Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Deems Davis

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 925

Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 6:45 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Slightly Off Topic: Portable intercom and Flight  Training



I've been watching this thread and biting my tongue a bit. It seems that 

we are mixing 2 issues.



1. Pilot proficiency or lack there of. 2. How hard/easy to fly is the 

RV10. I'm probably going to get thumped for what I'm about to say, but I 

think that the RV10 is a relatively easy airplane to fly. Now I say that 

based on my experience which is different from others. I'm not a hot 

stick, and if you witnessed my landing Sat you would quickly agree.  

Since the RV10 has a higher HP and a constant speed prop, it does have 

some inherent complexity that trainer aircraft do not have. And learning 

these skills will decidedly add to the learning curve for a new or lower 

time pilot. But transitioning from a trainer to a complex high 

performance aircraft doesn't (shouldn't) double the amount of training / 

learning. Additionally I think there is something to be said for the 

learning advantage that accrues from flying the same aircraft flight 

after flight. The biggest variable in the learning to fly equation is 

the capability and mindset of the individual. As individuals we all vary 

widely and I encourage everyone to be honest and conservative in our 

individual self assessments about our abilities and our respect for all 

of the unexpected things that can happen in aviation. Commercial 

aviation has proven statistically that re currency for even the most 

experienced aviator pays high dividends in safety. I just don't want 

people to be unnecessarily scared or worried about the RV10.  As a point 

of reference,  I've recently flown a couple of local friends RV7's which 

have flight characteristics which are IMO much more sensitive/critical 

than the RV10. Yet there are many people that transition successfully 

into  RV6, 7's and 8's with relatively low time.

I maintain the RV10 is an easy airplane to fly. Flying it or any other 

aircraft well, and flying them safely is a matter of pilot capability 

and proficiency.



Deems Davis

N519PJ 28 hrs of 'expert' opinion



 	  Quote:

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 5/26/2009 10:43 PM, Deems Davis wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   But transitioning from a trainer to a complex high

 performance aircraft doesn't (shouldn't) double the amount of training /

 learning. Additionally I think there is something to be said for the

 learning advantage that accrues from flying the same aircraft flight

 after flight. 


	


Hi Deems,

	I agree with your thoughts.  It took me about 10 hours of dual to

transition from a Cessna 150 to a Glasair 1 FT, and at the time I had

about 200 hours in only Cessna aircraft.  At 10 hours I certainly didn't

feel like an expert, but I felt that I could fly the plane safely.  I

don't have very much time in a -10, but the little I do have felt like

the -10 flies somewhat like a Glasair, only not as quick and sensitive

(ie, the -10 is little easier).  The Glasair is closer to a -7.



	As long as a pilot gets the proper dual training until they feel safe,

and not put a time limit on it, I think they'd do fine in a -10.



-Dj

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

I think you might have added "pilot judgment". Many of the problems that

have occurred within the RV10 community are judgment related. I won't rehash

the details of previous lapse of RV10 judgment but given enough flight time

and experience, the RV10 is a delight to fly. Each time I fly my Glastar I

think I am back in a car without power steering.  Judgment is hard to teach.

The crash in AZ last Saturday night was a case in point. The aircraft was

single engine and operating IIRC in marginal conditions at midnight over

mountainous northern AZ. The moon was not visible. The odds of a favorable

outcome if anything goes wrong are small. A superior pilot once said that he

used his superior judgment in order to avoid having to demonstrate his

superior skill. As more 10s fly, take the time to acquire the necessary

skills to fly it "right". If you want an interesting exercise look each day

at the experimental NTSB summary of accidents as OSH approaches. For each

accident look to see whether that is a new flight test phase aircraft or

not. You will find many are or are aircraft of priors years where the pilot

may be trying to get proficient to fly to OSH. Evaluate the risks and fly

safe.



--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on an extreme as far as I'm concerned.

I think that the -10 is very easy to fly, if you stay ahead of it.

