What sucks about your airplane?

Lynn Dixon said:
Man, I gotta say....not much honestly. I have a 177 RG. It's quite possibly the best balance/bang-for-your buck airplane I have ever flown. Roomier than a 182, faster, and hauls 980-ish useful.
Click to expand...

What sucks about the Cardinal is that Cessna discontinued it. :(
 
donjohnston said:
Needs long runways. I'd like to go to Cedar Key to visit a friend. But my minimum is 2,800'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, runway performance is not my strong suit either. I like at least 2500. It’ll do less, but I’ve gotta check the performance charts.

I guess that’s what happens when you build a plane for 60+ years and nearly double the gross weight but don’t change the wing. Needs higher speeds for takeoff and landing.
 
It's a greenhouse with not enough ventilation. Plastic spar cover. Black ducting. No brass bushings on some flight control hinges. It's like the engineers didn't think these planes would be flying 44 years later.
 
It's slow and the full fuel payload sucks, making it a single place airplane for any flights with duration of more than a couple of hours.

But... it sips fuel and I can maintain it and inspect it myself, which makes it really affordable. It's also a hoot to fly.
 
simtech said:
One door, slow, could be a bigger cabin.
Click to expand...

Not sure that it is one, but I always wondered...why did they decide on the piper airplanes to have the one door be the passenger side? I mean, as someone else wrote, you fly solo most of the time, why isn’t it easier for the pilot to get into the LH seat, why not have the door on the left side?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
My seat hurts.
After 30 minutes, it is like it’s reaching up to my ass with monster diesel-mechanic’s fingers to twist my butt skin into Twizzlers. It’s got this cluster of 1/2” hardened steel chisels that it pounds into my coccyx with a 10 pound mallet, in sync with the firing of the #1 cylinder. It’s like there is a huge steel vice.....
(Well, I got me a foam cushion and it helps)
Click to expand...

Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
 
Eric Stoltz said:
It's a greenhouse with not enough ventilation. Plastic spar cover. Black ducting. No brass bushings on some flight control hinges. It's like the engineers didn't think these planes would be flying 44 years later.
Click to expand...

That's because they in fact, didn't. Not on an engineering basis of course, but on an economic cycle one.

Even my work airplane wasn't designed for the life cycle it's currently on, yet here we are. People have in fact died as a result of said life cycle being extended by what I consider, economic malpractice. Given my employer is the Master and us the indentured servants, the Feres Doctrine prevents us "thanked for our service" cannon fodder types from suing for actual malpractice incidental to said service. And I digress before I get another talking to for sounding off instead of pickin' cotton...... :D
 
painless said:
The flimsy nosegear strut. If you don’t treat it nice, it treats you real bad. RV “A” models have been known To flip over due to the nose gear digging in and bending if you don’t land on the mains on grass. It’s just a steel rod. Gives you a bit of a pucker factor landing on rough grass. There’s a saying.....the nosegear is there to hold the nose up only when it’s parked.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t you land on the mains first, on any surface?
 
I have no complaints about my RV-6. It does exactly what I built it to do. OK, it sucks that I'm gonna be out a couple of AMU's when I finally install ADSB, but otherwise...

Oh, and the airplane is down at the moment so I can replace a carb gasket. That sucks.
 
painless said:
The flimsy nosegear strut. If you don’t treat it nice, it treats you real bad. RV “A” models have been known To flip over due to the nose gear digging in and bending if you don’t land on the mains on grass. It’s just a steel rod. Gives you a bit of a pucker factor landing on rough grass. There’s a saying.....the nosegear is there to hold the nose up only when it’s parked.
Click to expand...

Vans will sell you the parts to put that wheel were it belongs back on the tail.....:)
 
ateamer said:
Why wouldn’t you land on the mains first, on any surface?
Click to expand...


