A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RV-7a baggage area



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 5th 03, 02:07 AM
David Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RV-7a baggage area

Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.

Thanks
David


Ads
  #2  
Old December 5th 03, 03:09 PM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Go to Van's website.. or email them.

www.vansaircraft.com
Dave

David Smith wrote:

Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.

Thanks
David



  #3  
Old December 5th 03, 04:39 PM
EUTNET
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Baggage 100 lbs



  #4  
Old December 5th 03, 05:51 PM
RR Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.


Thanks
David



"EUTNET" wrote:

Baggage 100 lbs

+++++++++++++++++

ARRRGH.

Go directly to jail.
Do NOT pass GO.
Do NOT collect $200.


Monopoly BOb --
  #5  
Old December 7th 03, 02:07 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave

RR Urban wrote:


Hello All,
I am strongly considering the RV-7a and am interested in knowing the
dimensions of the baggage area behind the seats.



Thanks
David




"EUTNET" wrote:


Baggage 100 lbs


+++++++++++++++++

ARRRGH.

Go directly to jail.
Do NOT pass GO.
Do NOT collect $200.


Monopoly BOb --


  #6  
Old December 8th 03, 03:59 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave S wrote:

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave


Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their
own. Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English
system would be slugs).

Van's own web page shows the baggage area to be "12+ cu. ft." If you need
a more precise number, I would suggest contacting Van's Aircraft directly.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7spe.htm

Russell Kent

  #7  
Old December 8th 03, 08:24 PM
Gene Nygaard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:59:10 -0600, Russell Kent
wrote:

Dave S wrote:

And hence we have ANOTHER person who cannot tell the difference between
MASS and VOLUME.

I feel your frustration.

And.. whats sad is.. the person who said 100 pounds probably thought
they were being helpful by pointing out something "obvious"

Dave


Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their
own.


Heed your own advice, fool.

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English
system would be slugs).


Where'd you get that idea?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx
  #8  
Old December 8th 03, 09:02 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.


Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.


On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation. Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).


Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?


Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

Russell Kent

  #9  
Old December 8th 03, 09:19 PM
Russell Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK, I know it's bad form to follow-up one's own posting. So sue me. :-)

Gene,
I see from your signature that this "weight vs. mass" thing is a personal windmill
for you. Fine. And I see that slug isn't used anymore (pound-force is the term
now). And for non-technical conversations, pound is a unit of mass.

Here's a question though: is this forum a technical or non-technical conversation?

And look at the sequence of postings: EUTNET wrote that the baggage area dimension
was 100 lbs, obviously meaning *weight*, and Dave S. complained that EUTNET
"cannot tell the difference between MASS and VOLUME." [emphasis Dave's] So I
believe Dave should have instead written "WEIGHT and VOLUME."

Now I suspect that Dave S. was merely careless and really does understand the
difference between mass and weight, and I was trying to gently pass along the
advice that newsgroup corrections are invariably inspected for even the slightest
error (see this thread!). I welcome you (Gene) jumping in at that point to
correct the whole weight vs. mass, slugs, pound-force hullabalu, but I wish you'd
do it with a bit less hostility. Someone may well have ****ed in your cornflakes,
but I assure you it wasn't me. :-)

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.


Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.


On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation. Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).


Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?


Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

Russell Kent


  #10  
Old December 8th 03, 09:26 PM
Gene Nygaard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:02:03 -0600, Russell Kent
wrote:

Russell Kent wrote:

Those that point out the mistakes of others would do well to mind their own.


Gene Nygaard responded:

Heed your own advice, fool.


On entirely too many occasions I am indeed a fool, but I don't see where
devolving to name calling improves the conversation.


I see that even that wasn't enough to get your attention, Chicolini.

How big a bat do I need to hit you over the head with to get your
attention?


Besides gently (IMHO)
chastising the intervening poster's rant, I still provided a useful answer to
the original poster's question (12+ cu. ft.) and a reference to the source.


Yes, you got that right. Too bad nobody will pat you on the back for
it, because you obscured it with irrelevant nonsense, and even worse,
an incorrect claim of error on someone else's part.

Russell Kent continued:

Pounds (lbs.) are a measure of weight, not mass (which in the English system
would be slugs).


Gene Nygaard responded:

Where'd you get that idea?


Uh, 2 years of high school physics (a jillion years ago). Perhaps a few web
references will help clear the cobwebs:


If you found those references, you also found many that got it right.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html


Slugs are units of mass. That's not what I'm calling you on.

But that little-used 20th century invention, which didn't even appear
in physics textbooks before 1940, are by no stretch of the imagination
_the_ units of mass in "the English system."

Pounds force also exist, but that's also beside the point.

Back up your claim that pounds are not units of mass. That's where
you falsely claimed that Dave S. was making an error.

--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.

"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stearman for rent in Bay Area John Harper Aerobatics 7 April 5th 04 07:20 AM
Where can one get aerobatic training in the seattle area? SeattleFlyer Aerobatics 1 January 22nd 04 02:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.