ANY airplane that you don't stay ahead of is hard to fly.  So for

me I'm not saying that you need "double" the training or anything

like that.  In an ideal world, flying would be cheap and everyone

could quickly go out and put on 250 hours of time.  But it won't

work that way for most people.  I just think that there are so many

things that those of us who have gained some experience end up

forgetting and taking for granted.  Things that we don't remember

anymore, but at the time it was a real challenge, so a pilot

should get good instruction, get extra instruction for a slippery

and high performance plane, but also fly it conservatively for a

good amount of time too.   Dj, you noted that you had 200 hours

in only Cessnas.  That's HUGE.  Certainly with that amount of time

you gained a lot of skill and experience.  So no, transitioning

to the -10, for a current pilot, I wouldn't think would be tough

at all at that point.  I think under 100 hours it would get tougher

and tougher as you get lower in time.  A lot of it again has to

do with how compact that timeframe is too.  200 hours over 2 years

is a lot of flying.  Someone who does that will have an easier

time than someone with 75 hours over 5 years of flying.  And, of course,

there are those who will just be quicker or slower to adapt than

others.  The RV-6/7/8 are all definitely a notch above ours for

how sensitive they would be to transition to.  So no, I think the

-10 is really easy to fly, myself.  For me I transitioned right from

a "Slowdowner" (with some 182RG and Sierra retract time) with no

problem, and I probably could have easily from any point after my

first 150 hours.  I probably still took a bunch of benefit from all

those hours beyond that point that I had...but the benefits

were less.  My main point was that the -10 probably wasn't the best

TRAINER plane for people.  Once you gather time and experience, it's

definitely not one to fear.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 5/26/2009 10:43 PM, Deems Davis wrote:

> But transitioning from a trainer to a complex high

> performance aircraft doesn't (shouldn't) double the amount of training /

> learning. Additionally I think there is something to be said for the

> learning advantage that accrues from flying the same aircraft flight

> after flight. 

 Hi Deems,

 	I agree with your thoughts.  It took me about 10 hours of dual to

 transition from a Cessna 150 to a Glasair 1 FT, and at the time I had

 about 200 hours in only Cessna aircraft.  At 10 hours I certainly didn't

 feel like an expert, but I felt that I could fly the plane safely.  I

 don't have very much time in a -10, but the little I do have felt like

 the -10 flies somewhat like a Glasair, only not as quick and sensitive

 (ie, the -10 is little easier).  The Glasair is closer to a -7.

 	As long as a pilot gets the proper dual training until they feel safe,

 and not put a time limit on it, I think they'd do fine in a -10.

 -Dj

Dick Sipp

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 215
Location: Hope, MI

Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Deems:



I think your opinion is spot on.  This has been a great thread and deserves 

to continue.  There are many more folk's thoughts out there that would add a 

lot to the conversation. Vic S.?



I had 750 hours in an RV4 and 13,000 in transport/military aircraft and 

would not have considered flying the 10 without some dual before the first 

flight.

(flew 3 hours with Jerry VanGrunsven).  As you say the 10 is not a difficult 

airplane at all to fly well, but with all the training resources

available now, why would one not want to become at least familiar with the 

type before flying one on the first flight.  The first flight in an airplane 

you built is not the time to be doing self instructed transition training. 

A few hours, at least, in a relaxed training environment will pay huge 

benefits

in the early flights in our own new airplane.  Throughout commercial 

aviation, formal training in a new type is required regardless of previous 

experience.



If the 10, like the other RVs, have a fault it is that they fly so well, are 

so responsive, they quickly build the self confidence of their pilots, 

perhaps too much so.

The sports models all beg to rolled, looped, flown in formation, etc - Total 

Performance - right? My guess would be that most 10 pilots value the 

productivity of their 4 place efficient cross country SUV.  Most 10s are 

well equipped for IFR, beg to cover a lot of ground through changing weather 

patterns, and often carry one or more family or friends.



I find my mental attitude to be very differnent in this environment than it 

was by myself in the 4.  Satisfaction now comes from providing a comfortable 

travel experience for the passengers while continually refining flight 

procedures to get the most out of that expensive instrument panel.  With 130 

hours I am still learning how to get the most out of myself, the avionics, 

and the airplane.  The process of trying to continually improve will provide 

satisfaction for a long time to come.



We all take pride in deciding to become part of the most successful 

experimental aircraft line ever.  As the fleet and flight hours set new 

records every day we as a group become more and more visable.  Our record 

and reputation is good but can always be improved.  The past few days have 

been costly to the family and deserve renewed commitment to safety.



