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.
Vans RV or Glasair for low time pilot
- Thread starter Tmpendergrass
- Start date
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.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
That's the point. Things happen over time, some that were specifically determined to be the result of acro. You got the answers as to why and when any of it happened?
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.
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.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
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.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
You're (once again) grasping at straws trying to make a point.
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.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
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?
Tell us your background in aviation engineering?
Dav8or
Final Approach
I take the "bucket of bolts" label to mean less refined than a certified airplane and in this capacity I agree. I have not seen all RVs, or kit planes out there, but the vast majority I have seen, do feel like they're minimal and unfinished. In the interest of simplicity of the build, the designers of the kits leave out niceties and distinctive details. In addition, It's like when the builders get to the point where they have to design and finish the interior, they are so sick of building, they give up and do the minimum. Certified builders don't have this luxury. They need to convince buyers to part with a significant part of their wealth. Kit companies are just selling a dream more than a reality.
I don't think they meant it to mean the plane is going to fall apart and crash to the ground, although I guess that depends on the builder. For every EAA grand champion award winner, there is the one with house paint put on with a roller.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
*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.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
*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.
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?
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.
dell30rb
Final Approach
Will never happen, the morons will crash em well before we get the chance to find out
Just kidding... really they are nice airplanes
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,238
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
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.
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.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
You seem to be hung up on 6G stuff. If it's such a big deal, why don't you do it? Why in the world would anybody care? How many planes in either fleet have been lost due to 6G problems? What's your prediction for the future?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
This. Thanks for proving my point.
POA is to discuss aviation. You don't just discuss aviation -- you revel in personally destroying other posters who have different opinions. It's not possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who views this forum as combat -- thus, my warning to Roscoe.
It's about civility, and respecting other people's experience and opinions.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
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?
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
It must be tough when a guy can no longer hide behind the editor's desk and pretend that nobody wrote letters pointing out the BS in his half-cocked editorials, especially when he knows less about the subject than anybody else in the room.
Maybe he'll have better luck with the camera stuff.
Maybe he'll have better luck with the camera stuff.
Et tu Jay?
Try using some of your own advise.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,238
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Sure, and you could say there are plenty of certified with crappy plastic interior and old analog panels as well. When it comes to RVs and Glasairs, for their age group the fit and finish as a whole, is comparable to certified. Sure you can find a Thorp T18 made in the 80s with some homemade interior and a rattle can paint job but that's not what we're talking about. Go to OSH, walk down the line and you'll see quality looking RVs and Glasairs. The old argument about homebuilts with cheap automotive parts, cheap paint, interiors and panels is a thing of the past. A Glasair or RV made in the 80s looks nothing like one completed today.
How does it relate to the discussion? Well as usual the thread went off on a tangent and went towards the fit and finish of RVs and attention to detail. I'm saying an aircraft completed today generally looks just as good as certified. If it isn't, we'll with the money you saved you can make it look as good as certified.
txflyer
En-Route
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,509
- Location
- Wild Blue Yonder
- Display Name
Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
How about we both get in our planes with 800 pounds of payload and see who even get's off the ground. But I know that's a silly comparison like the others mentioned.
I never said RV's were a 'bucket of bolts'. I said the two I flew in felt like that. And I added a disclaimer that maybe they were just two poorly built planes. I just got unlucky. You know, there could be a reason the one's I looked at were for sale..... I walked on both of them.
One thing I do know that a builder of an RV8 that he's building right now just told me today. He said it's an excellent kit and good airplane except for the canopy, and the firewall forward. Most of that is guess work, and there is very little support or help from Van's in those two areas. He's had to modify a lot of things himself on the firewall forward part. And he's worked and worked on the canopy for a good fit, and it's still not quite right yet. Many little things like Vans MP sensor will not work with Garmin avionics. You gotta make one yourself if you run Garmin. Then the hose is not long enough from Vans. You have to custom make one, etc. He's installing a standard 0-360.
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Go try to learn something about aircraft design and engineering, structural loads and certification.