rgmwa

And that’s obviously the real attraction. Pretty much sums up everything.

Dumb comment.

Yes, but his model flying would probably give him an instinctive feel for the control inputs required for aerobatics in a full sized aircraft, so he might pick the skills up quicker than most if he was to try it. Of course being in the cockpit and subjected to the forces and disorienting visual effects might negate all that.

Impressive piloting skills! I wonder how he would go flying a full size plane.

A typical light industrial slab is 125-150mm thick and reinforced with a single layer of SL72, SL82 or perhaps SL92 mesh laid about 40mm down from the top surface. The edges should be thickened to about 300 mm deep with a layer of L8 or L11 trench mesh in the bottom. That should be fine for a something like a Kingair. The more important thing is what is under the slab and how well it's compacted. That's where you need to get some local engineering advice on how to prepare the subgrade and what sort of slab you need. I've seen loaded concrete trucks drive on 100mm thick shopping centre slabs that were just a week old with no issues. I've also seen 300mm thick slabs break up after a short time in service.

And your.recommendation for the most reliable, trustworthy news source would be ....?

Even if you get permission to land does that give you permission to pee on the property?

You could try posting on https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=73 which is the Vans Air Force RV-12 forum. Plenty of light sport pilots there who may be able to help. Good luck.

Me too, back in 1976. In pieces in the back of the hangar at that time.

I read somewhere that they couldn’t fly it these days, mainly because the fuel it used is not obtainable any more.

Which one?

Spin recovery is one thing but letting go of the stick in a spin and hoping it will self recover, which it might eventually, is not something I’d like to rely on, particularly in bad weather.

I'm not so sure. Maybe if it was very well trimmed. I've only flown an RV-7 once so I'm hardly well qualified to comment, however it was a bit more sensitive in roll than my RV-12 and I wouldn't trust that to recover by itself as it rolls and accelerates downhill so easily.

Well that’s still a pretty good endorsement even if you don’t end up buying out GE and P&W.

Thanks for the update. Very interesting to hear GE and P&W obviously taking it seriously. Hope it’s a winner.

I assume the engine was on display at Oshkosh. Did you get a lot of interest?

I think the shock of witnessing a crash like that makes people react in ways that may not seem logical. There is a chapter in ‘Fate is the Hunter’ where Ernest Gann describes he and another pilot in his parked jeep freezing after seeing a DC3 crash and start to burn in front of them. He struggled to understand his own reaction and it had a profound effect on him.

Tragic accident. I had the seat slide back in a 172 once. Luckily it happened early in the take-off run, so I aborted without problems apart from upsetting the tower by exiting the runway without asking permission.

The Odyssey PC680 is the standard battery Van's supplies with the 912ULS for the RV-12, but they supply the much lighter Earth-X (0.6kg) with the RV-12iS because the engine is heavier.

PC680 weighs 7.0kg.

I use an Odyssey PC680 AGM with my 912ULS. It's about $160-$190 from various retailers.

Like Morry Hummel, Vans have over time incorporated improvements in the RV-12, and no doubt the other RV models, based on suggestions and modifications made by the early builders and documented on Vans Airforce website. Even yours truly can claim a couple of very modest contributions that have since appeared in the current kit.

Agreed Onetrack. I've read the Silver Centenary story and also had a good look at it and watched it fly more than once. It's hangared at Serpentine, where I keep my plane. Ford did a remarkable job - it looks right and in engineering, that's usually a pretty good guide as to whether something is right. And as you say, just because an aircraft was `professionally' designed doesn't mean that it's going to be any good. There are plenty of examples of professionally engineered flying crocks in the history books. Nor does having formal engineering qualifications make you a gifted designer, just as having no formal training doesn't mean you can come up with an excellent design. I learned a lot about aircraft construction from assembling (I won't say building) my kit, and am currently one of the mentors helping a bunch of high school kids put together another RV12. My own preference for a plane that I and others are going to fly in is a kit from a reputable manufacturer, but I'd also be happy to build off plans if I had the time and the right equipment. It's just a lot more work. If I was going to design my own plane, as I said previously, I'd want to make sure I'd done my homework to know what I was doing. In engineering, it's knowing what you don't know that keeps you out of trouble. So far, so good.

Yes, I’m happy to build and fly a plane that I know has been well designed and tested, and to make relatively minor modifications that I know won’t its airworthiness. Nevertheless, even though I’ve spent the last 40 years designing structures for a living, I’d still think twice about tackling an aircraft without doing a lot of homework. Hats off to the true experimenters though.

It’s not the ‘design by eye’ part that would would worry me. It’s the ‘confirm by test’ bit that would make me think twice about buzzing around at 1,000 feet to find out which part of my design needed improving.