What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Who wears a parachute in the RV (and successful bailouts)?

N79PT

Active Member
Who wears a parachute in the RV?

Curious how many do and don't wear a 'chute when doing acro. If you don't wear one, why? Any good models to reccomend for the RV? I haven't done any acro in my new 6, but I will soon. Thanks for the info. --Greg
 
I'm in

Call me paranoid, but I'll always be wearing one in my RV-8A, acro or not. Of course, as a skydiver I'm used to it. In fact, I feel decidedly uncomfortable in small aircraft when I don't have a rig on.

Food for thought though; the guy that recently bailed from his aerobatic aircraft after a control malfunction. It was on Avweb and posted here; can't remember the details. But note that he bailed after discovering an issue just after take-off, and before any aeros. The fact he was an earobatic pilot in an arobatic plane isn't really relevant to the time and circumstances in which he had to bail...
 
Grigson said:
Curious how many do and don't wear a 'chute when doing acro. If you don't wear one, why? Any good models to reccomend for the RV? I haven't done any acro in my new 6, but I will soon. Thanks for the info.

I'm just about to start acro in my RV - pick up my chutes from the rigger soon. I will be wearing a chute when doing acro. It's required when you have a passenger (unless you somehow can claim them as crew?). Since most of the times I have a passenger, I might as well build a habit of wearing it.

Has anyone ever bailed out of an RV? I don't think so. (true?) However, a long time ago I decided I was going to obey all the regs and fly safe (two different things, but I try to do them both).

Any good models to reccomend for the RV?

From wearing a few diffrent Softie chutes and a Strong parachute, it seems like the softie is a bit nicer. That said, I purchased two Strong chutes because I found two people here who were looking to sell theirs.

Ask around on this site before buying new. It seems like a fair number of folks have chutes they own that they are not using and are willing to sell. A modern chute that fits your RV seat should be almost 'as good as new' if it is only a few years old and stored well. A used chute from an honest RV pilot can save lots of money.
 
Last edited:
Need to punch

AntiGravity said:
Food for thought though; the guy that recently bailed from his aerobatic aircraft after a control malfunction. It was on Avweb and posted here; can't remember the details. But note that he bailed after discovering an issue just after take-off, and before any aeros. The fact he was an earobatic pilot in an arobatic plane isn't really relevant to the time and circumstances in which he had to bail...
Just today I read about an RV8 having trouble at takeoff. Some stuff in the cockpit started interfering with the rudder pedals and the control column.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050609X00746&ntsbno=IAD05LA072&akey=1

Having something jam the contols in flight could be a good reason to bail out. I know of course that an uncontrolled engine fire would also be a good reason to punch. However, based on my reading of NTSB reports, these are very rare events.
 
Thought about it, but...

I'm not convinced I could get the tip-up canopy open in flight. I have the release lever, but I'm not clear on how that does anything meaningful when I have two gas struts firmly bolted to the canopy and side rails.
 
Back to the original question...

When I was preparing for flight testing, the only reasons I could think of for leaving the aircraft in flight were structural failure, loss of control capability, or fire. If you do some archive searching on the appropriate RV web sites, you can find considerable debate on whether or not it is possible to get out of an -8 in flight, but I figured that if I had no other choice, I'd at least go down trying! I have quick-release pins on my canopy rollers, just in case.

I wear a chute in the -8 primarily when I am exploring a flight regime which is new. That means that during flight testing, I wore it all the time until I had done all of my V-N envelope expansion (G-loading), and then again when I was testing it for the aerobatic manuevers that I wanted to put in the log-book at sign-off. Once I got comfortable with the aircraft during flight test, I stopped wearing the chute for performance test flights and the like.

Once I had proven to myself that the plane (and myself) could do certain manuevers safely and well within limits, I have no problems with the occasional roll, loop, or split-S when the mood strikes me, regardless of whether I have the chute on (and assuming that I am solo - I believe in following the rules!). But if I am going to try something new that could conceivably put me into one of my bail-out criteria (I did some additional spin work recently for instance), I take out the seat cushion, and strap on the chute and helmet.

Just one person's Ops Concept.... :)

Paul
 
I have an RV-4. Every flight I fly I do at least a little acro, except at night of course. I also fly many hours a year of formation. I don't like wearing the backpack chute AND having the seatback in place so I have taken to only flying with the chute. I have an oregon aero seatback on the shelf in the hangar. With the sheepskin pad I find the backpack chute works well on long x-countries just fine.

