Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport

I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
specific IFR situation.

I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would
not
be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the
term
"overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part
of
an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.

Pete


Pete,

I presumed that you were saying that the local "hot doggers" were describing
their maneuver as an overhead approach. My criticism applied to their
missuse of the term, not yours. I presume the same applies to the other
poster who gave the link to the IFR procedure.

Peter

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like
to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

THANKS, JIM!

-c

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the
"Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is
Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started
building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much
less a completed S-LSA.

Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.

I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

- John Ousterhout -

"John Ousterhout" wrote in
message news:bG9Cg.883926$084.394004@attbi_s22...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and
the "Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA
party is Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I
started building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to
market much less a completed S-LSA.

Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.

I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.


I have little doubt you are right Van's knows how to create a great kit and
if they had had the RV-12 anywhere close to market when I started building I
might well have been building it instead of the 601XL I'm building now. My
statement was that Van's is coming to the party late not that their aircraft
would be in any way inferior.

My bet is the reason they didn't have an LSA type kit before they did is
that they were too busy with the RV-10. Which given their market was
probably a good idea.

John Ousterhout wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

In what way will the RV-12 be superior to the Zenith Zodiac? On what basis
is the RV-12 going to overtake market share from a very similar plane that
is already flying as well as from a host of other available LSA models
already flying?

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

John Ousterhout wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

In what way will the RV-12 be superior to the Zenith Zodiac? On what
basis is the RV-12 going to overtake market share from a very similar
plane that is already flying as well as from a host of other available
LSA models already flying?


It will actually fly at it's rated speed.

The match hole drilling will actually match...

The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
planes to build. but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac builders
if you dont believe me) and many have also complained about poor fit of
the pre-drilled components.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote:
The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
planes to build.

It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short list,
if you don't mind my asking?

but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac builders
if you dont believe me)

Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet regarding the
Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints refer to older 601
models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the Zodiac model making its
rated speed, which I believe has redesigned wings. I haven't ordered the
Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what the article "Zenith vs. Zenith
Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)" said about it meeting its claimed
speed.

Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par with
the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive, but they
always need more authoritative confirmation.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

ET wrote:
The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
planes to build.

It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short
list, if you don't mind my asking?

but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac
builders if you dont believe me)

Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet
regarding the Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints
refer to older 601 models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the
Zodiac model making its rated speed, which I believe has redesigned
wings. I haven't ordered the Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what
the article "Zenith vs. Zenith Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)"
said about it meeting its claimed speed.

Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par
with the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive,
but they always need more authoritative confirmation.

I disagree about the Matronics postings, most are from actual builders
building real planes using their own name and most times having a
personal website showing construction, etc. to back up claims of being a
builder. I have read several posts from builders of the XL claiming
substantially reduced cruise speeds off of the MFR claimed numbers.

My other choice was the Sonex, I chose the Sonex, & I chose to scratch
build. I started last September and now have all the angle and plate
parts built, one wing built, both the spars built, and the empenange
built. I'm starting the other wing now and all of the major parts are
built, starting actual assembly.

The Sonex plans are second to none for a scratch builder. Every single
piece that could be depicted full size on the 24"X36" plans is shown
full size. Every single rivet & bolt is called out, there is no
guessing or using "accepted practices" The Zenith plans are adiquate for
a kit builder and lacking for a scratch builder, although I know many
have been scratch built sucessfully.

I chose the Sonex for 1) Quality of Plans 2) Cost 3) speed-every post
I've read from Sonex builders claim the plane lives up to the factory
speeds.

The only downside to the Sonex is it may be a bit small in the cabin for
a really big guy (or 2). I'm 5'10" & 195 & fit great. Try to find one
to sit in before you decide for certain (same for the Zodiac for that
matter).

Not trying to dis the Zodiac too much here, if the Sonex did not exist
I'd be building a Zodiac XL.

BTW the Sonex also has a very active email list at

groups.yahoo.com\SonexTalk

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan wrote in
:

ET wrote:
The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
planes to build.

It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short
list, if you don't mind my asking?

but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac
builders if you dont believe me)

Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet
regarding the Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints
refer to older 601 models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the
Zodiac model making its rated speed, which I believe has redesigned
wings. I haven't ordered the Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what
the article "Zenith vs. Zenith Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)"
said about it meeting its claimed speed.

Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par
with the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive,
but they always need more authoritative confirmation.

I disagree about the Matronics postings, most are from actual builders
building real planes using their own name and most times having a
personal website showing construction, etc. to back up claims of being a
builder. I have read several posts from builders of the XL claiming
substantially reduced cruise speeds off of the MFR claimed numbers.

My other choice was the Sonex, I chose the Sonex, & I chose to scratch
build. I started last September and now have all the angle and plate
parts built, one wing built, both the spars built, and the empenange
built. I'm starting the other wing now and all of the major parts are
built, starting actual assembly.

The Sonex plans are second to none for a scratch builder. Every single
piece that could be depicted full size on the 24"X36" plans is shown
full size. Every single rivet & bolt is called out, there is no
guessing or using "accepted practices" The Zenith plans are adiquate for
a kit builder and lacking for a scratch builder, although I know many
have been scratch built sucessfully.

I chose the Sonex for 1) Quality of Plans 2) Cost 3) speed-every post
I've read from Sonex builders claim the plane lives up to the factory
speeds.

The only downside to the Sonex is it may be a bit small in the cabin for
a really big guy (or 2). I'm 5'10" & 195 & fit great. Try to find one
to sit in before you decide for certain (same for the Zodiac for that
matter).

Not trying to dis the Zodiac too much here, if the Sonex did not exist
I'd be building a Zodiac XL.

BTW the Sonex also has a very active email list at


There are so many engine/prop/cowling combos that MFG numbers mean diddly.
It seems that with a the right prop setting William Wynne's XL might
actually be faster than the Zenith numbers and faster than the LSA rules
permit. I flew in the factory 601XL with a Jabiru engine and it was meeting
factory numbers.

As far as match drilled holes matching up I can't say much. When I bought my
kit the only pre-drilling was on the wing skins and they matched up
perfectly with the undrilled ribs that were installed in keeping with the
plans. There were some early problems when they first started the match
drilling in more places but from what I understand the kits shipping now
don't have that problem.

Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the concept of
paying attention and leaving enough space so that the following plane
doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is NOT just a size or
war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.

With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but an OF
might!

Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.


--
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A 45 Year Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .
I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Indeed. I find the interpretation, quoted in your reply, of my comments
to be bizarre, considering that this whole subthread started as my
response pointing out that these "stupid pilot tricks" are NOT limited to
warbirds, and that warbirds should NOT be singled out as the sole
offenders.

For someone to come along and think that I was saying that this is a
warbird-only problem is entirely backwards, and shows a complete lack of
understanding of any of my comments.

Pete