204 knots

Jay Honeck said:
You guys are hilarious. First, it's "RTV holding on fiberglass fairings will kill EVERYONE! Run! Run for your lives!"

Now, after being repeatedly and soundly proven wrong, it's morphed into "The wrong kind of RTV holding on fiberglass fairings will kill everyone! Run! Run for your lives!"

Spruce sells two types of Dow Corning RTV. The expensive stuff is what we used. I could glue you to the hangar wall with it.

Even if the RTV WERE to come loose from the fuselage, the fairing would be held in place by air pressure. And if that air pressure subsided during landing, the fairing would slide down the landing gear leg, and rest on top of the fiberglass wheel pant.

I *might* have to repaint the gear leg. :rolleyes:

Think about this, for a moment: The "standard" procedure to mount one of these things is to use 3, maybe 4 sheet metal screws, screwed into the thin metal at the top of the landing gear leg -- and nothing else. (Rivnuts would be better, but are problematic in that location.) Think about three sheet metal screws, screwed into drilled holes, and those three concentrated stress points under constant vibration.

Now think about a continuous bead of RTV silicone adhesive going all the way around the fairing, attaching the 4 ounce fairing to the sheet metal.

Which installation could you rip off with your bare hands? Which installation has a better chance of failure over time?

Honestly, you guys need to think this stuff through before flipping into panic mode. The Fairings of Death aren't going anywhere for a long, long time -- and only when it's my choice to remove them. :D
Click to expand...

Oh- you used the expensive stuff. It must be good!

Dow Corning makes hundreds of RTV products for different purposes. Some will hold well for your purpose, some will degrade over time. They all need proper surface preparation, application, and cure time/conditions. Like I mentioned, some need moisture from the air to cure. If you used one of those needing moisture, the area under the fairing will take longer to cure since it isn't exposed to air and can't get moisture. Likewise areas where the RTV is applied thickly will also take longer to cure.

Another possibility is that the RTV sets up, but the particular product (remember, hundreds of them) sets up stiff and crumbles under whatever vibration is present at that location. That RTV product may be a strong adhesive for its intended purpose, but not in a vibration environment, where something more flexible, albeit not as strong, might be more appropriate.

Some RTV products are only good for sealing out water and have little strength.

Depending on the product and how it was applied and cured, the 3 sheet metal screws may be the better attachment method over time.

Like I said, I don't know which product you used, nor am I going to look it up; you can just read the label and post it here if you wish. It is possible the stuff you used is appropriate for your fairing.

I like the freedom that comes with experimental aircraft, but with freedom comes responsibility, and part of that responsibility is researching and understanding whether the products used in an experimental plane are appropriate for the tasks expected of them.
 
Last edited:
The Godiva chocolates, desserts from Harods and gourmet coffee may have been a contributing factor. They're funny that way ;)

JHW said:
I think my wife would view your wife as something of a role model.
Click to expand...
 
dell30rb said:
That's what I was alluding to when I said I used some adhesive/sealants on boats that would do the job. I have no doubt if the fairings were glued on w 5200 they would not be going anywhere. Its flexible enough for the application
Click to expand...
Nor is it RTV, it's a polyurethane, although there are RTVs that are good adhesives too. 5200 would probably have worked well for joining a small part under little stress.
 
Is there a particular reason, despite a number of requests, that Jay won't share the particular RTV used?

Other than "expensive"?
 
Henning said:
Your 310 steps don't retract? Mine do...:dunno:
Click to expand...

It does retract, however is bent ever so slightly and gets stopped before it nestles into the nice little hole for it.

Jay Honeck said:
As for my safety record, it speaks for itself. It is unblemished, by the way.
Click to expand...

We learned a long time ago that simply having an accident-free record is no guarantee of future performance. It more than anything comes down to ADM, which you have demonstrated a lack of. Hence the genuine concern that you will be the next NTSB report out there.

I remember when I started flying and bought the Aztec (de-iced radar twin), Bruce had some concerns and voiced them. His concerns had good basis, and I listened. I went out, got good instruction, made conservative decisions, and am still here almost 5 years and close to 2,000 hours later. Did I make some bad ones? You bet. I also recognized that and learned from them. These days, it seems every flight I come up with something new I could do to improve.

I, of course, am in the list of "offenders" who have concerns for your safety. The difference is that, unlike Wayne, Bruce, Jesse, Nate, and a host of other people who actually care, I just don't. I've made peace with the fact that some people will be NTSB reports, will not listen, and so just sit back and eat the popcorn.

