New Kit Plane
 

I just got the latest Sport Aviation in the mail and was thumbing through it and came accross a small write up on a new Kit Plane called a Ravin. Since there was a link to a web site I gave it a look and "Wow." It looks like there is another winner for builders to choose from if they want a four place plane. It's not a Van's, and it's made of plastic, but again... WOW

Be sure to watch the video. http://www.ravinaircraftusa.com/

Blue Skies,

Impressive video! The airplane was at SNF, and it's almost an exact replica of the the legendary Comanche, but it's plastic...still cool though!

I have flown one of these plastic commanche . It trued out about 180knots @75% power at 2500 feet. Control harmony was good , and I know plane is very strong. Ive seen it do a airshow aerobatic routine. Apparently the fuselage is slightly smaller than the original commanche.

The fellow who developed this plane was very thorough with all the analysis of systems, flutter etc.

Now could he please make one that looks like a scaled down Malibu [Piper] ?

Initiating a loop at 0 AGL is a bit nuts, isn't it?

Of course! But... a constant G loop will inherently end higher than you started. Still nuts.

Why would you say that?
Its all relative to your experience, skill, and exposure.
Some never do any, some at 10k', some daily in front of crowds for money.
Seems there was plenty of room for error in his execution. It was hardy nuts or dangerous.

Cost?
 

Anybody know of the cost of this kit? Aside from the relatively high stall speeds (relative to the RV10 at least), it looks like a great little airplane.

I don't know about nuts, but you can't possibly say that looping an aircraft isn't dangerous.

Regarding those who do this in front of crowds for money, the accident record isn't so good. Lots of very experienced pilots no longer with us.

On zero altitude acro, don't try this at home.

ewwwwww....
 

Plastic...Strike ONE! Looks like spam...Strike TWO! No price listed on web site and probably mondo enormous shipping costs originating from AFRICA...Strike THREE!! Yer outta there!!! :D

Very well said.

Crazy?
 

That video looks like the daily pattern work here in Bend Oregon. Lancair jockeys zipping by a 250kts or more all day long. Actually the video is a bit boring after seeing Lancair IVP Turbines flying by with their hair on fire. We had a flysafe clinic this past weekend and guess what did a high speed pass? You guessed it a Lancair? FAA gents had the swivel head on that one! :mad: Wonder if he still has a license? :eek:

Why is a loop dangerous? The RV has lots of structural margin and the ability to carry extra energy at the bottom. Perhaps you can say low alt. loops are dangerous (e.g. Thunderbird Pilot in Idaho). But a loop, for trained pilots, in capable aircraft, is a pretty safe skill.

It has been my experience that landing an airplane (and single pilot/engine IFR) is the most dangerous part of flying. For me I feel very safe landing, but being slow and close to the ground makes me think hard about what I'm doing.

I guess it depends on how you define dangerous. We know that GA is more dangerous than driving and who doesn't worry about their kids driving? My position is that all flying is dangerous and extreme attitudes make it more so. Having a control linkage problem on the back side of a loop is a pretty hairy thought, not to mention just the plain ol' overspeed issue. I'll throw in unforeseen g-induced problems with plane/pilot as well. For example, I read an account of a bailout caused by a rear seatbelt becoming tangled up with the stick during inverted spin practice. This would not have occurred under normal flight conditions and could have been prevented by a proper preflight, but the acro was involved too. Don't get me wrong, I like flying acro too, but to say that it doesn't increase the risk is unrealistic.

One of the nice wings in this class of plane ever
 

That's a nice looking Comanche. I flew the Comanche, both single and twin quite a bit. I'll going out on a limb and say that this new plastic version will not perform significantly better than a 1960's PA24-250 Comanche with Lopresti clean up and upgraded engine prop. The wing on the Comanche is absolutly a beautiful laminar flow flush riveted wing. I also would bet the weight of the original bare metal airframe verses this plastic version will be similar, if not the metal plane would be lighter. Looking at the close up pictures of the fit and finish of the cowl and swing up doors are poor. I also will bet you can buy a nice Comanche for a fraction this kit would cost to get flying.

Other wise the Video is cool. I would say any low level aerobatics can be dangerous or safely done, but even professional airshow pilots and military demo pilots crash. Fact is there is less room for error if anything goes awry. Many a low level loop or roll has resulted in the ground cometh up and smiting thee pilot mightily. The "loop" in the video was as bad an egg shaped loop thingy as any I have seen (me fly). If that was intentional to get altitude I understand, but if that's the best he could do, than he had no business doing what he did. If you do stuff low you better be good. Even the low high speed pass and near vertical pull ups he did can kill you. It has been the end of many RV'ers. A 90 degree pitch up attitude low to ground, for a pilot that never practiced it at altitude is a recipe for tragedy. A skilled pilot can minimize the risk, but it's still greater than acro at altitude regardless. I'll leave the low level stuff and higher risk to the Pro acro pilots. I am happy to do my wifferdales at altitude and pretend I am top gun.

Here is a Wikapedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Comanche (Wikapedia is awesome)

Nobody ever said 'it doesn't increase the risk' and changing the topic to inverted spin training clouds the point. I reacted to the statement that performing a loop is 'dangerous'. Increased risk does not equal danger (unless you are a lawyer).

In the context you used that word, as a pilot of an experimental aircraft who himself performs acro, it seems a bit provocative to use such langauge.

I wasn't trying to be shifty at all by mentioning spins, I was just saying that the margin of error diminishes during acro. As for using the word dangerous, I just figured that stuff that can unexpectedly kill you is, by definition, dangerous. Yes I fly acro, but I feel it is dangerous. I also bicycle through narrow rural canyons alongside crazy rush hour drivers. This too is dangerous, but I love it too much to stop. I must admit that I'm surprised at the reluctance of pilots to acknowledge that flying is inherently dangerous.

How about we just say that flying loops at 0 AGL is not something the vast majority of us should be trying and, like George said, leave it to the professionals? It is very obviously more dangerous, in relative terms, to doing it at altitude. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's probably what Steve meant and it sounds like his comment got taken out of context as it is sometimes easy to do on the internet.

I read the posts pretty carefully so I don't think there was a context problem but Steve's later posts shed light.

Steve says that flying is dangerous and therefore adding a loop to your flying by definition is more dangerous.

I agree with that.

My perspective is that the amount risk that I add by doing 'gentleman's acro' at altitude is small (I practice a lot and wear a chute on every flight) Therefore lite acro in an RV doesn't push flying from 'dangerous' to ' really dangerous'.

I think I can say that I'll agree to agree with you guys, I'd rather read about cooling drag than this stuff anyway :)

Agree 100%. RV4's RULE!!! :D