Exactly. Most flip overs in RV’s are traced to poor landing technique. I’ve sat along the runways at OSH and am surprised at how many three point landings I see. In an RV, put the nosegear down first, by the second PIO you have a bent gear.
 
painless said:
The flimsy nosegear strut. If you don’t treat it nice, it treats you real bad. RV “A” models have been known To flip over due to the nose gear digging in and bending if you don’t land on the mains on grass. It’s just a steel rod. Gives you a bit of a pucker factor landing on rough grass. There’s a saying.....the nosegear is there to hold the nose up only when it’s parked.
Click to expand...
It is experimental, so why not make a newer stronger nose strut? I can’t imagine there is no fixing that flaw. Even go to some exotic material like titanium will still be cheaper than a certified part.
 
What sucks are all the things that suck that can or must be fixed:
  1. Old and obsolescent radios, there is a GNS430W for that...
  2. Crappy interior, there is an Airtex kit and lots of labor for that...
  3. Cracking plastic moldings, there is Plane Plastics and fiddly hand fitting for that...
  4. Mid time engine flown into high time, there is an overhaul for that...
  5. Underpowered engine, there is a high compression and prop STC for that...
  6. Leaking fuel tank, there is a hellacious reseal job for that...twice in 30 years...
  7. Tired of hand flying long legs in IMC, there is an autopilot for that...
  8. ADS-B mandate, there is an NGT-9000 for that...
Don't get me started on vacuum instruments and well worn paint...there's stuff for that, too.

On the other hand, it's not so sucky to cut driving time by 3 to get somewhere. So I guess I'll not complain so much...:)
 
Matthew Rogers said:
It is experimental, so why not make a newer stronger nose strut? I can’t imagine there is no fixing that flaw. Even go to some exotic material like titanium will still be cheaper than a certified part.
Click to expand...

Oh it's possible, but draggy. It would kill the marketing numbers, which aren't really that great cruise speed wise for RVs compared to say Lancairs and Glasairs. Even a short body mooney really leaves nothing to a O-320 powered RV on the cruise speed front, on the same gas too.

Remember also, nose gear contributes more to the total drag of the airplane, than the main gears combined. Reference the Mako for a modern example that recognizes this nuance.

At any rate, Cirrus and Grummans also incorporate the flimsy nose rod design in order to meet their marketing numbers. If they had those Piper and Cessna literal "greased brick", oiled-tube and fork links hanging out, they wouldn't be anywhere nearly as attractive an option for a XC cruiser, nor would they be as smug about choosing fixed gear. Compromises abound.

So most trike RV'ers deal with the opportunity cost. As someone looking into an -A because I don't want do own a taildragger nor incur its training and insurance costs, I'd be perfectly comfortable owning a flimsy nose gear RV too. I do admit I don't have divoted unfamiliar grass fields as part of my mission, so perhaps if that wasn't true I wouldn't feel as comfortable in the choice. To each their own.

But yes, experimentals are perfectly capable of retrofitting the current setup with a draggier strut type nose gear setup. Few would be happy with the cruise speed penalty I surmise.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
It is experimental, so why not make a newer stronger nose strut? I can’t imagine there is no fixing that flaw. Even go to some exotic material like titanium will still be cheaper than a certified part.
Click to expand...


There is a product out there from a company oddly called Antisplat which is basically a gear leg stiffener. Worst case scenario it causes the leg to bend up high by the cowl instead of down low by the wheelpant, which when it bends it knuckles under and starts the flip process. This is a problem that has been kicked around in the RV circle for years. I believe titanium was brought up but for some reason was ruled out as a cure. Interestingly, the RV 10 and RV 14 both have different nosegear designs, but unfortunately they are not adaptable to earlier A designs.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Not sure that it is one, but I always wondered...why did they decide on the piper airplanes to have the one door be the passenger side? I mean, as someone else wrote, you fly solo most of the time, why isn’t it easier for the pilot to get into the LH seat, why not have the door on the left side?
Click to expand...

Don't know the answer to your question for sure, but my guess is that if a single door was on the pilot's side, passengers would have to board the airplane prior to the "required flight crew," and that doesn't strike me as a good idea, safety-wise. In reality, it's doubtful that scenario would create a problem, but you never know. A pilot is going to much more aware of what to grab amd what not to grab while crawling over seats.
 
painless said:
Interestingly, the RV 10 and RV 14 both have different nosegear designs, but unfortunately they are not adaptable to earlier A designs.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the concept is retrofittable, if not the parts. It would require a new engine mount, gear leg, and shock donuts. Guessing... $2 AMU worth, total.
 
