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

[Berchmans]

When I first started flying my training was in the venerable Cessna 150 and it was fun. I then purchased a 1958 172 with 145 hp Continental ?took it everywhere in Alaska, actually a quite good off airport performer, and it was fun. I then graduated to a Cessna 182, which I am still flying?the aviation version of the pickup, for me anyway and its fun. I also took on float flying when I got a float slip at Lake Hood Seaplane base after 15 years on the wait list. Citabria 7GCBC, 160 hp?and boy is it fun. In 2013 I completed construction of my slow build RV8, polished, 180 hp, Hartzell C/S prop, 1,121 lb?and it?s really fun?I have yet to find an aircraft that?s not fun, will continue to look.

[Hartstoc]

Originally Posted by Berchmans

When I first started flying my training was in the venerable Cessna 150 and it was fun. I then purchased a 1958 172 with 145 hp Continental ?took it everywhere in Alaska, actually a quite good off airport performer, and it was fun. I then graduated to a Cessna 182, which I am still flying?the aviation version of the pickup, for me anyway and its fun. I also took on float flying when I got a float slip at Lake Hood Seaplane base after 15 years on the wait list. Citabria 7GCBC, 160 hp?and boy is it fun. In 2013 I completed construction of my slow build RV8, polished, 180 hp, Hartzell C/S prop, 1,121 lb?and it?s really fun?I have yet to find an aircraft that?s not fun, will continue to look.

I like the way you think!

[Hartstoc]

I started this thread hoping the discussion might inspire a few builders to think more about the advantages of being carefull about weight. It posed the question "Is it true that RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-weight?, and I said that I thought it is true for any given configuration of prop-type, powerplant and model.

There have been some great replies that probably did get a few people thinking. I was boxed about the ears a bit by a couple of others, and a few have puzzled me, like the ones that suggested that I was telling people what to put on their airplanes, and others that seemed to think that I was saying that some RV's are not fun. There may be a few scary ones, but I'm sure that virtually all of them are a real gas to fly.

What I was really suggesting is that if two builders are building the same model to the same standard, and one of them is super careful along the way, disciplined about things like the weight of paint, goes for the lighter versions of instruments, prop, accessories, etc, and ends up with an RV that is 30-40 pounds lighter than the other one, it is going to perform better, have a longer range, be more nimble and, yes, be more "fun" than the other one. I stand by that and I think Dick Vangrunsven would aplaud its builder, but I never said the other one would NOT be fun. It would, because ALL RV's ARE FUN!

Thank you all!

[rwtalbot]

Originally Posted by Hartstoc

Is "RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight" a valid statement?

I see where you are going but I suspect you are being somewhat elitest. I built and own one aircraft. I do cross country flying, day, night, IFR and just getting into aeros. The RV series are a compromise in design before the builder starts - neither a great aerobatic aircraft, nor a truly high speed cruiser, nor a great STOL machine. Its still a fantastic machine!

Perhaps you need to take a C172 for a ride to get your RV Grin back? I did the other week (after a 14 year break) and all I can say is even an RV7A with two 220lb guys is FANTASTIC compared to that.

The one thing I would say if Van's could help out on the whole CG thing. For example you can buy an engine mount for on O-320 and that will move the engine forward 2 inches. The cowl needs to be lengthened - but it works well with a lightweight engine/prop.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by Hartstoc

I started this thread hoping the discussion might inspire a few builders to think more about the advantages of being carefull about weight...

Though your intentions were sound and I agree with them 100%, you will find 2 things standing in your way to delivering your message:

First, many of the builders here have no formal aviation experience, so the concepts of "build light" are not driven into their heads from the begining. My company is legendary for building some of the most high performance aircraft of all time and we are fanatical about weight. To utter the words "...its only a few more pounds..." is blasphemy on our property. The RV builder is not likely to know the difference between a porky bird or a lithe one once its finished unless it is a GROSS modification.

Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

Generally, the only time I see a heated discussion concerning weight on VAF is when it serves to further an argument - the CS prop vs fixed, for example. If you want to see extreme light thinking, hop over to the Biplane forum and read around a bit. THOSE guys are refreshingly fanatical about excess weight.

So fight the good fight Otis. But dont expect to change any minds. The ignorant are likely to remain that way and those of us in the industry are already on board.

[Hartstoc]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

Though your intentions were sound and I agree with them 100%, you will find 2 things standing in your way to delivering your message:

First, many of the builders here have no formal aviation experience, so the concepts of "build light" are not driven into their heads from the begining. My company is legendary for building some of the most high performance aircraft of all time and we are fanatical about weight. To utter the words "...its only a few more pounds..." is blasphemy on our property. The RV builder is not likely to know the difference between a porky bird or a lithe one once its finished unless it is a GROSS modification.

Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

Generally, the only time I see a heated discussion concerning weight on VAF is when it serves to further an argument - the CS prop vs fixed, for example. If you want to see extreme light thinking, hop over to the Biplane forum and read around a bit. THOSE guys are refreshingly fanatical about excess weight.

So fight the good fight Otis. But dont expect to change any minds. The ignorant are likely to remain that way and those of us in the industry are already on board.

Michael- Thanks for your refreshing post and excellent points. I think you have hit upon it- the wide availibility of easy to built kits and all the support services that have emerged has resulted in a population of builders who never got a good grounding in the hard realities of aircraft design and performance. This really does underline the incredible value of these VAF forums, though.

I sensed that your second point was at work and tried to address it with my previous post about all RV's being fun.

I did grit my teeth a bit starting this thread, knowing that there was bound to be some "shoot the messenger" sentiment in response, even though the message is a pretty simple statement about inviolable physical realities. I had planned to do a part 3 thread on the perils of using a fountain pen to increase max gross weight during the registration process- but maybe I'll leave that topic for another messenger.

[Toobuilder]

And this does hit close to home as I've purchased 3 flying E-AB's in my time and rebuilt each of them to some extent. In each case I have removed a substantial amount of dead weight and each airplane has a horror story of builder indifference attached. I pulled nearly 35 pounds out of my Hiperbipe, and SIX pounds off just the nose of the RV-8 by replacing miles of firesleeved hose with stainless hard line. The final tally on the Rocket is unknown, but when the builder did things like use a chunk of 2x2x.250 extruded angle as a bracket for the master relay and #14AWG wire for EVERYTHING (including the Nav lights!), you know there is a lot of low hanging fruit there.

[hohocc]

Sorry I'm late to this party.
Has anybody chimed in with dieting or toileting advice yet?
Good thread Otis, nice to know there is the occasional person out there thinking about weight.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by hohocc

...Has anybody chimed in with dieting or toileting advice yet...

Yep, did that too. Get the thyroid levels right, cut the sugar, exercise, keep the metabolism up by eating small and often...

...went from 221 to 185 in a few months. The airplane flies better too!

[Dugaru]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

This. My RV-9A is probably on the porky side (CS prop, leather, IFR instruments, autopilot). On the other hand, it replaced my trusty but decidedly pokey 1979 Warrior.

So yes, a heavy RV seems pretty good to me!! The RV has essentially the same engine as the Warrior, but the performance upgrade is.... extremely noticeable. And I get that in an airplane that appears to be as viceless as the Cherokee, and at least as easy to land. And that's really saying something.

I've also lost 20 pounds since buying it. So I lost gross weight to gain gross weight.