Can a wife or any other women fly the 10?  Of course.  If they can fly 

F-15s, catch the third wire on carrier in an F-18, or qualify for the 

Thunderbirds, the 10, after good training, will be a walk in the park.



Dick Sipp

N110DV

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:50 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

This has come up more than in this e-mail.  You mention the 13,000 in  

transport/military aircraft.  We just sold a Cessna 206 to an airline  

pilot with 27,000+ hours, mostly in regional jets in the last 20  

years.  He had a lot of cessna time, but hasn't been in one in 20  

years.  It would have been a huge mistake to assume that he could just  

hop in and fly it.  He would have killed himself.  His first landings  

(or attempts, I should say), were horrible.  He is used to something  

FAR different.  All this to say, that even if you are a high-time  

pilot, getting some transition training (at least in a similar  

aircraft, but preferrably in the -10 itself) is critical.  It is  

nothing to be afraid of, but rather to be respected.



do not archive



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Cell: 352-427-0285

Fax: 815-377-3694



On May 27, 2009, at 1:02 AM, richard sipp wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Deems:



 I think your opinion is spot on.  This has been a great thread and  

 deserves to continue.  There are many more folk's thoughts out there  

 that would add a lot to the conversation. Vic S.?



 I had 750 hours in an RV4 and 13,000 in transport/military aircraft  

 and would not have considered flying the 10 without some dual before  

 the first flight.

 (flew 3 hours with Jerry VanGrunsven).  As you say the 10 is not a  

 difficult airplane at all to fly well, but with all the training  

 resources

 available now, why would one not want to become at least familiar  

 with the type before flying one on the first flight.  The first  

 flight in an airplane you built is not the time to be doing self  

 instructed transition training. A few hours, at least, in a relaxed  

 training environment will pay huge benefits

 in the early flights in our own new airplane.  Throughout commercial  

 aviation, formal training in a new type is required regardless of  

 previous experience.



 If the 10, like the other RVs, have a fault it is that they fly so  

 well, are so responsive, they quickly build the self confidence of  

 their pilots, perhaps too much so.

 The sports models all beg to rolled, looped, flown in formation, etc  

 - Total Performance - right? My guess would be that most 10 pilots  

 value the productivity of their 4 place efficient cross country  

 SUV.  Most 10s are well equipped for IFR, beg to cover a lot of  

 ground through changing weather patterns, and often carry one or  

 more family or friends.



 I find my mental attitude to be very differnent in this environment  

 than it was by myself in the 4.  Satisfaction now comes from  

 providing a comfortable travel experience for the passengers while  

 continually refining flight procedures to get the most out of that  

 expensive instrument panel.  With 130 hours I am still learning how  

 to get the most out of myself, the avionics, and the airplane.  The  

 process of trying to continually improve will provide satisfaction  

 for a long time to come.



 We all take pride in deciding to become part of the most successful  

 experimental aircraft line ever.  As the fleet and flight hours set  

 new records every day we as a group become more and more visable.   

 Our record and reputation is good but can always be improved.  The  

 past few days have been costly to the family and deserve renewed  

 commitment to safety.



 Can a wife or any other women fly the 10?  Of course.  If they can  

 fly F-15s, catch the third wire on carrier in an F-18, or qualify  

 for the Thunderbirds, the 10, after good training, will be a walk in  

 the park.



 Dick Sipp

 N110DV

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:34 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to express and explain your thoughts and feelings to all of us.  Yes, our family is growing and we all need to work together to keep our reputation at the highest possible level.  We have lost 7 individuals in the Sacramento area within my 2.5 years of build time.... a little concerning to me as a newcomer to aviation.  (only 1 was an RV)    BUT, each and every one involved experienced pilots, most of which were making serious, stupid mistakes.  What would have me concerned is individuals being killed and the crash was NOT, at least to some extent, pilot error.  Flying into bad weather, overloading the plane at the same time the density altitude was at it's max, engine out on takeoff, with fire, and trying to turn back to the airport, fuel pump and boost pump  malfunctions at the same time, flying into the side of a mountain, and what may have been a heart attack..... with the exception of the last, these possibly were all avoidable.  The worst being the 10,000 hour pilot overloading the plane and taking off with a high density altitude, from his home airport, and killing his 2 best friends.  It seems that maybe the most vulnerable are the pilots that accumulate 150 to 250 hours, and then let their guard down.  Maybe all this is similar to a motorcycle rider.  The new guy is overly cautious (unless he's under 20), and then once they get a little experience they push the envelope further and further, until their on the edge, and something out of the ordinary gets them.  For us that could be weather, equipment failure, another aircraft, or terrain.  ok, that's my 3 cents.

