the angle between the front
seat back and the lower seat cushion. A few degrees change might not be noticeable
when sitting in the front, and that could add a few inches of knee space.
Sliding the front seat too far forward will bring the average sized persons
knees in contact with the bottom of the instrument panel so there is not a lot
of leeway there. You could also decrease the angle of the rear seats back panel
to give another inch or so of knee room, but the rear seating position is already
pretty upright so that may end up a bit uncomfortable as well. Moving the
whole rear seat back any further and, due to the slope of the rear canopy,
your passengers will be hitting their heads on the roof. So as you can see I have
thought about this, but thus far the limited space has not been enough of
a liability to try and make any changes.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=280286#280286
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! --
|