VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:05 PM
Sam Buchanan's Avatar
Sam Buchanan Sam Buchanan is offline
been here awhile
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv9av8tr View Post

She went from fearful to excited... I'd be VERY concerned she'll go back to fearful if she gets frustrated right out of the gate. MTC
Let her learn to fly in the same type plane that took her from "fearful to excited" so she will remain excited.

Got some (RV) testosterone flowing in this thread.

I hate to think what might have happened if I had taken primary training in my RV-6...........
__________________
Sam Buchanan
1999 RV-6
1918 Fokker D.VII replica

Last edited by Sam Buchanan : 04-08-2013 at 08:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:09 PM
n5lp's Avatar
n5lp n5lp is offline
fugio ergo sum
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Carlsbad, NM
Posts: 1,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42 View Post
... And a 160 hp RV-6 with 2-up is hardly more high performance than a 180 Cherokee. I hope nobody says one of those would be too much for a new pilot to handle learning in.
Wow, I have to wonder if you have actually flown a 180 Cherokee. I have, a lot, and find any RV-6 to be in a whole different and very much higher performance category.
__________________
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM

RV-6 N441LP Flying
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:28 PM
luddite42 luddite42 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by n5lp View Post
Wow, I have to wonder if you have actually flown a 180 Cherokee. I have, a lot, and find any RV-6 to be in a whole different and very much higher performance category.
I've flown both. If you want to do the math, a 180 Cherokee with 2-up has a better power-to-weight ratio than a 160hp RV-6 with 2-up, both with the same fuel. A loaded 150-160hp RV-6 doesn't feel very high performance to me. Yeah, it's a little faster and it rolls faster. But a 150 rolls a good bit faster than a 172. Nobody is saying a 150 is too high performance. And I don't know that the RV being a little faster than the Cheroke 180 has to do with much. A Cherokee 180 is a lot faster than a 150. What does top speed have to do with doing circuits at pattern speed, learning to fly the airplane? Is it possibly that the thought of a primary student learning in an RV deflates our Walter Mitty self image as a hotstuff "high performance" RV pilot?

Last edited by luddite42 : 04-08-2013 at 08:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-08-2013, 08:29 PM
JonJay's Avatar
JonJay JonJay is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,224
Default

Just a reminder, the OP is talking about a 6. They have the little wheel in the back. I developed most of my stick, rudder, and tailwheel skills in a squirrly antique, not in the 6.
Our newly minted RV owner in the neighborhood has put 40 hours in a J5 with his new 7 waiting in his hangar until he can get his transition from Mike Seager. I know he will be prepared.
I am not saying other folks are wrong but I know this works. Take that for whatever it may be worth.
Most of all, be thrilled she want a to learn. That is awesome!
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.

RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:19 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luddite42 View Post
... Is it possibly that the thought of a primary student learning in an RV deflates our Walter Mitty self image as a hotstuff "high performance" RV pilot?...
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo...

If you don't know something is hard, you just deal with it. I'd say give the girl a chance and see how she does. If the experience doesn't work out, then move on to something else.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI - Flying
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
1984 L39C - flyable, available for sale

Last edited by Toobuilder : 04-08-2013 at 09:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:29 PM
crabandy crabandy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ks
Posts: 2,101
Default

You can be successful either way with the right student/instructor combo. I'm a new tail wheel instructor myself in a Citabria.

I think it's better to learn to add and subtract with a pencil and paper before using a calculator, the same with airplanes. I'm a big believer in this concept when it comes to IFR flying, students with moving maps (calculators) blindly follow it without knowing why and it can lead to trouble.

I learned tail wheel in a champ and I believe the antiques are the pencil and paper. They make you understand what is happening and why and make you fly them. Plus they are a TON of fun!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:36 PM
Tony Rome Tony Rome is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 38
Default interesting

" I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo..."

Interesting tale...like to read the account but, could not find it on the internet.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:46 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Rome View Post
" I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo..."

Interesting tale...like to read the account but, could not find it on the internet.
This type of story used to pop up in Sport Aviation from time to time back in the early 80's. One kid flew the family P-51, Pitts, Jetranger and about 12 other aircraft on the day of this PPL checkride IIRC. The "initial solo" thing was a Reno racer Mustang, to boot (I think).
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI - Flying
RV-8 - Flying
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65 -flying
1984 L39C - flyable, available for sale
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-08-2013, 09:46 PM
JonJay's Avatar
JonJay JonJay is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post

I've read stories of teenagers flying their daddy's P-51 on their initial solo...

If you don't know something is hard, you just deal with it. I'd say give the girl a chance and see how she does. If the experience doesn't work out, then move on to something else.
... And, not a "story I heard", but a fact, a new P51 pilot with a significant amount of training, torque rolled his $2M airplane into the pavement on his first solo a couple of years ago.
Give the girl a chance? I know you chat about expanding the envelope by taking chances and i dont totally disagree but I guess the OP needs to decide himself, along with her, if that is the program they want to sign up for.
It wouldn't be mine. Not everybody can just "deal with it".
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.

RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-08-2013, 10:08 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,425
Default

I'd have to agree with Luddite and Toobuilder here. RVs are very docile and only high performance in terms of a few more knots and higher ROC. Can easily fix that with the throttle if you want. RVs are easy to land period and besides having quicker control response and lighter forces, don't fly much differently than a Cherokee for instance. If you start on an RV with a good instructor, it would all seem normal from the beginning because you have nothing else to compare it to.

A good instructor is key. My Dad learned to fly in a T6 which is a WAY more challenging airplane to fly than any RV. He did fine and so did most of the other students with any talent.

I would have loved to train on an RV6. I think learning on a TW aircraft will make you a better pilot in any aircraft.

I know many RV pilots like to pretend that they are hot ships. I can't agree. Easiest airplane to fly that I have flown. Anyone who had previous Citabria, Cub or TW Cessna time previously have all said how easy it was to fly a TW RV.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 436.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
http://sdsefi.com/cpi2.htm


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:12 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.