Thanks again guys...... and by the way, congrats to our new RV10 guys completing their first  flights!!!!!



Don McDonald

#40636  Done, but sailing on the east coast.



--- On Tue, 5/26/09, richard sipp <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

From: richard sipp <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>

Subject: Re: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 10:02 PM



--> RV10-List message posted by: "richard sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>



Deems:



I think your opinion is spot on.  This has been a great thread and deserves to continue.  There are many more folk's thoughts out there that  would add a lot to the conversation. Vic S.?



I had 750 hours in an RV4 and 13,000 in transport/military aircraft and would not have considered flying the 10 without some dual before the first flight.

(flew 3 hours with Jerry VanGrunsven).  As you say the 10 is not a difficult airplane at all to fly well, but with all the training resources

available now, why would one not want to become at least familiar with the type before flying one on the first flight.  The first flight in an airplane you built is not the time to be doing self instructed transition training. A few hours, at least, in a relaxed training environment will pay huge benefits

in the early flights in our own new airplane.  Throughout commercial aviation, formal training in a new type is required regardless of previous experience.



If the 10, like the other RVs, have a fault it is that they fly so well, are so responsive, they quickly build the self  confidence of their pilots, perhaps too much so.

The sports models all beg to rolled, looped, flown in formation, etc - Total Performance - right? My guess would be that most 10 pilots value the productivity of their 4 place efficient cross country SUV.  Most 10s are well equipped for IFR, beg to cover a lot of ground through changing weather patterns, and often carry one or more family or friends.



I find my mental attitude to be very differnent in this environment than it was by myself in the 4.  Satisfaction now comes from providing a comfortable travel experience for the passengers while continually refining flight procedures to get the most out of that expensive instrument panel.  With 130 hours I am still learning how to get the most out of myself, the avionics, and the airplane.  The process of trying to continually improve will provide satisfaction for a long time to come.



We all take pride in deciding to  become part of the most successful experimental aircraft line ever.  As the fleet and flight hours set new records every day we as a group become more and more visable.  Our record and reputation is good but can always be improved.  The past few days have been costly to the family and deserve renewed commitment to safety.



Can a wife or any other women fly the 10?  Of course.  If they can fly F-15s, catch the third wire on carrier in an F-18, or qualify for the Thunderbirds, the 10, after good training, will be a walk in the park.



Dget="_blank" href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http:/llow" target="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.sp;            - List Contribution Web Sbsp;                     > http://www.matronics.com/co=================





	




         [quote][b]

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Don makes some very good observations here, and I'd like to comment 

(yeah, I couldn't resist) and put some perspective here.

building_partner(at)yahoo.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Thanks to all of you for taking the time to express and explain your 

 thoughts and feelings to all of us.  Yes, our family is growing and we 

 all need to work together to keep our reputation at the highest possible 

 level.

This is very important ..... especially when we're an emerging 'class' 
	


and scrutinized by the insurance companies.  Less than a professional 

approach means we pay, and pay, and pay.

 	  Quote: 	
		   We have lost 7 individuals in the Sacramento area within my 2.5 

 years of build time.... a little concerning to me as a newcomer to 

 aviation.  (only 1 was an RV)    BUT, each and every one involved 

 experienced pilots, most of which were making serious, stupid mistakes.  

 What would have me concerned is individuals being killed and the crash 

 was NOT, at least to some extent, pilot error.  Flying into bad weather, 

 overloading the plane at the same time the density altitude was at it's 

 max, engine out on takeoff, with fire, and trying to turn back to the 

 airport, fuel pump and boost pump malfunctions at the same time, flying 

 into the side of a mountain, and what may have been a heart attack..... 

 with the exception of the last, these possibly were all avoidable.

Very, very seldom is the blame for an accident ever placed on the 
	


airplane.  At least until the Lawyers get involved!  I've had three 

'failures' ..... two that resulted in off-field landings.  All three can 

be attributed to poor performance by people ..... and not pilot error. 

