I do know some RV owners who did build theirs specifically for that capability. When (20 years ago) I thought about building an RV-8 that’s what was on my mind.
But even pilots who are not much into aerobatics enjoy an ocasional barrel roll. It’s really a pity that almost none of the regular planes are, at least, approved for that.
It’s the mixture of all these features that makes the RV line attractive.
Alexis wrote:
It’s really a pity that almost none of the regular planes are, at least, approved for that.
Until now I did not miss it for a single second… And anyway, many aicraft are mostly tourers and equipped for that with gyroscopic instruments (mechanical or solid state) which usually don’t like aerobatics much. So a certified airframe must not necessarily mean that aircraft is really suited for aerobatics.
Nearly all of the Mustang was original metal.
Until now I did not miss it for a single second
Is that representative? :-) For me learning to fly aerobatics was a highlight of my flying carreer.
Alexis wrote:
Is that representative?
As I wrote above, from several hundred pilots I have crossed paths with, maybe 5 did aerobatics. So statistically I would say it is.
Christ, just wrote a whole bunch, and it all disappeared because I hit the wrong button … Anyway, homebuilts, experimental, amateur built and so on are just words. An aircraft fulfilling certain criteria, regulations and definitions will be an “experimental” aircraft. In Norway there is no requirement that the builder actually has to build anything. The requirement is one person being a build leader and one person doing QA. The aircraft itself has to be max 49% “factory built” (51% rule), or it can also be restoration of an older factory built aircraft. In everyday speak, we use the term “homebuilt” and “experimental”, but the legal term is translated as “self built”. So the aircraft is just an aircraft where the build leader and the QA person are responsible for at least 51% of the build process, whatever that process may be.
Alexis wrote:
I do know some RV owners who did build theirs specifically for that capability. When (20 years ago) I thought about building an RV-8 that’s what was on my mind. But even pilots who are not much into aerobatics enjoy an ocasional barrel roll. It’s really a pity that almost none of the regular planes are, at least, approved for that.It’s the mixture of all these features that makes the RV line attractive.
Yes, the combination of capabilities is important and has made the RV line a ‘regular’ mainstream aircraft for private owners in the US. The RV-9 is the non-aerobatic option, its an RV-7 with a higher aspect ratio wing and different airfoil. As a result the RV-9 has has slightly better aerodynamic efficiency. I know a guy who has one, but he also has an RV-7. All the RV owners I know personally do some form of aerobatics, although often its just the occasional roll or loop.
LeSving wrote:
Anyway, homebuilts, experimental, amateur built and so on are just words.
Around here that’s quite a difference. Fit an external camera mount to a C172 for aerial photography and you will get an experimental. For which you will require a permit to fly which sevely limits it’s operation (e.g. daylight VFR only, no cross-border flying, no flying over populated areas, only to be flown by specially trained pilots, …).
On the other hand, if you build an aeroplane in your garage under supervision and submit the required paperwork and perform the test flying program it will be put on the register just like every other aircraft. Some restrictions (e.g. no IFR) may apply, but apart from that it will be indistinguishable from a factory built aircraft with a C of A. In fact, it will be issued a C of A.
what_next wrote:
On the other hand, if you build an aeroplane in your garage under supervision and submit the required paperwork and perform the test flying program it will be put on the register just like every other aircraft. Some restrictions (e.g. no IFR) may apply, but apart from that it will be indistinguishable from a factory built aircraft with a C of A. In fact, it will be issued a C of A.
Sounds almost exactly like Norway, only there are no restrictions on IFR or anything, and the maintenance is more humane.
what_next wrote:
gyroscopic instruments (mechanical or solid state) which usually don’t like aerobatics much
Solid state instruments aren’t sensitive to aerobatics.
Note how none of your EFIS solid state gyros have big warnings “HANDLE LIKE EGGS” all over them.
