What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Fastback 8 Impressions

jthocker

jthocker

Well Known Member
Today I had the pleasure of flying Scott Hesha's RV8 Fastback.
It was against my better judgment that I accepted the front seat in Scott's new ride. We had just completed the final gross weight testing in his plane that also concluded the Phase 1 testing, and Scott asked if I wanted to fly it from the front? My initial reaction was "no", because I was very happy with my plane and didn't want to be "tempted", by the potential superior visibility.
Then again I have never "turned down" the command seat in any aircraft, so off we went with me up front.
HOLY COW!!! It truly is like flying a magic carpet.
Anybody that's building a fastback is in for a treat. I was teasing Scott earlier this summer when I was flying with my canopy open. That novelty wore off and now Scott has the last laugh. Oh well!
On a separate note Scott and I have nearly identical panels with Dynon Autopilots, I sat in back and took notes on his attempts to tune his AP.
We are repeat offender builders with extensive RV/Tru Trak experience.
I saw on my few brief flights before my RV8 went into paint the same excursions Scott has been experiencing. Absolute unacceptable performance!
Scott will be posting later on our findings as well as on the Dynon forum
 
jthocker said:
Today I had the pleasure of flying Scott Hesha's RV8 Fastback.
It was against my better judgment that I accepted the front seat in Scott's new ride. We had just completed the final gross weight testing in his plane that also concluded the Phase 1 testing, and Scott asked if I wanted to fly it from the front? My initial reaction was "no", because I was very happy with my plane and didn't want to be "tempted", by the potential superior visibility.
Then again I have never "turned down" the command seat in any aircraft, so off we went with me up front.
HOLY COW!!! It truly is like flying a magic carpet.
Anybody that's building a fastback is in for a treat. I was teasing Scott earlier this summer when I was flying with my canopy open. That novelty wore off and now Scott has the last laugh. Oh well!
On a separate note Scott and I have nearly identical panels with Dynon Autopilots, I sat in back and took notes on his attempts to tune his AP.
We are repeat offender builders with extensive RV/Tru Trak experience.
I saw on my few brief flights before my RV8 went into paint the same excursions Scott has been experiencing. Absolute unacceptable performance!
Scott will be posting later on our findings as well as on the Dynon forum
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the positive flight report about a fastback RV-8.

Not glad to hear (if I am interpreting correctly) that you were flying in it as a passenger while operating under Phase 1 operating limitations.
I don't mean for this start an argument of rule interpretation...it is not with in the rules, period. The only way it would be is if this particular RV-8 was shown to require two crew members for flight. I know, I know, often people argue it is safer if someone else is recording the data while the pilot concentrates on the flying duties. With all the different ways we have to record data now a days (speak into a voice activated tape recorder plugged into the intercom, Pull the data off of the Dynon, etc) this doesn't hold up very well.
My primary reason for the post is because anytime the FAA feels that rules are being ignored, they solve it by making more/stiffer rules. This then has an impact on other people that do follow the rules (we are experiencing this right now with the 51% rule re-evaluation). Announcing it on a public forum such as this makes it even worse (I know FAA people that monitor this and other forums).

I apologize in advance if I misread what was being said, and no passenger flights during Phase 1 took place.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Glad to hear the positive flight report about a fastback RV-8.

Not glad to hear (if I am interpreting correctly) that you were flying in it as a passenger while operating under Phase 1 operating limitations...
Click to expand...
Scott, I think he did make it clear that Phase I was over.
his plane that also concluded the Phase 1 testing
Click to expand...
 
We had just completed the final gross weight testing in his plane that also concluded the Phase 1 testing


I'm sure he'll accept the apology
:)


Joe
 
jthocker said:
We had just completed the final gross weight testing in his plane that also concluded the Phase 1 testing, I sat in back and took notes on his attempts to tune his AP.
Click to expand...