JHW said:
I think my wife would view your wife as something of a role model.
Click to expand...

My mom's response "What's a G-V?" Showed her a picture. "Yes, that looks about right."

wabower said:
The Godiva chocolates, desserts from Harods and gourmet coffee may have been a contributing factor. They're funny that way ;)
Click to expand...

Mom would not have settled for Godiva. She only buys her chocolate from local gourmet chocolatiers in France. Belgian chocolate used to be better (she bought it from the same place the King did), but when she moved to France, somehow French chocolate became better.
 
Enough.

You've all piled on and sufficiently expressed your disdain for experimental flyers and made your point. Now hush and go buy some overpriced parts and feel smug about it.
 
airguy said:
Enough.

You've all piled on and sufficiently expressed your disdain for experimental flyers and made your point. Now hush and go buy some overpriced parts and feel smug about it.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I think E/AB is the only viable future of GA. The only think I have disdain for is people doing stupid pilot tricks.
Zoom climbs = stupid.
Gluing on a fairing such that it can't be easily removed to inspect the hardware = stupid
The only problem with experimentals is the few builders with a chip on their shoulders. Fortunately they are a tiny minority.
 
If the fools realized the amount of damage they inflict on their cause by the non-stop inane yapping, they might understand their stuff isn't for everybody and STFU. Based on history the chances of that happening appear to be slim.

JHW said:
On the contrary, I think E/AB is the only viable future of GA. The only think I have disdain for is people doing stupid pilot tricks.
Zoom climbs = stupid.
Gluing on a fairing such that it can't be easily removed to inspect the hardware = stupid
The only problem with experimentals is the few builders with a chip on their shoulders. Fortunately they are a tiny minority.
Click to expand...
 
JHW said:
On the contrary, I think E/AB is the only viable future of GA. The only think I have disdain for is people doing stupid pilot tricks.
Zoom climbs = stupid.
Gluing on a fairing such that it can't be easily removed to inspect the hardware = stupid
The only problem with experimentals is the few builders with a chip on their shoulders. Fortunately they are a tiny minority.
Click to expand...

And it's those few who are doing the most damage with their fanaticism. :nonod:
 
wabower said:
If the fools realized the amount of damage they inflict on their cause by the non-stop inane yapping, they might understand their stuff isn't for everybody and STFU. Based on history the chances of that happening appear to be slim.
Click to expand...

The other part that I find funny is how many illustrate the whole reason why we have cert standards.

Add me in the camp of thinking E/AB is the future and would love to own one. It'll be one day.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
We learned a long time ago that simply having an accident-free record is no guarantee of future performance.
Click to expand...

Yep. I knew a 60-something pilot who had flown spam cans for 35+ years and got himself into an RV-4. About a year later he drilled a hole trying to do an aileron roll from a low pass in front of his buddies.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The other part that I find funny is how many illustrate the whole reason why we have cert standards.

Add me in the camp of thinking E/AB is the future and would love to own one. It'll be one day.
Click to expand...

It's only the future because there's no other viable economic choice. That could be fixed with some political hand-waving, but the hand wavers aren't interested right now.
 
It's a little early to be writing off the rest of the industry, or to proclaim EAB as "the only future." Can you think of any other transportation/recreation industries that have evolved over time in ways that were not foreseen by the dooms-day prognosticators of the day?

denverpilot said:
It's only the future because there's no other viable economic choice. That could be fixed with some political hand-waving, but the hand wavers aren't interested right now.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
It's a little early to be writing off the rest of the industry, or to proclaim EAB as "the only future." Can you think of any other transportation/recreation industries that have evolved over time in ways that were not foreseen by the dooms-day prognosticators of the day?
Click to expand...

I knew I should have couched that with "as we know it".

Ain't a single one of my age group peers in similar industries with similar incomes who will ever purchase a new Cessna single-handedly.

That income group is, like most of us, waaaay into the 90th percentile.

Co-ownerships are great but you have to be really lucky or really driven to find the right folks.

Only Cessna newer than a restart 80s model I've ever been in was a CAP T182T. And those, if we are all honest, were a boondoggle pushed by a Senator. Cessna would have reduced the assembly line dramatically if the CAP purchases weren't done when they were.

We're all flying around in the Chevelles and Camaros of the 1970s and maintaining them just like classic cars if we want affordable load haulers.
 
The ladies of the house watch "America's Next Top Model."

I read POA.

Society as we know it, is doomed.
 
Why do you think the 40 y/o's of past years were buying new planes as single owners? That premise seems present in many of your posts, but doesn't match up with history as those who were there will attest.

denverpilot said:
I knew I should have couched that with "as we know it".

