Quote:
Originally Posted by NASA515
|
And what some people call rationalizing, other people call being realistic.
All of the RV's are an engineering compromise; balancing cost, complexity (the customer has to be able to build/assemble it), and weight, against the perceived value of doing it differently. I wont argue that access couldn't have been made better. It could. But it would impact all of the factors I already mentioned.
Selling kit airplanes is a business, competing against other players in a free market. Evaluating the merits of a particular design should compare it to the entire market, not just a few examples that can be found on the internet. Compared to the entire general aviation fleet, I don't think RV's are any better or worse than the average as far as inspectability of the engine compartment during preflight. Sure, better examples can be found. I could probably also find worse examples.
The bottom line is that the design is as it is for very specific reasons.
If people choose, steps can be taken to greatly mitigate any risk involved with the reduced level of inspectability. If that feature is of high importance to someone, then maybe an RV is not the best choice for them.
Post is not a responce directed to you Bob... It is an attempt to explain to the 1000's of lurkers on VAF why RV cowls are the way they are, so call it rationalizing if you want... I call it realistic engineering.
Case in point...
Some of the most vocal rants about some aspects of the RV-12 come from the same people that rave about the handling qualities, performance, low empty weight, and great useful load. Those great attributes all require that hard engineering decisions be made, and the cowl design is definitely one of them.