All three were attributable to poor performance by maintenance personnel 

  .... in my case two were really my fault because I hold the repairmans 

certificate for my Pitts, which is now 28 years old.

 	  Quote: 	
		   The worst being the 10,000 hour pilot overloading the plane and taking off 

 with a high density altitude, from his home airport, and killing his 2 

 best friends.

The same scenario figured in my second loss of close friends.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   It seems that maybe the most vulnerable are the pilots 

 that accumulate 150 to 250 hours, and then let their guard down.  Maybe 

 all this is similar to a motorcycle rider.  The new guy is overly 

 cautious (unless he's under 20), and then once they get a little 

 experience they push the envelope further and further, until their on 

 the edge, and something out of the ordinary gets them.

Well, I have to admit that exuberance and youth played a great part when 
	


I was a baby pilot.  My AA-1B (little Grumman trainer)was my first 

aerobatic airplane ..... and if I hadn't built the Pitts probably would 

have cut my flying time short and become a statistic.



There are a lot of sayings that come to mind ..... 'we don't have time 

to make all the mistakes ourselves so learn from others' ...... and the 

'old, bold, pilot' to name a couple.  I have my own .... 'An old pilot 

is one that survives all his (or her) stupid mistakes.'  I've surely 

made my share.  I'm a little (well, a lot)older, a little wiser, and try 

hard to mentor others as they follow the path to aviation bliss.  I am a 

survivor!

 	  Quote: 	
		   For us that could be weather, equipment failure, another aircraft, or terrain.  ok, 

 that's my 3 cents.

Inflation again!!!
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   Thanks again guys...... and by the way, congrats to our new RV10 guys 

 completing their first flights!!!!!

I'll second that!!!  It's been years since I first flew the Pitts, but 
	


the excitement and every second of the flight is indelibly etched in my 

mind.



Be safe out there!!!

Linn

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 Don McDonald

 #40636  Done, but sailing on the east coast.

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:56 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Dick, that was a great post, and it's wonderful that you have

such a good attitude.  I find that one of the most impressive

qualities of a pilot is when they have the humility to

admit that they have to approach things with a proper cautious

attitude despite their high hours.  There are people who

go both ways.  When we leased that Cherokee, I *insisted* on

a checkout before we took it, because in 450+ hours I

hadn't flown slow, yoke equipped, underpowered planes.  They're

different...not hard, but different than what I was used to.

Then, there's my dad.  He's not maintained anywhere near 25

hours a year for the past years since we sold the plane we

owned together.  He also had only about 10 hours in a Cherokee

140, and maybe in the 20's in all piper models.  But, he

walked into the place to pick it up thinking that he shouldn't

have to worry about a checkout at all.  Probably has less

than 10 or 15 hours in 12 or more months.  I was not

impressed with the attitude.  Some people for some reason,

want to look at training as an obligation, and a sign that

they somehow aren't adequate.  Some people look at it as

an opportunity, and love to just have the chance to get

in that seat and see if they can improve themselves.  It's

a stark difference, and I'm guilty of viewing it both ways

in the past myself.  But, I guess I did enough stupid things

along the way that I was able to convince myself I didn't

know everything. 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

richard sipp wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Deems:

 

 I think your opinion is spot on.  This has been a great thread and 

 deserves to continue.  There are many more folk's thoughts out there 

 that would add a lot to the conversation. Vic S.?

 

 I had 750 hours in an RV4 and 13,000 in transport/military aircraft and 

 would not have considered flying the 10 without some dual before the 

 first flight.

 (flew 3 hours with Jerry VanGrunsven).  As you say the 10 is not a 

 difficult airplane at all to fly well, but with all the training resources

 available now, why would one not want to become at least familiar with 

 the type before flying one on the first flight.  The first flight in an 

 airplane you built is not the time to be doing self instructed 

 transition training. A few hours, at least, in a relaxed training 

 environment will pay huge benefits

 in the early flights in our own new airplane.  Throughout commercial 

 aviation, formal training in a new type is required regardless of 

 previous experience.

 

 If the 10, like the other RVs, have a fault it is that they fly so well, 

 are so responsive, they quickly build the self confidence of their 

 pilots, perhaps too much so.

