Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

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

"Cy Galley" wrote in
news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:

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.



Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
occasionally upon review of the film.

Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.


--
-- 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
...
"Cy Galley" wrote in
news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:

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.



Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
occasionally upon review of the film.

Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.


--
-- ET :-)

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power to
straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not making
excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to clear
the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into this
trap.

"dougdrivr" wrote

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
to
straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not
making
excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to
clear
the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into
this
trap.

I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
S-turn.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:08:45 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:

"dougdrivr" wrote

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
to straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you....
[Snip]

I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
S-turn.

Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering. Without
it, directional control is pretty indirect, and S-turning isn't just a matter of
a casual push on a pedal. Couple that with the realization that every S-turn
wears a brake pad, and that pads for TBMs are probably neither common nor cheap.
Heck, they're $200 a pair just for my Fly Baby....

Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
leave the pavement.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Ron Wanttaja

Since it is obvious to the most casual observer, a plane such as a TBM
has such poor forward visibility and such a tough time with ground
manuevering, wouldn't it have been easier to have a guy on a scooter
escort it as a second set of remotely mounted eyes?

Scott


Ron Wanttaja wrote:


Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
leave the pavement.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Ron Wanttaja