|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

05-24-2010, 09:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shorewood, WI (Milwaukee area)
Posts: 1,066
|
|
Crosswinds, tri gear vs TW
Although tailwheel airplanes are more demanding of the pilot in x-wind landings, airplanes do differ. I think control authority, runway factors and intangibles of handling as well as pilot proficiency dictate maximum tolerable x-wind component. I've not flown RV's enough to comment on them. Many of the Vans folks seem to prefer the nosewheel "A" models. After flying many different aircraft, i'll say my Pitts S-2A is by far the best crosswind landing machine I've flown. If you are proficient a direct 40 kt x-wind is no problem; in fact even more. When you get to this level your proficiency may make a difference even day to day. If winds are super strong and the landing runway has some width, you can land slightly across the runway and reduce the crosswind component. Actual landing speeds are then quite low. If proficiency is average then the nosewheel aircraft is less demanding for the pilot. YMMV. This is one opinion only. Reminds me of the story of the AC who kept calling for more flaps on short final: after landing the pilot said "Wow, that runway's short." The co-pilot, looking around, said "yeah, but it sure is wide!"
__________________
Bill Dicus
Shorewood (Milwaukee) Wisconsin
RV-8 N9669D Flying 12/4/14!
Flying Pitts S-2A, Piper Lance
|

05-25-2010, 07:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
|
|
[quote= In all honesty, how "hard" of an IMC condition do you expect to fly in this single engine ametuer built airplane? Light IFR sure. Moderate, if I HAD to. Heavy? No way. [/QUOTE]
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
__________________
Jeff Beckley
Des Moines Iowa
Van's RV-7A
|

05-25-2010, 08:54 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff beckley
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
|
Two things:
1. Somewhere in the builders manual it states RVs should not be flown IFR.
2. There is nothing wrong with flying IFR with any Dynon as long as it is coupled to an IFR nav source such as a G430. The same as any other EFIS.
The hard vs. light IFR thing has been beaten to death and really has very little to do with the TW vs. NW selection.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

05-26-2010, 06:59 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mendon South Carolina
Posts: 1,391
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucleus
The report on RV noseovers found that noseover rates were the same between conventional and tricycle gear models. Hope that helps.
Hans
Quote:
Originally Posted by N200PF
Really Hans... Can you post a link to "the report"? I haven't seen that yet?
- Peter
We are waiting inquiring minds want to know???????????????????
|
Has anyone seen "THE REPORT" on RV noseovers????
I and I am sure several others are really interested in reading it.
__________________
Milt Concannon
|

05-26-2010, 08:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 131
|
|
Kitplanes article
There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday, so I have not yet had time to read it. However, in skimming, I noticed that it does mention roll over accidents. I do not know how much detail is offered or what type of analysis was performed.
|

05-26-2010, 11:46 AM
|
 |
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by esjacoby77
There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday, so I have not yet had time to read it. However, in skimming, I noticed that it does mention roll over accidents. I do not know how much detail is offered or what type of analysis was performed.
|
Lots of good and interesting data and analysis in that article - but he does let you puzzle over the meaning of some of the results. (I think making the reader THINK about the data is a good idea, especially when some of it can imply different things). Doesn't really solve the Nose/tail debate, but gives you stuff to think about.
Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
|

05-26-2010, 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 3,821
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by esjacoby77
There is an article in this month's issue of kitplanes about RV accident rates. The magazine showed up in my mailbox yesterday.
|
By "this month" you must mean July issue because I don't see it in the June issue............. Subscription creep is getting out of hand........... 
|

05-26-2010, 12:39 PM
|
 |
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman
By "this month" you must mean July issue because I don't see it in the June issue............. Subscription creep is getting out of hand........... 
|
Yup July....
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
|

05-26-2010, 01:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Destin
Posts: 1,543
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff beckley
I was a little offended that you specifically made reference to amateur built as one that should no be flown IFR. Also I am proponent of building a plane for full IFR or strictly VFR. No such thing as light IFR. You are in it or you are not. Too many people build there planes with something like a Dynon and think they are safe for "light IFR". This give a sense of false security that might
make some take risks they normally would not.
|
can we put an end to the misuse of terms?
VMC= visual meteorological conditions
VFR = visual flight rules
IFR = instrument flight rules
IMC = instrument meteorological conditions
I think all of the use of "IFR" in this thread is with the intent of describing IMC
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 AM.
|