Ain't a single one of my age group peers in similar industries with similar incomes who will ever purchase a new Cessna single-handedly.

That income group is, like most of us, waaaay into the 90th percentile.

Co-ownerships are great but you have to be really lucky or really driven to find the right folks.

Only Cessna newer than a restart 80s model I've ever been in was a CAP T182T. And those, if we are all honest, were a boondoggle pushed by a Senator. Cessna would have reduced the assembly line dramatically if the CAP purchases weren't done when they were.

We're all flying around in the Chevelles and Camaros of the 1970s and maintaining them just like classic cars if we want affordable load haulers.
Click to expand...
 
I have a buddy that owns an RV and an C180.

He has decided the RV really isn't a functional plane, for his needs, and is selling the RV, keeping the C-180. I would tend to agree. I never turn down a chance to make a trip in the C-180.
 
Plenty of wealthy people who either don't trust EABs or they simply have the money to buy certified. They still have to have little planes around to train in before they start flying their Citations. Also, while EABs maybe outpacing the SE certified piston market, business jets / turboprops and the helicopter markets are thriving. That's still GA. As far as I know there hasn't been a significant reduction in sailplane, ultralights or hot air ballon flying either. All segments that are pretty healthy in Europe as well.

How did we go from a 204 kt GS thread to the state of GA?:dunno:
 
Last edited:
As a C-180 owner with more than one friend and grand-kids I agree as well.

JoseCuervo said:
I have a buddy that owns an RV and an C180.

He has decided the RV really isn't a functional plane, for his needs, and is selling the RV, keeping the C-180. I would tend to agree. I never turn down a chance to make a trip in the C-180.
Click to expand...
 
I too agree Experimental is the future, but hopefully not just Ex-AB, hopefully the FAA will adopt an Ex-OM, Owner Maintenance, category as they have in Canada. I think that is the only way that the FAA is going to get NextGEN to happen because it's the only way to make the avionics required viable.
 
Henning said:
I too agree Experimental is the future, but hopefully not just Ex-AB, hopefully the FAA will adopt an Ex-OM, Owner Maintenance, category as they have in Canada. I think that is the only way that the FAA is going to get NextGEN to happen because it's the only way to make the avionics required viable.
Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen. The bureaucracy protects itself, and the loss of 100k (or whatever) SEL aircraft to the OM category would point towards budget cuts. The FAA would go kicking and screaming (worse than the tower closures) to protect its business and all of its good paying jobs...
 
kyleb said:
Ain't gonna happen. The bureaucracy protects itself, and the loss of 100k (or whatever) SEL aircraft to the OM category would point towards budget cuts. The FAA would go kicking and screaming (worse than the tower closures) to protect its business and all of its good paying jobs...
Click to expand...

BS.gif


So how would the "loss" of 100k (or whatever) SEL aircraft to the OM category result in budget cuts???
 
Jeepers. There are some REALLY REALLY stupid components to this string. No, I won't say who.

But folks can't know what they don't know, though they claim to know.
 
kyleb said:
Ain't gonna happen. The bureaucracy protects itself, and the loss of 100k (or whatever) SEL aircraft to the OM category would point towards budget cuts. The FAA would go kicking and screaming (worse than the tower closures) to protect its business and all of its good paying jobs...
Click to expand...

No, look, the FAA doesn't really want to deal with GA, that's why they took a 'hands off' stance on LSA. The FAAs primary mission is the safety in the 135/121/125 sectors, and there is more there than they have the budget for right now. If they didn't have to dicker with Pt 91 planes, it would be a sigh of relief to them. That's what's working in favor of it, plus they really want NextGEN to happen, and there will be too much political struggle to get it done as long as it costs $70k-100k to equip a $20k airplane when it can be done for $5k-$10k. It's a win-win both for the FAA and owners.
 
So the fact that the FAA is taking a harder look at EAB with veiled threats to other segments makes you think they are looking for a way to get out of the little airplane segment rather than deeper into it?

Henning said:
No, look, the FAA doesn't really want to deal with GA, that's why they took a 'hands off' stance on LSA. The FAAs primary mission is the safety in the 135/121/125 sectors, and there is more there than they have the budget for right now. If they didn't have to dicker with Pt 91 planes, it would be a sigh of relief to them. That's what's working in favor of it, plus they really want NextGEN to happen, and there will be too much political struggle to get it done as long as it costs $70k-100k to equip a $20k airplane when it can be done for $5k-$10k. It's a win-win both for the FAA and owners.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So the fact that the FAA is taking a harder look at EAB with veiled threats to other segments makes you think they are looking for a way to get out of the little airplane segment rather than deeper into it?
Click to expand...

