And Now for Something (slightly) Different

[Ironflight]

One of the hazards (I have discovered) of being a repeat offender and building another RV is the tendency to recreate the same airplane that you built the first time. Sure, at our house we are building an RV-3 rather than the -8 I built before ? I am not talking about the same model. I am talking about making the same decisions on equipment, capabilities, and requirements, ending up with a plane that has capabilities identical to the one you built before and begging the question ?do we need two planes that serve the same purpose?? While RV?s can be economical, it can be hard to justify such extravagance.

It pays to keep this in mind when deciding on the specific airplane configuration items that you choose. Of course, the best way to do this is probably to set down, in writing, what you want the new airplane to be, and why you are building, before you even start. I didn?t really do this at first, but have found it to be a more valuable tool than I thought it would be. Without such guidance, I inevitably fall in to the trap of deciding that the decisions I made on the first plane were good, so why should I change them the second time around? Well?.yes, I still think the decisions I made in building the Valkyrie were good ? but we are not building another Valkyrie.

Whereas that airplane was designed to be my ?ultimate? traveling and fun machine, the RV-3 is going to have more of an emphasis on the pure delight of a small, nimble machine that can also be used for traveling. As I frequently put it, why haul the big airplane around if Louise or I need to go someplace alone with personal luggage? IFR capability is important, but since we will eventually be living in the arid west, that capability will be less important than in the -8. And if the weather is really lousy, the -8 is always there to fly! (And the Valkyrie?s level of redundancy would be had to duplicate in the size of the RV-3 anyway.)

Another consideration that goes into choosing equipment and configurations is the fact that I enjoy flight testing and helping in the development of new systems. This is probably one of the big reasons that we are putting a Garmin G3X system in the airplane. I am not, by any means, going to abandon my GRT equipment choice in the -8 (as I have told many people, that is my ?Go To? machine if I need serious weather flying capability), it just means that I can have the same involvement (and fun) with the G3X development team as I have had with the GRT EFIS guys in the years I have been flying it. The GRT system was brand new when I started flying the Valkyrie, and I have gone through both hardware and software upgrades in the past five years that have been fun and exciting. I never dreamed that it would become as capable as it is today ? never bargained for the Synthetic Vision and redundancy that it can provide. In a similar way, I hope to get a lot of professional enjoyment out of watching the G3X develop from it?s original release, and to contribute in the development of new and better features by testing and feeding back the results to the engineers at Garmin. It?s ?what I do?.

Of course, being an engineer, no decisions are made (by me) strictly because it is what I want to do. I go through the same requirements process that I have described to many people. Determine what the airplane needs to be, evaluate those performance requirements for necessary equipment needs, develop (from that) the specific systems that will meet those needs ? and then go shopping to see how many different ways those needs can be met. Once you have a couple of ways to solve the problem from a technical standpoint, you can start injecting elements such as cost, desire, and various intangibles. Many people misinterpret the decision making process by assuming that it will always point out the ?best? solution, objectively. This isn?t always true. What it will do is tell you which solutions fall ?above the line? ? meeting all of the technical requirements. You then have several solutions from which to choose, based on the intangibles.

But getting back to my original premise ? it takes a conscious effort to decide to do things differently as you build you second (third, fourth?.) airplane. It is very easy to go down the same path as before. A mental tool that I use to make sure I don?t get lazy is to make sure that I always identify at least one alternative to any decision that I make (?There are ALWAYS alternatives? ? Spock). I might not choose them ? they might be poor solutions ? but the act of having to choose between options forces me out of the single path mindset. Of course, if you have done something on the first airplane that worked well, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel simply for the sake of not repeating yourself! You simply have to decide where you want to put your effort. I rarely make airframe changes to a Van?s design ? it?s hard to do better than Van ! But when it comes to equipment and accoutrements, it is fun to do a little personal engineering.

Our RV-3 will hopefully be a delightful mix of superior handling and cross-country chariot for a person and light baggage. And for the critics who have already asked ?why put an EFIS in an RV-3?!??, my new answer (after playing with the G3X demo panel at OSH) is ?because it is way lighter than just about any conventional panel I could think up!?

Paul

[jbDC9]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

why haul the big airplane around if Louise or I need to go someplace alone with personal luggage?

Ha! That's gotta be a first, calling an RV-8 the "big" airplane! Still seems pretty small to me... but then again, the -3s are pretty tiny.

I really dig the idea of an RV-3 project in addition my -8, but like you said, the capabilities are fairly similar... do I really need that? So, when I wandered by the Sonex display at OSH I got a bit excited about the Onex... a tiny single seat taildragger with folding wings and an AeroVee "VW" engine. Inexpensive, looks easy to build and should be lotsa bang for the buck for just farting around locally at 4 gph. If only it'd be doable with an open cockpit, but the Sonex guys say that it'll need and have a canopy. Sure looks like fun for going out and boring some cheap holes in the sky on a nice evening...

