Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.102; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <499A2745.6020805@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:56:05 -0600
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Second flight
References: <list-3496195@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3496195@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't think that it's the weight. You'll find that the -4 gets even 
lighter when it gets heavier (cg goes aft). I don't know why, but I've 
flown several -6's & they just don't handle the same as a -4. Neither do 
the -8's. I wonder if Van designed out a bit of the responsiveness when 
he realized that a wider span of the pilot population would be flying 
his designs.

Charlie

Mike Wills wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> I've heard the same about the RV-3. I always assumed that the handling 
> improvement as you progressed (digressed?) from -6 to -4 to -3 was due 
> to the lighter airframes of the -4 and especially the -3. But my -4 is 
> a bit of a pig and only about 30 pounds lighter than my -6A was. I'm 
> convinced that there's a definite difference in the handling that I 
> dont think can be attributed to being just 30 pounds lighter. Maybe 
> its just the perspective of sitting on the centerline. Or maybe the 
> perception is clouded by 13 years worth of building. Anyway, I'm not 
> complaining.  :-)
>
> Do you hear anything from Chuck these days? He seems to have fallen 
> off the face of the earth.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4 N144MW
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie England" 
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 10:38 AM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Second flight
>
>
>> Mike Wills wrote:
>> >snipped>
>>>  Other impressions. The airplane is loud, but not painfully so. At 
>>> least not from the pilot's seat. The handling and control power 
>>> still seem quite a bit better than my RV-6A (which was great). Not 
>>> really clear why but most of my flying in the -6A I had someone in 
>>> the right seat so maybe the weight? Other than the rudder, the 
>>> airplane flies perfectly straight.
>>>  All things considered I'm real happy. This flight was considerably 
>>> less stressful than the first and I actually was able to enjoy it. I 
>>> honestly dont remember a lot of the first flight. Also, I took my 
>>> glider data logger with me on this flight. I havent downloaded it 
>>> yet, but when I do I'll know more about speeds, climb rate, etc.
>>>  Dont know how you guys feel about these flight reports. Give me 
>>> some feedback if you want more as my testing progresses. I know that 
>>> I like reading about other's flight experiences as it motivated me 
>>> to keep going. After 13 years of building I'll tell you, its worth 
>>> it. Now I wish I'd pressed harder to get it done sooner.
>>>  Next flight will have to wait until I get gear leg stiffeners 
>>> added. Classic RV - pretty bad shimmy on the roll out after landing. 
>>> 38.5 hours to go!
>>>  Mike Wills
>>> RV-4 N144MW
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Keep 'em coming; that's how I learn.
>>
>> RV handling: As nice as  the -6's handling is, it's nothing compared 
>> to a -4 (I'm currently flying my 2nd one, purchased from Chuck 
>> Dunlap).  I've heard that the -3 is even better than the -4; if 
>> anyone wants to let me fly one to find out for myself, just let me know.
>>
>> Charlie
>> RV-7 finish kit stage