![]() |
Quote:
|
I am getting really unsettled, as I have received a number of messages, e-mails and responses in this thread, suggesting that I should never exceed the 1800 lbs, Van's mentions on their website.... :(
I don't see the danger in such a small increase of the gross weight, 1850 lbs would probably already suffice, but then again I want us to be safe and don't do anything stupid. I also had a closer look at the RV-14. This certainly seems to be a nice plane, but another $20 - $30k, only to be able to haul maybe 60 lbs of camping gear or heavier baggage every once in a while, with which we would exceed the RV-7's gross weight by around 35 lb!? :confused: I guess we'll have to seriously reconsider our options: RV-7A project, RV-14A QB-kit or to simply get a Cessna 182, what we were initially planning for. My wife isn't too excited about a retract, a v-tail Bonanza might however also be an option. |
Quote:
|
Oliver, the problem with the approach of "I'll test it in Phase 1, and then I'll always remember to fly it in those limits" is that you are relying on the pilot never making a mistake later on. In the risk management business, we call that relying on an Operational Control of risk - and while that might be a good approach if there is one additional backup to a pilot mistake, it certainly puts you way out there on the risk meter if a single (simple) failure can be fatal. Heavy AND aft CG is a good recipe for pilot overcontrol.
I agree with you that you might want to look at other options, no matter where that search leads - even away from RV's. Pick the airplane that fits your requirements. |
Oliver,
Take a deep breath, relax. With this kind of money at stake, you need to take your time, think thru and check out all options (even non-RV!). Have you and yours sat in a -7? in the -14? There is no question the -14 is more comfortable, but only you or, especially, your wife, can say how much more or if the -7 is too cramped to be tolerable. As a long time 182 owner I will say it is a great airplane, and maybe that is what you want. Compared to an RV it is slow, and burns a lot of gas. But if you only take short trips that won't matter. Of course it won't do aerobatics. Building is not for everyone, and if that's not you, that's okay. It does rule out the -14 in the near term as none are built and for sale yet. |
Landing Weight
Quote:
On one fairly rare model of the DC9, the airplane was certified without a fuel dump system. Landing weight was 102,000 and takeoff 114,000. A return after takeoff with overweight landing required a fairly simple overweight landing inspection. |
Phase One
Quote:
|
Gross Weight
If you look at the history of most US light aircraft that had a long production run, in most cases you will find significant gross weight increases over the years. In many cases there were no structural changes for the weight increases.
A few examples: Piper Aztec 4800 to 5200 gross Piper Commanche 2800 original 250 to 3100 for 260 Bonanzas had a gross weight increase nearly every model, sometimes there were structural changes sometimes not. DC3's in WWII were routinely flown 30% above the original civilian weight. |
Baggage
My 7a is not finished but I'm trying to keep her light. I carry around enough already.:eek:
Sweetie and I used to travel a lot on our Goldwing. Pretty limited on baggage so we learned. A few times we shipped stuff to the destination and shipped stuff back. So basically we will learn to live within the limits of our airplane. Just a suggestion. |
Quote:
Vso, Vx, Vy, and the weight and CG location at which they were obtained are the only numbers required to be listed. That does NOT mean that these are the only numbers that require testing. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM. |