My plane's name is Broom Hilda. She got that name because she is cantankerous when she is being worked on and either fights me or reveals yet something else that needs attention. Right now she is angry with me because I haven't taken her out of the hanger in two weeks.

She reads this forum.

I love her a lot and have no complaints.
 
painless said:
The flimsy nosegear strut. If you don’t treat it nice, it treats you real bad. RV “A” models have been known To flip over due to the nose gear digging in and bending if you don’t land on the mains on grass. It’s just a steel rod. Gives you a bit of a pucker factor landing on rough grass. There’s a saying.....the nosegear is there to hold the nose up only when it’s parked.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know about these but maybe you don't...https://antisplataero.com/products/the-nose-job
 
LongRoadBob said:
Not sure that it is one, but I always wondered...why did they decide on the piper airplanes to have the one door be the passenger side? I mean, as someone else wrote, you fly solo most of the time, why isn’t it easier for the pilot to get into the LH seat, why not have the door on the left side?
Click to expand...

One thing I have found in my short time as an instructor, it is much harder getting out of the right seat of a Cherokee than the left seat with the right hand door. You have to almost just stand vertically straight from the seat, or tuck and roll out onto the wing. From the left seat you have a little room to get yourself turned and get your legs underneath you for a more graceful exit.
 
Of course I love the Comanche 250 for speed, range, load hauling and looks but my plane is old.... as in older than my parents old (1960). A new 2019 model with some aerodynamics refinement and carbon fiber would be a crazy good plane. Time to google the Ravin 500 now.....
 
I like my plane 182H. Any performance or cabin dislikes then I want a different plane.
What I think I need is a better attitude indicator. It’s dated and seems to be off a couple of degrees. But not really a biggie. As I use others as primary anyway.
What I would love to have, would be an altitude pre-select for the auto pilot, that would be the bees knees.
4 point safety belts would be real now too but haven’t seen ones for the 182H that is easier
 
Underpowered. They should have put a 6cyl in the Commander 112s
 
LongRoadBob said:
Not sure that it is one, but I always wondered...why did they decide on the piper airplanes to have the one door be the passenger side? I mean, as someone else wrote, you fly solo most of the time, why isn’t it easier for the pilot to get into the LH seat, why not have the door on the left side?
Click to expand...
Captain should always be the last person to get out of the plane?
 
LongRoadBob said:
Not sure that it is one, but I always wondered...why did they decide on the piper airplanes to have the one door be the passenger side? I mean, as someone else wrote, you fly solo most of the time, why isn’t it easier for the pilot to get into the LH seat, why not have the door on the left side?
Click to expand...

Story I heard is it dates back to the Cub. Hand propping the plane requires being on the right (downgoing blade), hence the entry is on the right. Apparently tradition dies hard...

Here's an illustration of the technique in flight:

IMG_0522.JPG
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I'll start. My Mooney M20R has the turning radius of the Titanic. Nosewheel travel is just 12º one side of center and 9º on the other side.
Click to expand...
Despite the small steering angle, my M20E has a good turn radius - very compatible with Cherokees. That is because the "wheelbase", or the distance between the nose gear and the axis line of rear gear is rather small on it. So, no problem with turning radius at all. The plane does have split brakes, too, which can make the turn radius even smaller in practice. The problem is with constantly fighting the line personnel who need or want to move the airplane with a mechanized tug. That is the real downside of small steering angle for me. And, I was told, when FBO busts your front gear tower, you cannot easily detect it, even by jamming your head into the front gear well, and who does that?
 
ircphoenix said:
Anyone know the low wing equivalent to a 177RG? 'Cause I feel like that would be the ideal middle of the road.
Click to expand...
What aspects of the 177RG are you looking for in a low wing? 2 door 4 seat 200hp retract?

Besides the aforementioned 112, there's also the Sierra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top