The W&B thing(part 2): IS RV-Fun inversely proportional to RV-Weight?

[judoka5051]

This is a subject dear to my heart! I previously built an RV8A that weighed 975 ready to fly, and had fantastic performance. I listed how I got there in a couple of windy posts some time back. I sold the plane because the grass strip I'm on made me nervous about a turnover. I always wondered how it would have performed with more power (had 160). That bird would climb 1700fpm with 2 FAA sized people and 1/2 fuel, and cruised 205mph/2700rpm at 10,500.

So, I'm doing it again. This one's a tailwheel 8 with 190hp and a fastback, so my hopes are high. I'd like to hit the same empty weight, but plan on painting it, so I might be a little over. Never going to polish again though.....

I'm going to do all the weight saving tricks I used on the last plane, plus I'm going with the airfoil grove gear (saves 11 lbs) and home made fastback (saves 9 lbs). That's almost a paint jobs worth if I limit it to a single color.

I'm even toying with the idea of thermoforming a set of lightweight lexan shorty wing tips. Loved the roll rate of the short tips on the 8A!

[brad walton]

I just went back to "Section 2 Design Philosophy" from my construction manual dated 4/23/96. It states in part:
"We feel that an RV in its basic form with fixed pitch prop, modest instrumentation and radio, and a carburated engine, represents the best compromise."
This comports with the quote I have heard atrributed to Van of "keep it light and build it simple."

[Malndi]

A different perspective:
My 6 is a multi-role aircraft. We use it for touring, aeros, formation, etc. It does all these things well and it's equipped to enhance our enjoyment, that includes carpet, AP, and other creature comforts that add weight. Some of the extra weight comes from things that give me peace of mind, enabling more of the fun factor. Sure its feels more spritely when it's lightly loaded, but it can often be true to say that the more weight I am carrying, the more fun I'm having. The RV has a lot of capability, and we choose to use it.

[Hartstoc]

Originally Posted by BMC_Dave

I mean, your assertion does seem a little arrogant. People build planes for their particular mission. If that includes a leather interior and full AC then who are you to say they're not having as much "fun" as they could be. You know what they say about opinions.

Don't be so quick to judge others for their build choices...

Hmm- Thanks for your feedback- I'll read back through all of this and look to edit anyhing suggesting that I'm critical of anyone's particular choices. My own choices should make it clear that I'm no purist about weight here, or I'd be looking for a polished, 160 HP , Catto prop, basic VFR Airplane.

If you mean the quote itself, of course "fun" is a subjectiive term. No argument there. I suppose you could substitute terms like "performance", "safety", "operating margins", "maneuverability" , and "full-range useful load" to solve that, and I guess all of these things contribute to my own sense of fun where airplanes are concerned.

I hope you will agree that it is a good thing for builders to really think about the impact of their choices on all of these things from a well-informed point of view. It was my hope in starting these threads the conversation might lead a few builders to be a little bit less casual about choices that add unnecessary weight, but I'm not questioning their right to do so.

[pvalovich]

As a former A-4, A-7, F/A-18 pilot, I lean toward low weight max performance. As a long-leg cross country flier (I regularly fly from CA to PA with 650 nm legs) I then appreciate the advantages of cockpit comfort/redundant instrumentation/ autopilot/adequate storage.

Just like the old joke when the kid tells his mom that when he grows up, he wants to be a fighter pilot - you can't do both. It's always a compromise.

The perfect solution: own two RVs!

And hey BMC Dave - lighten up; nothing at all arrogant or judgmental in this thread. The forum is here for discussion. The world doesn't revolve around your self-centered negative opinions.

[David-aviator]

"Fun" has to be defined by individual choices and personal mission.

My take is that "fun" is an airplane that is nimble, light on controls, simple, not unduly expensive and performs reasonably well. (just me)

The speed range of any RV makes for quite a challenge in selecting a fixed pitch prop. We are fortunate to have the expertise of Craig Catto in that area and have the best possible FP prop, for about 16 pounds, if you are really into light weight.

I've had an RV with CS and two installations of Catto. What a difference!!

Not so much in fundamental performance, the CS will get you off in about 400' the FP in about 900' (nothing shabby about that) and top end is a wash. But the big difference in is how the airplane reacts to a power change when in the pattern and landing. On first flight coming off CS, speed control was behind me and the airplane. It an hour or so to get with it

So we have choices.

No sense in debating it, just build what you want. YOU WILL ENJOY IT!!

Vans airplanes are fun to fly, that's why they are so popular.

[BMC_Dave]

Originally Posted by pvalovich

And hey BMC Dave - lighten up; nothing at all arrogant or judgmental in this thread. The forum is here for discussion. The world doesn't revolve around your self-centered negative opinions.

Nah, asserting that people need to build a particular way and if they don't they're depriving themselves smacks of hubris. OP clarified his opinion though, sounds like that wasn't his intent but we can only go off what people type

Thanks for your input chief.

[Canadian_JOY]

A perspective from a person building something other than an RV...

My wife sat in my hangar-mate's RV8A. She LOVED it!
Then I showed her the baggage space available in the airplane. End of love affair!

We are now building something which will meet her requirements as well as mine. Sure, it won't handle like an RV, won't go as fast, and won't have the looks of a fighter. For me the "fun factor" will be all about taking this airplane on adventures with my wife sitting beside me, sharing the adventure.

As others have said, build what you want, fly it and enjoy the heck out of it!

(Oh I should add, our aircraft has a full IFR panel, autopilot, and heated leather seats. Some of those weight-adding items are for my fun, and some are for hers. Gotta love the spirit of compromise!)

[flyinga]

In y experience, with two vehicles (airplanes, cars....) of the same power to weight ration the lighter one will be more fun. A 150hp 1500# plane will be more "fun" to fly than a 300hp 3,000# plane.

[rph142]

Weight is certainly a factor in perceived "lightness", but I think CG and control surface trailing edge radius are far more important. I recently moved the empty CG in my -3B aft approximately 25% by installing a lipo battery and Pmags. The plane is now 1.0% lighter but the handling is greatly improved.

My ailerons feel a bit heavy relative to a Super Decathlon or Pitts and I think my small aileron trailing edge radius is to blame. I plan on building a new set of ailerons one of these days.