Well, it can be viewed a couple ways, as in they want the industry to shape the hell up so they can have positive data to show congress. Notice they haven't come through on their threat yet even though the Dagger Flight crowd isn't exactly exemplifying positive character traits. LSA has been working out reasonably well as does the Owner Maint category in Canada, so with the noise I have heard in regards to an O/M category in the US when one looks at all the factors going for it, I'm somewhat hopeful.
 
Maybe so, but I'd be surprised if they found Canada's situation to be relevant to the US--or cared.

Henning said:
Well, it can be viewed a couple ways, as in they want the industry to shape the hell up so they can have positive data to show congress. Notice they haven't come through on their threat yet even though the Dagger Flight crowd isn't exactly exemplifying positive character traits. LSA has been working out reasonably well as does the Owner Maint category in Canada, so with the noise I have heard in regards to an O/M category in the US when one looks at all the factors going for it, I'm somewhat hopeful.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Why do you think the 40 y/o's of past years were buying new planes as single owners? That premise seems present in many of your posts, but doesn't match up with history as those who were there will attest.
Click to expand...

Okay fair enough. They were buying ten year old hand me downs not 35 year old ones.

Same economic difference.
 
Wow - is this what I sounded like when I went through my "I'm ****ing right, dammit, stop telling me I'm wrong!" phase?
 
SkyHog said:
Wow - is this what I sounded like when I went through my "I'm ****ing right, dammit, stop telling me I'm wrong!" phase?
Click to expand...

Did you ever get over that phase? :D
 
I think the typical ownership makeup was more like your 3-4 man group. Airplanes were expensive and nobody had money to burn.

denverpilot said:
Okay fair enough. They were buying ten year old hand me downs not 35 year old ones.

Same economic difference.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think the typical ownership makeup was more like your 3-4 man group. Airplanes were expensive and nobody had money to burn.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point that "modern" aviators are buying grandpa's airplanes.

The next generation of normal Joe pilots will be buying and restoring great-grandpa's airplanes. Or building.

Most industries get more efficient at production, and less expensive to the end user over time.

(My own industry excluded since it enjoys customers who think its okay to make their last year purchase obsolete in two years. But that says more about the customer base than anything. Clue... Less...)
 
What is the point to be made about that? Can you show me where to find the expiration date on my 1960-model plane? or 1968 house? Or which components of each are original equipment and which have been replaced, refurbed, upgraded, overhauled or spiffed within the past few years?

At some point you've got to understand that your efforts to force an artificially-stimulated perfect-storm industry through a traditional mold will never succeed. It is what it is, and that the eventual outcome has been known for at least 20 years, even if it's just now becoming apparent to you and others who haven't been watching.

As you've said in the past, your group (or more probably the group after yours since you're no longer spring chickens either) will be able to pick up some real nice airplanes at real good prices--assuming anybody has any money left. I figure mine will be worth at least $5,000 when the time comes, but may hold off just a bit longer before running an ad.



denverpilot said:
Perhaps, but that doesn't address my point that "modern" aviators are buying grandpa's airplanes.

The next generation of normal Joe pilots will be buying and restoring great-grandpa's airplanes. Or building.

Most industries get more efficient at production, and less expensive to the end user over time.

(My own industry excluded since it enjoys customers who think its okay to make their last year purchase obsolete in two years. But that says more about the customer base than anything. Clue... Less...)
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
What is the point to be made about that? Can you show me where to find the expiration date on my 1960-model plane? or 1968 house? Or which components of each are original equipment and which have been replaced, refurbed, upgraded, overhauled or spiffed within the past few years?

At some point you've got to understand that your efforts to force an artificially-stimulated perfect-storm industry through a traditional mold will never succeed. It is what it is, and that the eventual outcome has been known for at least 20 years, even if it's just now becoming apparent to you and others who haven't been watching.

As you've said in the past, your group (or more probably the group after yours since you're no longer spring chickens either) will be able to pick up some real nice airplanes at real good prices--assuming anybody has any money left. I figure mine will be worth at least $5,000 when the time comes, but may hold off just a bit longer before running an ad.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to double that 5k offer. Sign here, press hard, third copy's yours.:D
 
I promised that I'd keep it until her brother straightens up, so it won't be happening for a while:p

bartmc said:
I'm willing to double that 5k offer. Sign here, press hard, third copy's yours.:D
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top