As for the claim that the need for an chute is minimal that is true, but I look at it as a poor man's BRS. I'd sure hate to wish I had the chute when it was lying on the shelf in hangar.

Chuck
 
I wear a chute when doing acro in my -6. My chute is 22 years old but has never been opened in flight and is stored in the closet when not in use. If you have a tip-up, you must remove the gas struts to utilize the canopy jettison. Mine was built before the gas struts and has the original latch which isn't attached with the canopy closed. If you have a slider, I'm sure you can't open it in flight anyway. I also wear the chute while flight testing. But I don't so as much of that as I used to.
Mel...DAR
 
Can't get out

This thread was discussed a couple of years ago and the consensus was that you CANNOT open a slider RV6 or RV7 in flight so wearing a parachute is moot. Aerobatic gross weight means solo-dual is too heavy for acro.

My concern was getting out after an engine failure and opening the canopy just before touchdown so you weren't trapped upside down (worse in a tip-up) and have to face fire. I was told many times that you cannot open a slider 6 or 7 in flight and earlier this year offered to pay for a canopy if someone tried and managed it in flight.

One guy DID open an RV8 a few years ago during an inflight fire that came into the cabin and he jumped WITHOUT a chute. Yes, RV8s apparently can be opened in flight. :(
Pierre
 
I'm not sure I understand why you can't open a slider in flight. World War II aircraft did it all the time, so what is it about the RV that prevents it?

Chris
RV-7
Empennage done - Wings on order!
 
Slider

Chris,
I don't have an absolute answer but my understanding was that there is a strong forward pressure on the canopy, as well as a downward force in flight. The canopy has to rise a couple of inches at the rear before it can start sliding, whereas P-51s didn't. They simply cranked them backwards.
Pierre
 
Chris Meredith said:
I'm not sure I understand why you can't open a slider in flight. World War II aircraft did it all the time, so what is it about the RV that prevents it.

Actually, if you replace the two screws that hold down the rollers with self locking pull pins I believe you can eject a slider canopy in flight (though I can't guarantee this, I've made this mod on my plane). See the highlighted region in the following photo:

my flickr set

In the unlikely event that I needed to eject the canopy, I'd pull both pins (hard :D). Then turn the main latch.

I know from the one time I took off with an unlatched canopy (I flubbed my checklist) that the canopy slides back about 1/2" on its own.

If you are still building and plan to do something like this, you might want to consider canting the screw outward 30 deg. I drilled my screws parallel to the longeron and that gives only minimal clearance for the slightly longer lock-pin heads. The lock pins are also handy when working on the plane - it makes removing the canopy easy.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anybody else, but i could jump out of my tip-up 7A. I have forgotten to latch the canopy twice. The canopy goes up about 45 Deg and flies just like an airfoil. It doesn't shake, rattle or make much noise. You can fly the canopy with the stick. I couldn't latch the canopy in flight, but I didn't try real hard. If you forget to latch your canopy don't panic just fly the plane, It will fly just fine.
 
Kevin...Good information. I was thinking along these same lines when I start building my canopy. I like the idea of wearing a parachute when doing certain maneuvers, but if I can't get the canopy open, then there doesn't seem to be much point. Still, I suspect that with the adrenaline of an emergency, I could get that sucker open :D
 
I'm guessing that if you were motivated you could open the slider for the purposes of bailing out. The experiments that people have done didn't include trying to kick it out, leaning with your shoulder or shattering it with a canopy cracker. I will wear the chute for acro, have an escape plan layed out and will carry a canopy cracker if all else fails.
 
rv8ch said:
Having something jam the contols in flight could be a good reason to bail out. I know of course that an uncontrolled engine fire would also be a good reason to punch. However, based on my reading of NTSB reports, these are very rare events.
This is true, but in my opinion it is cheap insurance. In the skydiving world it is relatively rare that people are *unable* to deploy their reserve parachute and being knocked unconcious is not that common. Yet all around the world dropzones are mandating the use of automatic openers for the reserves. Of course, the main reason I believe is that people are losing altitude awareness and thus not deploying their parachutes in time, and the automatic openers thus save their life. If you compare the number of successful jumps (those being where either parachute was opened properly) and the number of 'saves' by automatic openers, the numbers are actually very low. Nonetheless, cheap insurance, and thats the reason I will wear one in my -8A. You never know, one day it may just be the difference that allows you to go home to your family...
 
This is the second time today that I've heard about "automatic openers". Is this something that can be installed on the typical emergency chute? My biggest concern about having to jump, would be getting knocked out on the way out, and not being able to pull the rip cord. If an automatic opener could be used, I'd be real interested in getting one installed on my chute.

Would an auto opener know the difference between free falling, and descending to land while still in the plane? Sure hope so :p



Cheers,
Rusty
 
Automatic activation devices (AADs) have been around for many years, but have advanced tremendously in the last 10 years or so. The leading one on the market right now is by a German company called Cypres. In fact, the term "cypres" is often used generically to mean any AAD. It is designed to open at 700' AGL if the descent rate exceeds 35 m/sec (about 80 MPH) or 13 m/sec with a student model. If the conditions are met, then it fires a very small pyrotechnic charge which cuts the loop retaining your reserve parachute pack (the reserve chute is spring loaded so it catches air immediately). The success rate of the Cypres system is very good and it has been credited with hundreds of saves worldwide.

That said. The standard units are really not appropriate for pilots wearing emergency chutes. For one thing, I don't think that emergency chutes are designed to accept them. For another, they do, on very rare occasions, fire prematurely (I witnessed it once). I wouldn't want to be doing a fast descent and suddenly have the cockpit filled with parachute canopy :eek: Third, you have to set it for the altitude of the terrain you are jumping over. In an emergency, you can't predict the MSL of the terrain below.

However, they do also make an air crew emergency Cypres that is manually armed by a lanyard attached to the aircraft. When you get up to go, the unit is activated and fires at any altitude below 13,000' when the descent rate exceeds 35 m/sec. These are fairly new and I've never actually seen a jump pilot wearing one. But, it sounds like it would work okay. The standard units cost about $1200. I would think that these would probably cost a little more.

I think the best way to prevent being knocked unconscious though is to wear a helmet. That's seems, to me, to be a far better solution than an AAD anyway. Paul Dye mentioned earlier that he wears a chute and helmet if he's expanding the flight envelope. That's probably the way I'll go as well.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Cypres aircrew version

Oooh, I wasn't aware of the aircrew version. I'll have to look into that. I may be entirely comfortable leaving my aircraft, but my Wife wouldn't be! She did two static line jumps around 12 years ago but then decided she didn't like leaving aeroplanes (I think she might have something wrong with her brain!;) ). An AAD for the passenger rig would do nicely...
 
I purchased a National Chute to wear when doing my 1st RV6 in 1999. I did in fact wear it during my test flying for Acro, but since it's just sitting in it's container getting very little use (I'll probably Ebay it). Mainly because I've also since found out I really don't like the National Chutes at all. If I were to buy another one, it would be a Softie for sure. Now I just don't wear one very often unless I intend to do some "serious" envelope expansion.

Incidentally, if you haven't had your slider or tipper canopy come unlatched at least once you probably will - sooner or later. Normally they just pop open a couple inches and stick there...you usually can't move them much more open or much more closed. Sure you could make the canopy "jettisonable" with some tinkering, but in the end if you're needing to bail for any other reason than fire it'll probably be because of something catosrophic....in which case you may very well just be stuck in your seat anyway (at least that's my opinion).

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein.

P.S., if anyone wants a 1999 National 360 that is uncomfortable as all heck in RV's, I'll make you a deal :)
 
I wear a parachute - alot.

I use a micro softie from Para-Phernalia with a square chute installed when doing acro or just need the security blanket. The chute is the same thickness as the seat back pad so are interchangeable and barely noticable.

Just after finishing initial phase 1 flight hours friends would want to go for a ride and would be a bit concerned when I had a chute and they didn't. I usually just said, "I know the builder".

I have a 6 w/slider and have heard the speculation that I wouldn't be able to get the canopy open, I subscribe to the belief of an old skydiving phrase - "you'd be amazed the things a dying man can do". I have 900 flight hours but still have more landings under a parachute than I have aircraft landings.

I do inspections and repacks for many of the parachute toting RVs in my area and the softie is most common and is very "rigger friendly". Strong Enterprises designed a seat pack for the RV4 a number of years back but I never packed one.

Rob Herndon
Nampa, Idaho
 
Thanks for the automatic opener info Chris. It doesn't sound like something I'll look much further into. I was told that the Navy uses a static line, and helmets in the T34, which would also be an option in an RV.

FWIW, I have never jumped, and hope I can keep it that way, but I wear a mini-softie when flight testing, doing aerobatics, or flying formation. I also wear a Nomex racing suit when doing flight testing, or after any fuel or oil system work.

I used to wear the chute almost all the time I was solo in my original RV-8, but got out of the habit in the RV-3. Unfortunately, I had an in-flight fire in the RV-3, and my very first thought was "**** it, I'm not wearing the chute". Fortunately, the fire and oil went out together :eek:

Cheers,
Rusty
 
I'd be curious to hear more from RV-4 owners regarding their take on the side-tip canopy and how well (or not) it's supposed to open in flight under bailout conditions. My plan has always been to get a decent chute, but I've had some concerns that the RV-4 canopy was simply not designed to open and stay open during a bailout.
 
Chutes and RV-4s

I wear a National 420 Seat pack all the time in my -4. It's better to sit on than the cushions I made up originally, though i have added an extra thigh support cushion. I needed the legroom, thus the seat pack type. Haven't used it. I do acro, and as stated above the circumstances where a bail out would be an option are few, but I'd like to have the option. I have taken-off with canopy uinlocked twice, and the saftey latch works. I've been able to re-lock it in flight at low speed I used a light piece of cord to hold the canopy from tipping fully open rather than a gas strut, so it should break if jetttison is required.
 
Sean D. Tucker??

...betcha Sean D. Tucker was glad to have had one. One of the best pictures around is of him standing next to the balled up "Oracle Challenger" holding some sort of cold drink( beer, I hope) with a bit of a smile on his face!

Jeff
-8 wings
 
Bunker Hill said:
I'd be curious to hear more from RV-4 owners regarding their take on the side-tip canopy and how well (or not) it's supposed to open in flight under bailout conditions. My plan has always been to get a decent chute, but I've had some concerns that the RV-4 canopy was simply not designed to open and stay open during a bailout.

An RV-4 canopy will open so quickly, once the latch is disengaged, you will not be able to see it go. Most likely it will shatter, or perhaps rip off. Then it will get very windy. You would be surprised how much lift is generated over the canopy. I'm saying this from experience.

Pete
 
Safety parachutes

I did one tandem jump back in the 80s, and that was enough for me. It was fun, but I'd rather be flying the plane.

Quick question for you experienced jumpers - what are the chances of someone like me who has essentially no jumping experience being able to safely parachute using one of the "safety chutes" in the event of a bail out?

Is there a lot to learn with those things, or are they essentially pull the handle and enjoy the ride?
 
chute

Chuck why would you not include fuel in your aerobatic gross weight calculations. I believe you should include everything, even the keys in your pocket. Please explain I must be missing something.
Tad 7A flying
 
rv8ch said:
Quick question for you experienced jumpers - what are the chances of someone like me who has essentially no jumping experience being able to safely parachute using one of the "safety chutes" in the event of a bail out?

Is there a lot to learn with those things, or are they essentially pull the handle and enjoy the ride?
Hundreds of pilots managed it in various wars (before ejector seats). With round chutes there's little that can go wrong. Even so, a briefing from a skydiving instructor that is familiar with round canopies and how to 'land' them wouldn't go amiss. Can you say PLF anyone? Sadly lacking from modern training :-(
 
rv8ch said:
Quick question for you experienced jumpers - what are the chances of someone like me who has essentially no jumping experience being able to safely parachute using one of the "safety chutes" in the event of a bail out?

One thing that I did when I first started dong acro was egress training. The chute part is no big deal....pull the rip cord, steer away from power lines but for the most part leave the dang chute alone as much as you can.

The egress from a tumbling out of control aircraft, IMHO, is very difficult. I've never gone skydiving and never had to bail out but once I went through the training I had a much better appreciation of how to exit the aircraft (and in a hurry). When done properly, you can have two people out of a Citabria in about 5 seconds! When done improperly (i.e. without planning) it can take upwards of 20 seconds to get all untangled and get out of there.
 
rv8ch said:
Quick question for you experienced jumpers - what are the chances of someone like me who has essentially no jumping experience being able to safely parachute using one of the "safety chutes" in the event of a bail out?

Is there a lot to learn with those things, or are they essentially pull the handle and enjoy the ride?

Landing is the easy part any skydiving instructor, web site, manual, can tell you how to pull the ripcord, steer clear of obstacles, face into the wind, feet and knees together slightly bent, eye on the horizon, parachute landing fall, jump up and down scream, call insurance company (for the plane).

The often overlooked area is the complete egress process.
I recently provided egress training for a Citabria. We went through the process from recognition of a problem to the jump up and down part.

We discovered that the door would not release as expected.
Get "aircraft specific" training or develop it yourself.
If you have a door or canopy that jettisons have someone assist and do it.
Ensure the mechanisms work properly.
Make sure you jettison or open canopy BEFORE you unhook seatbelts.
Practice unhooking the seat belts without unhooking the parachute harness, my worst fear is being in freefall without a chute (it's happened).

Develop a plan and practice, when you wear the chute it's another part of the system.

For many years my emergency procedures for engine failure below 1500 feet was to jump - then I became a pilot so I slightly modified my procedures. Then I became an aircraft owner and my procedures changed altogether - now that I'm a co-owner with the bank I practice getting the plane back on the ground in one piece.

Check out www.silverparachutes.com Allen has alot of info there.

Rob H
RV6 223RH
 
airtime said:
Check out www.silverparachutes.com Allen has alot of info there.

Allen is a great guy - he's currently repacking my parachutes and was kind enough to verbally go though many of the things that are documented on his website. As far as landing, my take away:

  • land into the wind
  • don't hit powerlines (therefore avoid roads because they frequently have powerlines nearby)
  • the round chutes we are using are setup to face into a five mile an hour wind. If the wind is going faster than that, you will be landing 'backwards.' Look behind you about 45 degrees down to see where you will be landing.
  • bend your knees and plan your landing as if you just jumped off of the roof of a minivan.
  • Getting out without being trapped under the canopy or smacked by the empennage is the biggest concern - not landing.
 
tadsargent said:
Chuck why would you not include fuel in your aerobatic gross weight calculations. I believe you should include everything, even the keys in your pocket. Please explain I must be missing something.
Tad 7A flying

You can find notes elsewhere that say Van's himself says not to include the fuel in the wings in your acro-weight but nowhere does it say why.

Here is my attempt at explaining why this is:

In acro stresses on the plane are attempting to bend the wings upward (under positive G) The point of maximum bending moment is roughly at the wing root. Thus all weight 'in the fuselage' is being supported by the wings. Fuel in the wing is actually bending the wing down and 'helping' from a bending moment standpoint.

That's a bunch of engineering speak, here's a (very) crude analogy that helped me understand it:

Imagine you have a 10 foot 2x4 and two saw horses 6 feet apart. If you try to stand in the middle you will likely break the 2x4. Now put 100lb at the both ends of the 2x4 and the board will likely not break even though it is supporting twice the weight (if you weigh 200lb).

Chuck
 
Dual Acro requires Dual Chutes, Gotcha!

This may be old news but beware this "tricky" FAR, at least it was to me.

If solo you don't need a chute. That is easy. However if you carry a passenger "each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute", including the pilot!

Flying Acro, banks more than 60 degrees or pitch more than 30 degrees with a passenger with one or no chutes is violating FAR's. (I know someone will call me on this, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it.)

Parachute usage is covered in 14 CFR 91.307. Section (c) of this regulation applies to aircraft during aerobatic maneuvers. It states:

"(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a
crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds --

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon."




The following is the EAA's interpretation, so write them if you don't agree. :rolleyes:

"Note that this regulation states that, during aerobatic flight, all persons in the aircraft must have a parachute whenever people OTHER THAN CREWMEMBER(S) are carried. Therefore, when the only person on board is the pilot, and no others are carried, a parachute is not required. However, when a passenger is carried in an aircraft during aerobatics, all persons on board INCLUDING crewmember(s) are required to be wearing parachutes."

Though there may be flight maneuvers that you don?t consider aerobatic (steep pitch-outs, for example) that exceed these limits, parachutes are still required. That is my story (and the EAA's), so if you do dual Acro you need TWO chutes not one.

George
 
Last edited:
Tad,

I think there was an article from Van a while back (in the RVator) that said for his numbers, one should not include fuel.

I won't try to explain as I think it is better to find the article. I will look for it and get it to you if I find it.

James
 
I recall this being mentioned with regard to the RV-3, but only because it originally had a fuselage tank. I'm assuming the numbers were all based on having the weight of fuel in the fuselage, rather than in the wings. Later, it was noted that you could disregard the wing fuel weight for aerobatic purposes if you had wing tanks.

If anyone can find something that says the other models can disregard fuel weight for aerobatic limits, that would be great. I just haven't seen that except for the RV-3.

Cheers,
Rusty
 
13brv3 said:
If anyone can find something that says the other models can disregard fuel weight for aerobatic limits, that would be great. I just haven't seen that except for the RV-3.

When this topic came up, I asked support@vans because I'm about to start my RV acro tests (didn't do em in my 'first' phase I). I'll ask them for permission to quote the email, but Van himself just answered and confirmed Randy's original statement.

Van said, essentially "more weight for acro = bad for a number of reasons, but fuel in the wings has very little effect on aerodynamic bending loads." He confirmed that his intent was the the aerobatic gross weight for RV's with wing tanks is the zero fuel weight.

It makes sense if you think about it, but still surprised me.
 
Hi Kevin,

It does make sense. I sure hope they let you quote the whole email, or better yet, post the info on their site. If that was their intent, I have to wonder why they don't simply state it that way in the limitations. I seriously doubt this is the first time the question has come up.

Cheers,
Rusty
 
Acro weight

chuck said:
When calculating acro weight, don't include fuel.
Why not? All fuel (except unuseable fuel) contributes to weight and structural stress. Are you thinking that fuel in the wing doesn't contribute to wing bending moment like that in the fuselage? Every aerobatic aircraft I've owned or flown specifies acro weight with useable fuel included. Do you have some new or different info from an authoritative source? At least in my flying, all useable fuel is included in the weight calculation. I'll continue to do it that way in the future. One RV'er I know who is also an aeronautical engineer flies acro at weights well over the one specified by Van's. He calculates a safe "G" load based upon his actual weight and appropriately decreases the maximum "G" allowed. He then carefully remains within those modified limits for that flight.
 
RV-4 canopy

Bunker Hill said:
I'd be curious to hear more from RV-4 owners regarding their take on the side-tip canopy and how well (or not) it's supposed to open in flight under bailout conditions. My plan has always been to get a decent chute, but I've had some concerns that the RV-4 canopy was simply not designed to open and stay open during a bailout.
According to a report which I think was in an old RVator, an RV-4 canopy ripped off in flight. All the rivets along the hinge line tore out. The pilot landed his plane safely. Bill Dicus
 
RV-4 canopy and Aerobatic weight

The intent with the RV-4 canopy, as designed by Van, is for those hinge rivets to tear out when jettisoning the canopy. Soft aluminium rivets are used, and then at a wide pitch spacing, to make sure this can happen. That is also why he specifies a light lanyard to hold the canopy when open, not a gas strut or other means without a weak failure point for jettison.

Aerobatic weight. Yes, you can calculate a new max 'g' load for each load configuration so as not to exceed the design stresses in the wing. Yes, fuel in the wing alleviates wing root bending moment, so you can calculate another max 'g' load for that case if you wish. This is ignoring any local structural or secondary factors that I don't know about. However, having a sliding scale of 'g' for all cases makes for confusion and ****-ups, so manufacturers keep it simple, and conservative, by specifying one aerobatic gross weight and one set of 'g' limits. In more complex aircraft or where a rigid limit is operatioinally limiting several load cases and 'g' limits may be specified.

Take Jon Jahansen's RV-4 with a wing completely full of fuel. Obviously he exceeds Van's specified gross weight, but the wing doesn't break. The fuel is distributed along the span, and the bending moment at any point is no greater (?) than the design load. Most conventional aerobatic aircarft, i.e Pitts, Great Lakes, One Design et al, have all their fuel in the fuselage, not the wing, so fuel does add to the wing bending load.

At least we are thinking about these things.

RV-4 VH-PIO
BE(Aero)
MRAeS
 
Last edited:
Successful bailouts?

Perhaps this question is motivated by the thought: To wear, or not to wear, a parachute.

Can anyone relate incidence(s) of successful bailout(s) from RV's?
 
only one that i know of

and he wasnt wearing a chute...his plane was on fire.. RIP my freind.

on the lighter side alot of people ore leaving out the canopy jettison mechanism. i feel i'll be able to get out but then where do most desires to get out occur....near the ground...so its 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.
 
Joe: How about some details? I am given to understand that a slider will not slide back in flight, at least not enough to climb through. Please share what you know. Thanks.
 
N131RV said:
Yes, a slider will open in flight.

Yes, but will it open enough for a person to exit. It seems from reading other people's experiences that it will open several inches but cannot be pushed back much further.

Many people believe that wearing a chute in a slider serves no purpose other than to generate a warm and fuzzy feeling.
 
Back
Top