How long have T-34's been around? Bonanza's?
Long enough for the T-34 to be grounded by an emergency AD on the wing spars. And seriously, how many F33 Bonanzas are around and how many were actually subjected to lots of acro.
How long have T-34's been around? Bonanza's?
Long enough for the T-34 to be grounded by an emergency AD on the wing spars. And seriously, how many F33 Bonanzas are around and how many were actually subjected to lots of acro.
That's the point. Things happen over time...
Yes, I know the operational environment that caused the AD for the T-34.
Yep, RVs are made of the same "non-experimental" aluminum as any other airplane, and do not have an eternal fatigue life. But if I had no choice but to fly through a T-storm, I'd still choose an RV over a 180.
No one "chooses" to fly through a thunderstorm except for fools and those with a death wish.
Mr. Braintrust, I knew there was a reason you post here. Let me rephrase for those who are having difficulty - the RV is a physically stronger airplane than a 180. Arguments against will be entertaining.
Your inexperience is shinning through more and more with every post.
"Shinning"? What's your criteria for aircraft strength? Load limit must not be one of them. I guess a 180 is stronger than an Extra 300 as well. Not sure what hair you're trying to split now. Maybe a 180 has a better drop test because it's certificated. That doesn't concern me much when it comes to in-flight strength. Not that I'm concerned about a 180. Far from it. It's a simple point. But you're obviously withholding extreme wisdom and knowledge that cannot be parted with.
The only reason for this diversion is because of the poster who called an RV a "bucket of bolts" compared to a 180. That's fine if that's his emotional reaction, but it's not one based on the facts of the airplane.
The only reason for this diversion is because of the poster who called an RV a "bucket of bolts" compared to a 180. That's fine if that's his emotional reaction, but it's not one based on the facts of the airplane.
"Shinning"? What's your criteria for aircraft strength? Load limit must not be one of them. I guess a 180 is stronger than an Extra 300 as well. Not sure what hair you're trying to split now. Maybe a 180 has a better drop test because it's certificated. That doesn't concern me much when it comes to in-flight strength. Not that I'm concerned about a 180. Far from it. It's a simple point. But you're obviously withholding extreme wisdom and knowledge that cannot be parted with.
The only reason for this diversion is because of the poster who called an RV a "bucket of bolts" compared to a 180. That's fine if that's his emotional reaction, but it's not one based on the facts of the airplane.
*sigh* A word to the wise. You're wasting your time. These two, working together, are some of the most effective trolls you'll meet on line. With just a phrase, they can cherry pick one word out of your otherwise excellent post, twist it just a smidge, and make it sound absurd.
They get off on it. They live for it. There's no point in it. Don't feed the trolls.
So you went to Cessna and got your hands on their engineering data for the C-180? So you reviewed all the structural analysis, flight testing data as well as the NDT data and DT data?
Then I suppose you've done the same with Vans?
When the RV fleet accumulates the same amount of age, use and abuse as the current fleet, we'll know much more about them.
How about I just get in an RV and you get in a 180 and we both do some 6G pulls. I doubt you'd be up for that because you know you'd be doing a stupid thing and I would not be.
You know Jay, using your analogy we could also call you a troll. Because someone doesn't agree with some inane ramblings doesn't make them a "troll".
Since you and a couple others cannot argue your points with any cognitive reasoning you resort to name calling and childish behavior. If you want to participate in a "forum" and insist yours is the only acceptable answer then who has the problem?
It's about civility, and respecting other people's experience and opinions.
I think there are very few "nuts and bolts" RVs or Glasairs out there. If theyve been flying for hundreds of hours you can bet they were made right. They're both robust designs that usually meet or exceed Part 23 requirements. My Glasair is stressed to + 6 - 4 Gs and it's landing gear are drop tested to 7 Gs. Never heard of any Glasair with structural issues.
Some lack fit and finish of certified only because the builder didn't have the time or money to put in a nice interior. Some of the older ones just didn't have the resources available today either. Now you can buy an entire panel and interior to bolt on your aircraft. Seen plenty of homebuilts that have interiors that are as good as certified and without the cheap plastic cracking everywhere.
Et tu Jay?
Try using some of your own advise.
For all the "I've seen plenty of . . ." arguments would you agree that others have also "seen plenty of . . ." exactly the opposite? IOW, what difference soes it make in terms of the discussion?
How about I just get in an RV and you get in a 180 and we both do some 6G pulls. I doubt you'd be up for that because you know you'd be doing a stupid thing and I would not be.
How about I just get in an RV and you get in a 180 and we both do some 6G pulls. I doubt you'd be up for that because you know you'd be doing a stupid thing and I would not be.