[Chino Tom]

With a single screen G3X, is it big enough to view flight instruments, GPS map and EMS
all at the same time? All you would need in the panel is a backup
ASI and a turn coordinator (Trutrak pictorial pilot A/P). If you put a sl-30 and
x-ponder you would have basic IFR. A neat light weight package that is VERY
capable. How many weather subscriptions do you have Paul , just kidding..
you're going to need quick disconnect fittings for your XM antenna!

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by Chino Tom

With a single screen G3X, is it big enough to view flight instruments, GPS map and EMS
all at the same time? All you would need in the panel is a backup
ASI and a turn coordinator (Trutrak pictorial pilot A/P). If you put a sl-30 and
x-ponder you would have basic IFR. A neat light weight package that is VERY
capable. How many weather subscriptions do you have Paul , just kidding..
you're going to need quick disconnect fittings for your XM antenna!

That's why we're going with a dual-screen, with a radio stack between the legs (ala Randy Lervold). I like display real estate! But if it was going to be VFR, a single screen would work out pretty well. It came down to thinking that we could go single screen and transfer the 696 in and out of th plane, or just buy the second display unit and make better use of the cockpit space (too small for the portable 696, really....)

I try not to count XM subscriptions!

[Scott Hersha]

A fun and interesting 'dilemma' for sure, and one I've thought of several times. When you are in a position to have two airplanes, I think you need to think in terms of your 'fleet', and not that you have two individual airplanes. The RV-3 has been in my dreams in a two ship fleet, but my RV-8 wouldn't be there. Ship #2 would be an RV-10. The -10 would be used for cross-country trips with my wife and the copious quantities of stuff. It would, as a necessity, be IFR/auto-pilot equipped. The RV-3 would be light and simple for the 90% type of flying that I do that's by myself. If the weather is bad, I take the -10. My wife isn't a pilot, but she likes to fly if there's a place to go (not local) and she doesn't like getting there sitting tandem. If I could find 3 or 4 RV guys to go together on a -10, I don't think we would have scheduling conflicts, because most of our flying would be done in our 2-seat, or 1-seat RV's (a requirement for consideration in the partnership). My equipment in my fun everyday airplane would be far different from the traveling machine. My RV-8 isn't a bad compromise, because most of my flying is solo and relatively local, but if I'm dreaming, I want a cross country airplane with room, comfort, and capability, plus a simple, fun, and more economical airplane for my usual flying. 'Economical' is relative of course..... two airplanes??? Who am I kidding!!!

[Special Delivery]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

<snip>... it just means that I can have the same involvement (and fun) with the G3X development team as I have had with the GRT EFIS guys in the years I have been flying it. The GRT system was brand new when I started flying the Valkyrie, and I have gone through both hardware and software upgrades in the past five years that have been fun and exciting. I never dreamed that it would become as capable as it is today – never bargained for the Synthetic Vision and redundancy that it can provide. In a similar way, I hope to get a lot of professional enjoyment out of watching the G3X develop from it’s original release, and to contribute in the development of new and better features by testing and feeding back the results to the engineers at Garmin. It’s “what I do”.

Paul

Paul-

Not only has GRT benefited from your background, experience, and personal contributions throughout the development of their product line, every user of an experimental EFIS has benefited from your efforts either directly or indirectly.

I'm excited that you have agreed to assist Garmin in the continuing development of their G3X system, and I must say that Garmin (and the rest of us who can't afford G3X) are indeed fortunate to have you on board. I believe your statement "It's what I do" is somewhat simplistic when describing your contributions to the experimental market. It's my opinion, and the opinion of others I talk to, that you consistently go above and beyond all expectations. I think I speak for the majority of our community when I say "Thank you Paul for your past efforts and for your cheerful willingness to share your knowledge and experience".

Side note... can you effectively assist Garmin in the development of the G3X without having BOTH a GDU375 and GDU370 in your new RV-3? I'm just sayin'... Also, can we assume that you already have permission from Louise for a limited amount of flight time?
Edit <Dual screen question answered in previous post... guess I type sloooow>
Personal regards,

[Mike S]

No disrespect to Garmin, but MGL has a nice setup for controlling the radio from the EFIS, as I recall. Remote radio that is

This might be even more efficient in weight reduction, and panel space usage.

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by Mike S

No disrespect to Garmin, but MG has a nice setup for controlling the radio from the EFIS, as I recall. Remote radio that is

This might be even more efficient in weight reduction, and panel space usage.

Well, you're probably right....but then I wouldn't have as good of an excuse to put that radio stack between the foot wells - very "fighterish"....

And thank you Ernie - we'll see how much Garmin likes it when I try to convince them that shey should provide database updates to their experimental customers for nothin'....

[LarryT]

I thought perhaps they were following the "Polaroid Philosphy." :-)

LarryT

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by LarryT

I thought perhaps they were following the "Polaroid Philosphy." :-)

LarryT

Ok, I am intrigued. What is the "Polaroid Philosphy"?