 The sports models all beg to rolled, looped, flown in formation, etc - 

 Total Performance - right? My guess would be that most 10 pilots value 

 the productivity of their 4 place efficient cross country SUV.  Most 10s 

 are well equipped for IFR, beg to cover a lot of ground through changing 

 weather patterns, and often carry one or more family or friends.

 

 I find my mental attitude to be very differnent in this environment than 

 it was by myself in the 4.  Satisfaction now comes from providing a 

 comfortable travel experience for the passengers while continually 

 refining flight procedures to get the most out of that expensive 

 instrument panel.  With 130 hours I am still learning how to get the 

 most out of myself, the avionics, and the airplane.  The process of 

 trying to continually improve will provide satisfaction for a long time 

 to come.

 

 We all take pride in deciding to become part of the most successful 

 experimental aircraft line ever.  As the fleet and flight hours set new 

 records every day we as a group become more and more visable.  Our 

 record and reputation is good but can always be improved.  The past few 

 days have been costly to the family and deserve renewed commitment to 

 safety.

 

 Can a wife or any other women fly the 10?  Of course.  If they can fly 

 F-15s, catch the third wire on carrier in an F-18, or qualify for the 

 Thunderbirds, the 10, after good training, will be a walk in the park.

 

 Dick Sipp

 N110DV

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 05/27/2009 09:17 AM, linn wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   My AA-1B (little Grumman trainer)was my first aerobatic airplane .....

 and if I hadn't built the Pitts probably would have cut my flying time

 short and become a statistic.


	


Hi Linn,

    Given that I'm going to look at a 1969 AA-1A this weekend, I'm

curious.  Can you elaborate on that a bit?



Thanks,



-Dj

Strasnuts

Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 502
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

I have about 4500 hours and in the last five years  it has all been Citation single pilot time.  I hopped in Scott Schmidt's  great RV-10 and was suprised how behind I was in the airplane.  I will be  taking my time transitioning into the slower airplane.  It is funny how I  thought it would have been easier for me to fly the slower airplane.  The  flying part wasn't hard, it was the systems and the scan that was the most  difficult, which makes the flying harder.  I can see how you can get behind  the "flying part" by trying to figure the systems out. Hopefully I will get  more transition time by the time my RV-10 is done.(hint hint  Scott).

  

  

   [quote][b]

_________________
40936
RV-10 SB N801VR Flying
780 Hours
SuperSTOL 60 hours

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:02 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

The TR2 was known as the widow maker in the flight instruction world. Talk

to Andy Elliott ; he owned one for years. I will provide contact  info

offlist if desired.

--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 05/27/2009 12:59 PM, David McNeill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The TR2 was known as the widow maker in the flight instruction world. 


	


    Would that be the same as having a student learn in an RV-10, or are

there inherent problems with the design of the Grumman Yankee AA-1?  I

had not heard of this phrase being used in conjunction with the Yankee

until now.



Thanks,



-Dj

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Do not discount how helpful it is to just sit in your AC and work with the avionics/EFIS’s.  Many hours in this type of (hanger flying) helps with the scan and knobology.  Close your eyes and reach for what you want and practice until you can do it successfully.  Garmin has a wonderful simulator for their 900X that helps with the procedures.  Do others have this simulator too?  It is time well spent.  

   

Gary Specketer  

40274 Flying  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Seano

 Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:28 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'  

  

     

I have about 4500 hours and in the last five years it has all been Citation single pilot time.  I hopped in Scott Schmidt's great RV-10 and was suprised how behind I was in the airplane.  I will be taking my time transitioning into the slower airplane.  It is funny how I thought it would have been easier for me to fly the slower airplane.  The flying part wasn't hard, it was the systems and the scan that was the most difficult, which makes the flying harder.  I can see how you can get behind the "flying part" by trying to figure the systems out. Hopefully I will get more transition time by the time my RV-10 is done.(hint hint Scott).  

    

   

    

   

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

The reputation is that it has a nasty spin that is not recoverable.  I had a

AA5 and loved it but was always wary of getting to slow.



Gary Specketer

40274 Flying



--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 05/27/2009 03:21 PM, gary wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 The reputation is that it has a nasty spin that is not recoverable.  I had a

 AA5 and loved it but was always wary of getting to slow.