Like I said if phase 1 was completed, then I apologize.
It was the "we (plural) had just finished the gross weight testing", and "I sat in back and took notes on his attempts to tune his AP" parts that made it look to me like a passenger was involved during phase 1.
 
Which fastback??

Is the plane equipped with the Show Planes fastback, and the tip over canopy, or one of the setups that retain the sliding canopy??

Your comment about superior vis makes me suspect the former-----

Thanks in advance.
 
Phase 1

Scott,
I always appreciate your posts. Good solid, experienced advice that always rises above some of the hysteria sometimes present. That being said;

Let me be very CLEAR! I do my very best to avoid busting regs!

The local FAA inspector, not DAR, and the same gentleman that has done all my inspections over 18 years, presented myself and other local builders their Operating Limitations.
In the earlier years he made it clear "no passengers during Phase 1".

I don't know exactly when the FAA changed their policy, but in July 04 when we were discussing the Op Lims. for my RV6A. He stated that there was an accident, that involved a sand bag being used as ballast, that became unsecured and jammed a control. This resulted in a fatal crash.
The FAA then changed their interpretaion of required crew. This inspector is not a new guy, and he gave us examples of when we could and should use a person as an "Additional Crew Member". Acting as "ballast" is an acceptable duty, as is "data logging", and traffic watching.
When we carry an ACM, they are to be there for a specific purpose, and this is allowed.
 
autopilot problems...

Lost in the settling dust about passengers/ no passengers is the info that he was having problems with the autopilot. Is this a ongoing problem with the Dynons or just an isolated glitch. I'm about ready to drop some $$ on autopilot servos but don't want to buy a brand that has problems. What's happening?? Thanks!
 
ok so this might be a total new-guy question but...

You can fly an RV-8 with the canopy open? do you mean cracked open a small amount and only during slow flight? this is an interesting novelty for a guy like me who likes low and slow open flying (cub and stearman)
 
jthocker said:
The local FAA inspector, not DAR, and the same gentleman that has done all my inspections over 18 years, presented myself and other local builders their Operating Limitations.
In the earlier years he made it clear "no passengers during Phase 1".

I don't know exactly when the FAA changed their policy, but in July 04 when we were discussing the Op Lims. for my RV6A. He stated that there was an accident, that involved a sand bag being used as ballast, that became unsecured and jammed a control. This resulted in a fatal crash.
The FAA then changed their interpretaion of required crew. This inspector is not a new guy, and he gave us examples of when we could and should use a person as an "Additional Crew Member". Acting as "ballast" is an acceptable duty, as is "data logging", and traffic watching.
When we carry an ACM, they are to be there for a specific purpose, and this is allowed.
Click to expand...
If the FAA has changed their interpretation of the "no passenger" ruling, they have not passed it on to the DARs. Every year at the DAR seminars, this is discussed. There have been some FAA inspectors who have "OKed" this practice, but the rule, or interpretation has not changed to my knowledge.
 
Mike

I'm sure Scott will chime in here, but as I recall there were times Scott wondered if he'd made the right choice because we were doing canopies at about the same time and I was finished way before him on the canopy front.
As to front seat shoulder room/headroom, probably the same.
Panel space, I'm not sure. Panel access is superior with the fastback, as there is a fiberglass cover over the top of the instrument panel that is removeable(20-30 #6 screws).
Only down sides I can see are; any time you deviate from the plans, it's way more work, and rearward vis. is restricted somewhat by the new turtledeck.

On the subject of rear visibility, if you subscribe to the first rule of Italian Driving...."Whatza behinda me iz ovva no concerna!"(From the movie Gumball Rally) it shouldn't matter much.:D
No offense Luca!;)
 
Jon, thanks for the book report.

I am in the planning/dreaming stages of an 8 build-----and the Show Planes canopy is on the list big time.

I have only sat in an stock 8 once, and in a Show Planes tip over once, and therefore am a bit limited in my empirical knowledge.

By the triple 8s in your sig, seems like you might be a good reference source.

