VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-3
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-11-2011, 09:39 AM
N395V's Avatar
N395V N395V is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mendon South Carolina
Posts: 1,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rph142 View Post
If those pics dont make someone want to build a 3 then nothing will. .

Boy Howdy!!

I have been cogitating building a 3 for close to two years. My better half has really let me know that would not be wise until I unload one of the other planes.

I am gonna have to quit looking at Pauls posts cause they are making me want to sneak off with the checkbook and order a kit.
__________________



Milt Concannon

Last edited by N395V : 01-11-2011 at 09:40 AM. Reason: sp
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-11-2011, 10:48 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
Default Bingo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
Totally amazing that a design that began life as a day/vfr sport plane can be transformed to an all-weather interceptor with synthetic vision, WAAS-guidance, a digital autopilot, terrain, and traffic warnings, etc., all at about the same weight as the original.

The only thing better than a G3X is two G3Xs!
I think that you've nailed the point there Dave - one of the things that I am finding that I find most interesting about this build is the idea that we are building a much more capable airplane than it was originally designed to be, and doing it with very little weight gain - all because of the advances in modern avionics.

Let's face it, human flight went from kitty hawk to the moon in 66 years, yet our basic airframes have now changed little in the past what, forty? The major advances in aviation have been in avionics, not aeronautics in the past several decades!

And yup - the second G3X screen really doesn't cost much once you've bought the initial package. Just think - a panel blank is only $32.....very easy to replace....scrape together the pennies, and you'll probably end up lighter than you are now!

Oh, and Milt - you can just tell her that you can fly an RV-3 for an hour on the gas that it takes to start, warm up, and taxi the Radial.....

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
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-11-2011, 10:54 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
Default What I'd like to know is.....

....whether or not Louise does acro. Have you given her any dual in either the Val or Mikey?

Methinks that Louise will be rather tempted to get the belly oily once Jr. flies

Best,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga

It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132


Dues gladly paid!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-11-2011, 11:04 AM
Bullseye's Avatar
Bullseye Bullseye is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 557
Default

Hey Paul.

I notice that you have a guarded start switch on the right side of the panel.

Does this mean you're holding the stick back (tailwheel) with your knees during start?

I've been tempted to put a guarded "starter enable" switch on the panel and then a recessed "starter engage" button in a non-inadvertent place on a stick grip. That way, one hand on the throttle, one holding the stick back and engaging the starter. But I'm also cognizant of the "Adding complexity and failure modes" discussions resulting from this choice.

I know there have been lots of posts and opinions posted about holding the stick back or not... I'd like to hear your version.

Thanks in advance.
__________________
Andrew Z.
Engineering Flight Test Pilot/Engineer, CFI-A, CFII, ATP
RV-7 in work (See my build log.)
Empennage...Done (except rebuilding the rudder.)
Wings...Halfway complete.
2018 Dues Paid

Last edited by Bullseye : 01-11-2011 at 03:03 PM. Reason: Changed "Pau" to "Paul."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:02 PM
Alan Carroll's Avatar
Alan Carroll Alan Carroll is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N999ZA View Post
Hey Pau.

I notice that you have a guarded start switch on the right side of the panel.

Does this mean you're holding the stick back (tailwheel) with your knees during start?

I've been tempted to put a guarded "starter enable" switch on the panel and then a recessed "starter engage" button in a non-inadvertent place on a stick grip. That way, one hand on the throttle, one holding the stick back and engaging the starter. But I'm also cognizant of the "Adding complexity and failure modes" discussions resulting from this choice.

I know there have been lots of posts and opinions posted about holding the stick back or not... I'd like to hear your version.

Thanks in advance.
I have my start button on the stick, wired through the ignition switches and a normally-closed oil pressure switch. The starter won't activate unless I have an ignition switched on, and won't activate if there is oil pressure. This setup has worked great, but doing it again I'd probably go with a panel-mounted button just for simplicity. With proper use of the throttle I think there's little risk of nosing over during startup.
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Andy Hill's Avatar
Andy Hill Andy Hill is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
With proper use of the throttle I think there's little risk of nosing over during startup.
... and with improper use of the throttle, there is a risk of a noseover wherever the stick is

Also important are the brakes - ensure they are off, but covered, and a clear area ahead.

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:03 PM
Black8's Avatar
Black8 Black8 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birmingham,Alabama
Posts: 62
Default

Paul, the panel looks great. I sold my 8 last year, and don't tell the wife, but I just ordered the preview plans for the 3B!!! It won't be long now till the rest is ordered and construction begins. I read on the post that you were using some CB's as switches. Just some trivia but Willie Messerschmidt did the same thing on the BF-109. I assume that with 33,000 of the type having been built that CB's work really well in place of switches in a cockpit with limited space. I can't wait to see your 3 finished. Joel McMillian
__________________
Joel McMillian VAF#1954
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:23 PM
mvs163 mvs163 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 109
Default Weight ?

Just an observation, honest.

One of the great things about building is the freedom to customize and make these machines our own but isn't it interesting how acceptable it has become to build a 750lb empty,1100 lb gross wt. design, at almost 900lbs empty and pick a new gross wt. of 1300lbs...an almost 20% increase.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:25 PM
sandifer sandifer is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 664
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
Totally amazing that a design that began life as a day/vfr sport plane can be transformed to an all-weather interceptor with synthetic vision, WAAS-guidance, a digital autopilot, terrain, and traffic warnings, etc., all at about the same weight as the original.
Keep in mind the original weighed about 690 lbs! Mine weighed the same, since it was set up exactly like the prototype, including the O-290G. Most new ones are around 800 lbs. The -3 is the plane I'd want to come back to when I get rid of the Pitts.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:56 PM
Andy Hill's Avatar
Andy Hill Andy Hill is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 976
Default

Our target is 800lbs basic, and constrained to a gross of 1175lb (UK). This is with IO-320, C/S Prop [has to be MT really], Inverted system. It will be a challenge, but I do know our avionics bill will be somewhat smaller than Paul's

Andy
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV-3B in s l o w build
RV-8tors
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.