One of the hazards (I have discovered) of being a repeat offender and building another RV is the tendency to recreate the same airplane that you built the first time. Sure, at our house we are building an RV-3 rather than the -8 I built before ? I am not talking about the same model. I am talking about making the same decisions on equipment, capabilities, and requirements, ending up with a plane that has capabilities identical to the one you built before and begging the question ?do we need two planes that serve the same purpose?? While RV?s can be economical, it can be hard to justify such extravagance.
It pays to keep this in mind when deciding on the specific airplane configuration items that you choose. Of course, the best way to do this is probably to set down, in writing, what you want the new airplane to be, and why you are building, before you even start. I didn?t really do this at first, but have found it to be a more valuable tool than I thought it would be. Without such guidance, I inevitably fall in to the trap of deciding that the decisions I made on the first plane were good, so why should I change them the second time around? Well?.yes, I still think the decisions I made in building the Valkyrie were good ? but we are not building another Valkyrie.
Whereas that airplane was designed to be my ?ultimate? traveling and fun machine, the RV-3 is going to have more of an emphasis on the pure delight of a small, nimble machine that can also be used for traveling. As I frequently put it, why haul the big airplane around if Louise or I need to go someplace alone with personal luggage? IFR capability is important, but since we will eventually be living in the arid west, that capability will be less important than in the -8. And if the weather is really lousy, the -8 is always there to fly! (And the Valkyrie?s level of redundancy would be had to duplicate in the size of the RV-3 anyway.)
Another consideration that goes into choosing equipment and configurations is the fact that I enjoy flight testing and helping in the development of new systems. This is probably one of the big reasons that we are putting a Garmin G3X system in the airplane. I am not, by any means, going to abandon my GRT equipment choice in the -8 (as I have told many people, that is my ?Go To? machine if I need serious weather flying capability), it just means that I can have the same involvement (and fun) with the G3X development team as I have had with the GRT EFIS guys in the years I have been flying it. The GRT system was brand new when I started flying the Valkyrie, and I have gone through both hardware and software upgrades in the past five years that have been fun and exciting. I never dreamed that it would become as capable as it is today ? never bargained for the Synthetic Vision and redundancy that it can provide. In a similar way, I hope to get a lot of professional enjoyment out of watching the G3X develop from it?s original release, and to contribute in the development of new and better features by testing and feeding back the results to the engineers at Garmin. It?s ?what I do?.
Of course, being an engineer, no decisions are made (by me) strictly because it is what I want to do. I go through the same requirements process that I have described to many people. Determine what the airplane needs to be, evaluate those performance requirements for necessary equipment needs, develop (from that) the specific systems that will meet those needs ? and then go shopping to see how many different ways those needs can be met. Once you have a couple of ways to solve the problem from a technical standpoint, you can start injecting elements such as cost, desire, and various intangibles. Many people misinterpret the decision making process by assuming that it will always point out the ?best? solution, objectively. This isn?t always true. What it will do is tell you which solutions fall ?above the line? ? meeting all of the technical requirements. You then have several solutions from which to choose, based on the intangibles.
But getting back to my original premise ? it takes a conscious effort to decide to do things differently as you build you second (third, fourth?.) airplane. It is very easy to go down the same path as before. A mental tool that I use to make sure I don?t get lazy is to make sure that I always identify at least one alternative to any decision that I make (?There are ALWAYS alternatives? ? Spock). I might not choose them ? they might be poor solutions ? but the act of having to choose between options forces me out of the single path mindset. Of course, if you have done something on the first airplane that worked well, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel simply for the sake of not repeating yourself! You simply have to decide where you want to put your effort. I rarely make airframe changes to a Van?s design ? it?s hard to do better than Van ! But when it comes to equipment and accoutrements, it is fun to do a little personal engineering.
Our RV-3 will hopefully be a delightful mix of superior handling and cross-country chariot for a person and light baggage. And for the critics who have already asked ?why put an EFIS in an RV-3?!??, my new answer (after playing with the G3X demo panel at OSH) is ?because it is way lighter than just about any conventional panel I could think up!?
Paul
It pays to keep this in mind when deciding on the specific airplane configuration items that you choose. Of course, the best way to do this is probably to set down, in writing, what you want the new airplane to be, and why you are building, before you even start. I didn?t really do this at first, but have found it to be a more valuable tool than I thought it would be. Without such guidance, I inevitably fall in to the trap of deciding that the decisions I made on the first plane were good, so why should I change them the second time around? Well?.yes, I still think the decisions I made in building the Valkyrie were good ? but we are not building another Valkyrie.
Whereas that airplane was designed to be my ?ultimate? traveling and fun machine, the RV-3 is going to have more of an emphasis on the pure delight of a small, nimble machine that can also be used for traveling. As I frequently put it, why haul the big airplane around if Louise or I need to go someplace alone with personal luggage? IFR capability is important, but since we will eventually be living in the arid west, that capability will be less important than in the -8. And if the weather is really lousy, the -8 is always there to fly! (And the Valkyrie?s level of redundancy would be had to duplicate in the size of the RV-3 anyway.)
Another consideration that goes into choosing equipment and configurations is the fact that I enjoy flight testing and helping in the development of new systems. This is probably one of the big reasons that we are putting a Garmin G3X system in the airplane. I am not, by any means, going to abandon my GRT equipment choice in the -8 (as I have told many people, that is my ?Go To? machine if I need serious weather flying capability), it just means that I can have the same involvement (and fun) with the G3X development team as I have had with the GRT EFIS guys in the years I have been flying it. The GRT system was brand new when I started flying the Valkyrie, and I have gone through both hardware and software upgrades in the past five years that have been fun and exciting. I never dreamed that it would become as capable as it is today ? never bargained for the Synthetic Vision and redundancy that it can provide. In a similar way, I hope to get a lot of professional enjoyment out of watching the G3X develop from it?s original release, and to contribute in the development of new and better features by testing and feeding back the results to the engineers at Garmin. It?s ?what I do?.
Of course, being an engineer, no decisions are made (by me) strictly because it is what I want to do. I go through the same requirements process that I have described to many people. Determine what the airplane needs to be, evaluate those performance requirements for necessary equipment needs, develop (from that) the specific systems that will meet those needs ? and then go shopping to see how many different ways those needs can be met. Once you have a couple of ways to solve the problem from a technical standpoint, you can start injecting elements such as cost, desire, and various intangibles. Many people misinterpret the decision making process by assuming that it will always point out the ?best? solution, objectively. This isn?t always true. What it will do is tell you which solutions fall ?above the line? ? meeting all of the technical requirements. You then have several solutions from which to choose, based on the intangibles.
But getting back to my original premise ? it takes a conscious effort to decide to do things differently as you build you second (third, fourth?.) airplane. It is very easy to go down the same path as before. A mental tool that I use to make sure I don?t get lazy is to make sure that I always identify at least one alternative to any decision that I make (?There are ALWAYS alternatives? ? Spock). I might not choose them ? they might be poor solutions ? but the act of having to choose between options forces me out of the single path mindset. Of course, if you have done something on the first airplane that worked well, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel simply for the sake of not repeating yourself! You simply have to decide where you want to put your effort. I rarely make airframe changes to a Van?s design ? it?s hard to do better than Van ! But when it comes to equipment and accoutrements, it is fun to do a little personal engineering.
Our RV-3 will hopefully be a delightful mix of superior handling and cross-country chariot for a person and light baggage. And for the critics who have already asked ?why put an EFIS in an RV-3?!??, my new answer (after playing with the G3X demo panel at OSH) is ?because it is way lighter than just about any conventional panel I could think up!?
Paul
, just kidding..