FFIW, I found the shoulder room to be just enough better in the SP to allow me to fit.
 
Mel
My inspector seemed to indicate the interpretation came from OK City, and he was admant that an ACM was OK, and that in the event of an accident that ACM better not state to him "I was just along for a ride".

Our FSDO here in Cincinnati has for the most part, very "pro" general aviation attitudes. As opposed to an extremely strict interpretation of the regs., if you know what I mean. They're good people and I never hesitate to ask for their opinion on regs.

Best Regards
 
Mike
Have you sat in an 8 with the Tall Pilot conversion? I have one in my hangar and you're welcome to try it if you're ever in this neck of the woods.
Best regards
 
Jon, no, I have not tried the tall pilot version-----was not aware of it in fact---thanks for the offer, but I doubt I will be in your area any time soon.

But, I do appreciate the offer though.

I dont think that height is the issue, it is that I have really wide shoulders, and hit the side rails when I put my arms down into the cockpit as when holding the stick and throttle.

I would assume the tall option lets you sit lower in the fuse, for the purpose of more head room------does that place the shoulder area below the side rails???
 
"...wondered if he'd made the right choice because we were doing canopies at about the same time and I was finished way before him on the canopy"


But, but, but...Bryan told me it would be easier! :rolleyes:


Still really looking forward to that "magic carpet" sensation!




Mike, I have wide shoulders as well. I wear a 48L coat. I've always made it work in an airplane...T-37, T-38, Decath, Doug's -6, Danny's -8. I didn't go with the Show Planes kit for this reason, but for others. As soon as it gets here, I'll get the rails installed. I'll take some measurements for you. After the debur/dimple/rivet--once I can get in--I'll get you some pics. I'm basically dead in the water waiting for the kit to get here.

http://picasaweb.google.com/jferraro17/Public#5286092163418246482

Joe
 
Last edited:
Fastback

Just thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth here, since it's my airplane. I think the Showplanes conversions ads to your build time over the standard canopy. I didn't build the other way, but I built my RV-6 as a slider. They both take too long, but with Showplanes, there's more fiberglass work. It's not hard, just a lot of glassing, filling and sanding if you want a nice fit and finish - and I do. The time you spend will be offset by the time you save building the fuselage with the match-drilled standard kit. It took me no more than 2 months to get the fuselage to the finishing stage. It makes the QB fuse seem too expensive (in my opinion). Visibility as Jon says is superior and it seals very well - no wind blowing down the back seater's neck. Speaking of the back-seater, it was with my FAA examiner's recommendation that I had Jon in the back seat during the final step of my phase I. I also had 4 bags of ice-melt salt, a large bag of Kingsford charcoal, and a case of beer along with a svelte Captain Thocker to bring us up to 1800 lbs. This is the only flight I did that and I agree with the FAA that it is a far safer way to complete this important part of the phase I testing. As far as autopilot performance is concerned, I flew again after I dropped Jon off with results you can read about here on the autopilot post or on the Dynon forum. Dynon is working with me directly to remedy the problems and I'm sure Jon will be too, because he was experiencing the same thing prior to taking his RV-8 to the paint shop. For the poster wanting pictures, I'll post them as soon as it comes back from the paint shop later in January. Monday we take mine to the paint shop and while I'm taking it apart, we'll also be putting Jon's back together to fly home. He'll be posting pictures of his in about a week. The RV-8 (or any RV) is a wonderful, fun airplane that you definately won't regret building, autopilot or not. If you decide to have an autopilot, the setup Dynon has come up with is the best I've seen in an affordable system. I'm confident they'll fix the problems some of us are experiencing, because some are not experiencing any problems. If they can't fix it, they'll make it right. If you're months away from flying, don't worry. No matter what ends up happening, you'll know which way to go when the time comes. The TruTrak brackets and wiring harness work just fine with a Dynon autopilot - ask me how I know...

Scott
 
In case anyone's wondering, I requested a case of DOGFISH HEAD 90 Minute India Pale Ale for the additional ballast, in case we went down in the wilderness. Scott decided that Miller Lite was good enough, so thankfully we completed the test hop successfully.:D
 
Mike
The tall pilot option is a direct bolt in replacement for the mid cabin brace.
The geometry of the support angles is changed on the brace, thereby effectively moving the horizontal tube rearward 2-1/2 inches.
You then move the seat hinge on the floor back a corresponding amount, shorten the seat belt anchors, and install an RV4 bent rear stick(to clear the seatback).
The only drawback is ingress/egress for the back seater is a little harder for a larger person.
Front seat shoulder room could possibly be very slightly less due to the fuselage taper(maybe 1/4-1/2 inch?).

Happy New Year
 
Scott
I was going to suggest, no pic's til after paint.
You'll are going to have to wait awhile but it'll be worth the wait.
Rick Gray.......You better have something really good up your sleeve for Sun n Fun, my money is on Scott for a major award!;)
 
Thanks for the info.

jthocker said:
Mike
The tall pilot option is a direct bolt in replacement for the mid cabin brace.
The geometry of the support angles is changed on the brace, thereby effectively moving the horizontal tube rearward 2-1/2 inches.
You then move the seat hinge on the floor back a corresponding amount, shorten the seat belt anchors, and install an RV4 bent rear stick(to clear the seatback).


Happy New Year
Click to expand...

Nope, dont need that, not with a 30" inseam.

Thanks for the explanation, and a Happy New Year to you also.
 
jferraro16 said:
Mike, I have wide shoulders as well. I wear a 48L coat. I've always made it work in an airplane...T-37, T-38, Decath, Doug's -6, Danny's -8. I didn't go with the Show Planes kit for this reason, but for others. As soon as it gets here, I'll get the rails installed. I'll take some measurements for you. After the debur/dimple/rivet--once I can get in--I'll get you some pics. I'm basically dead in the water waiting for the kit to get here.

Joe
Click to expand...

Joe, thanks for the offer, however I have already found out that the difference is enough for me. IIRC, it is in the area of an inch and a half total.

Hope your kit arrives soon.
 
jthocker said:
Mel
My inspector seemed to indicate the interpretation came from OK City, and he was admant that an ACM was OK, and that in the event of an accident that ACM better not state to him "I was just along for a ride".

Our FSDO here in Cincinnati has for the most part, very "pro" general aviation attitudes. As opposed to an extremely strict interpretation of the regs., if you know what I mean. They're good people and I never hesitate to ask for their opinion on regs.

Best Regards
Click to expand...

Scott Hersha said:
Speaking of the back-seater, it was with my FAA examiner's recommendation that I had Jon in the back seat during the final step of my phase I. I also had 4 bags of ice-melt salt, a large bag of Kingsford charcoal, and a case of beer along with a svelte Captain Thocker to bring us up to 1800 lbs. This is the only flight I did that and I agree with the FAA that it is a far safer way to complete this important part of the phase I testing.

Scott
Click to expand...

I in no way wish to start an argument...this is primarily for our "other listeners".:)

It appears that Scott and Jon operated within the guidelines of their local representative of the FAA, but I highly question his wisdom in making this approval. It also appears that they (Jon at least) are far from being novice RV pilots and they were probably at a lower level of risk than it might be in the same situation only with other people, but risk is risk just the same.

Using the argument that an accident was caused by improperly anchored ballast is a pretty flimsy one. If he has a concern about it then admonish all builders to construct a box to belt into the seat position (and baggage area if it is open to the cockpit such as in a side by side model) for carrying ballast weight. Problem solved.

The problem I have with this, is that their is other flight testing requiring the use of ballast weight that should be completed. In Scott and Jon's example there was probably not too much risk if it was just testing to gross weight (as long as it was a more mid range C.G., Scott never mentioned which baggage areas contained all of that stuff they carried). In my opinion,testing of the full C.G. range is more important than testing to full gross weight (but they are both important).

If the point of this particular representative of the FAA is valid, then it would also be acceptable to carry human ballast when doing testing at the aft C.G. limit.
There is more than one accident that can be attributed to an RV pilots inexperience with flying near the aft end of the C.G. envelope, and who knows how many close calls ( I can't even begin to count the # of stories I have been told).

Aft C.G. and gross weight testing are as much for the training of the new RV pilot as they are for testing the airplane. Any given airplane may be fully controllable at it's aft C.G. limit (what we are supposed to prove in our testing right?) if it is being flown by a pilot that is familiar with the handling characteristics of that particular airplane. Until the pilot is familiar, it is foolish (in my opinion) to risk injury (or worse) to another person.

The FSDO (and DAR's) in my local area are also very pro Sport/General aviation, but as far as I am aware, none of them will approve an Additional Crew Member to act as ballast or for any other reason.
If Oklahoma City had issued a change of rule interpretation, I think a lot more people would know about it.

We now return you to your originally initiated thread subject...
 
Scott
You have valid concerns and make valid points. I agree that an inexperienced RV pilot should come up with a way to ballast the airplane for aft CG testing without an ACM. Scott H. and I are both very familiar with the handling characteristics of an RV at aft CG and were not testing that scenario. We were testing for Stall speeds and climb speeds to be included in the Phase 1 sign off. The ballast was equally distributed between the fwd. and aft baggage areas so as to have a mid range CG. I might add, the Beer was placed in the aft baggage, as we believed that to be the more protected area.;)

I do take the flight test phase seriously. I did my signature line, not as a way of bragging , but as a way to let people know, if I offer advice or an opinion, it comes from experience. With that in mind, Scott, your original point is valid. An experienced RV pilot potentially, advocating an unsafe procedure. In the future I will try to moderate myself better.:D
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
The FSDO (and DAR's) in my local area are also very pro Sport/General aviation, but as far as I am aware, none of them will approve an Additional Crew Member to act as ballast or for any other reason.
If Oklahoma City had issued a change of rule interpretation, I think a lot more people would know about it.

We now return you to your originally initiated thread subject...
Click to expand...
I just talked with Brad Outlaw who is "over" the DAR seminars. He assured me that there has been no change to the interpretation that he is aware of. He stated that unless the aircraft specifically requires a crew of 2, there shall be no other occupants in the aircraft during phase I flight testing.
 
Well, it looks like not only do I have to keep my FAA medical doctor in my prayers, I'll have to keep my local FAA inspector in them also.:D
 
Jon,
Your experience is not all that unusual. I have heard of several FAA inspectors recommending similar things.
There was a guy in the Ft Worth MIDO that recommended to an S-LSA manufacturer that they should do their flight testing with 2 people. The "no passenger" rule for production flight testing of light-sport aircraft rule was originally worded exactly like the amateur-built is. It was later reworded to say that "The test pilot will be the sole occupant of the aircraft."
The problem is, although you local guy is in control of your situation, he does not have the authority to circumvent the rules. It can be a bit of a sticky wicket.
 
Mel said:
I just talked with Brad Outlaw who is "over" the DAR seminars. He assured me that there has been no change to the interpretation that he is aware of. He stated that unless the aircraft specifically requires a crew of 2, there shall be no other occupants in the aircraft during phase I flight testing.
Click to expand...
Brad is a good guy and knows his stuff and all the FAA's stuff and if said there has been no change, then, there has been no change.
 
Well.....compliments don't get much better than that now do they....thank you very much :).

Scott's RV6 was very nice.....I'm sure his new plane is of the same quality!

I'll see if I can't whip up something for Sun 'n Fun :rolleyes:.

jthocker said:
Scott
I was going to suggest, no pic's til after paint.
You'll are going to have to wait awhile but it'll be worth the wait.
Rick Gray.......You better have something really good up your sleeve for Sun n Fun, my money is on Scott for a major award!;)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top