   


	


    Interesting!  I had someone else tell me that about Piper Tomahawks,

but said the Yankee was fine.  The cautions about the Yankee have been

about not overloading it, and trying to take off on a hot day with

obstacles at a short runway.  It tends to like the runway more than the

other airplanes of its class from the same time frame, but it is also 10

knots faster in cruise.



-Dj

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

Perhaps Andy will reply to the list. IIRC the problem was high approach and

landing speeds and high sink rates when speeds got slower than 90 mph. My

only experience with Grumman has been AA-5. Both have castoring hose wheels

like the RVs. The AA-5 with 150HP and cruise prop was not a good climber. 



--

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:59 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 05/27/2009 04:33 PM, David McNeill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Perhaps Andy will reply to the list. IIRC the problem was high approach and

 landing speeds and high sink rates when speeds got slower than 90 mph. My

 only experience with Grumman has been AA-5. Both have castoring hose wheels

 like the RVs. The AA-5 with 150HP and cruise prop was not a good climber. 

   


	


    Thanks, David.  My impression so far has been that the AA1 Yankee

had similar characteristics to the Glasair 1 FT that I had, but having

not yet flown one, I'm still researching as much as possible.  I've put

out a query on a Grumman mailing list to see what people there might

have to say (more appropriate than on this list).



    I do appreciate the input!



Thanks,



-Dj

do not archive

jim(at)CombsFive.Com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

A few more thoughts.First I don't think gender has anything to do with flying the -10.  There are no physical requirements that would make men any better or worse than women at flying this airplane.  I have found that I fly the airplane with my fingertips.  No need to grip the stick and yank it around.  I have flown with pilots who could not keep it level and I noticed they were gripping the stick.  Just not needed.  It's an airplane with lots of power but no surprises.  Stalls are announced with plenty of feedback.  Both of which make it a good honest airplane.  That doesn't mean it should not be respected.   What I have learned is the -10 reacts big time to ground affect.  For that reason take-offs result is a departure from the runway followed by a short transition of acceleration in ground affect before climbing.  Landings when done at the correct airspeed result in some pretty sweet touchdowns.  It's not a Cessna (thank YOU!) and it should not be flown like one.I consider myself a low time pilot and did seek transition training.  I had never flown an RV at all prior to my transition training.  Nor had I flown behind a constant speed prop.  But I did get to the point where I am enjoying the flying.  I don't actually recall any bad experiences in my short 40 hours.    I currently have 212 total time, 40 hours in type and 72 landings in type.  While I still consider myself a low time pilot, I consider the -10 to be the best airplane I have ever flown.  I do tend to make my patterns larger because of the speed.  But nothing compares to the ride.Like riding a motorcyle, treat it with respect, live long and prosper!Thanks, Jim Combs40192 (N312F) - FlyingDo Not Archive   [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: Pilot Proficiency vs RV10 'flyability'

On 5/27/2009 3:21 PM, gary wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 The reputation is that it has a nasty spin that is not recoverable.  I had a

 AA5 and loved it but was always wary of getting to slow.


	


	Don't know if anyone on this list cares, but thought I'd follow up with

input I got from the Grumman list:



"The AA-1 will recover, if you apply standard spin

recover technique immediately.  It only becomes dangerous after 2-3

turns. This really shouldn't be an issue, as the plane doesn't really

have any bad stall characteristics and will only spin if pushed,

however, spins are prohibited. "

"The NASA tests involved a modified Yankee forced into very

aggravated spins of more than three turns.  And yes, they had to use the

spin chute (a drag chute on the tail, not anything like the BRS on the

Cirrus) to recover from a lot of those spins.  However, a stock Yankee

passed all the normal and utility category spin tests for an aircraft

with a "No Intentional Spins" limitations.  In those spins, the aircraft

was only put into an incipient spin -- three seconds or one full turn,

whichever was longer.  If you start into a spin, and use the book

recovery procedure, it will recover promptly.  But you did get the right

idea -- don't let it spin.  When doing stalls/slow flight, keep the ball

centered and the nose from yawing."

	More than one mentioned that with my Glasair time, the AA-1 should be

an easy transition.  In the spirit of the actual topic of this thread,

yes, if I buy it I will be going up with an experienced Grumman CFI

until I feel comfortable...  



-Dj

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum