What's new
Van's Air Force

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

SB 14-02-03; RV-3, 4, 6/6A, 7/7A, 8/8A

What year did the change-over occur?

I don't think there was a real change over year. For a while 0.020 skins were offered as an option to counteract cracks at the aft end of the elevator stiffeners that seemed to occur with larger engines.
 
Do you know how many had the earlier 0.016 thin elevator skins vs. the later 0.020 skins?

It has to make a stiffness difference.

I did not think there were any 016 elev. skins on the 8's. Thought just the 4's and maybe early 6's. We are all 8's but one. I could of course be wrong on that.
 
I did not think there were any 016 elev. skins on the 8's. Thought just the 4's and maybe early 6's. We are all 8's but one. I could of course be wrong on that.
I believe you are right. No (production) -8s with 016 on the empennage.
 
RE NTSB release ref Vans SB

May be that I missed something but from what I can find N147BK is a Piper PA46-350 P. Registered thru 4/30/2015. How is this relevant to the Vans SB?
 
Another data point....

This morning I checked the elevators on my -4 and was relieved to find on cracks. For those looking for trends, here on the details:

Kit S/N 2981
First flight August 2001
650 TTSN
IO-360, 180HP w/CS prop
Long gear
0.016" elevator skins
No aerobatics other than slow rolls
Never flown on grass

Has anyone heard any rumors regarding changes to the designs for new kits sold? This seems like a bad story for both those interested in re-sale value and those considering starting a kit. I always believed the RV-4 airframe was bullet proof. Between firewall buckling and tail feathers cracking, I am no longer so confident...
 
Last edited:
Has anyone hear any rumors regarding changes to the designs for new kits sold? This seems like a bad story for both those interested in re-sale value and those considering starting a kit. I always believed the RV-4 airframe was bullet proof. Between firewall buckling and tail feathers cracking, I am no longer so confident...

Well you have to keep it in perspective Dean - this is a 35 year old design and there are at least 1500 flying - compare that to just about any certified airplane and see how many airframe AD's they have. And if you count the number of airframes whee elevatro cracks were found, you probably shouldn't be terribly worried.
 
Elevator Spar Cracks

I like Walt's Idea of a washer. I have used Belleville (cone type spring washers) for other things and I wonder if it may be appropriate here. It would accomplish 2 things. I believe it may spread the load a bit more evenly than a flat washer, in addition it would add a anti loosening feature. Any time you have a nut torqued on a flat surface, once that nut moves even the tiniest bit, all torque is gone. The Belleville washer would maintain a load on the nut even if it was backed off a bit.

I am sure that most of you have made sure that the hinge line is straight, but it is difficult to get that initial measurement because the swivel may not be straight. When I built my 7A, I made a jig to get the initial setting right. I just checked my elevator, no loose nuts, no cracks.

I have decided to offer the rod end gage to you all.

I understand the rod end shown is not the MD3614M, this is shown for illustration of its use.

This has two sides, one for a spar with no doubler (13/16) and one for use with a doubler (3/4). It is relieved for rivet clearance. You can get it at http://www.bullerent.com/Rod End Gage.htm
 
Nice, I just ordered one. I would have loved to added a panel pro to the cart too but I'm just a tad shy on PP funds to cover it ;)
 
RV-6
2000 Tail Kit
(I think I remember 016 elevator & 020 rudder skins)
TT ~120
YO360-A1A
Sensenich 72/85 metal
No cracks

Jim Sharkey
 
No cracks

RV6A circa 2003
375 TT
0-360 A1A
Sensi FP prop
No acro or grass in past 75 hrs (aircraft bought flying at 300 hrs)
Small notches
No cracks
 
Inspected mine today..No cracks.. Funny, my early plans (and what I can see on newer plans) There is NO call out for a washer under the jam nuts on either the elevators or rudder. However, for some reason I did put washers under the jam nuts.. All jam nuts still tight with withness mark paint still on undisturbed..

early RV6A # 20030
0-360 FP sensenich
707 hrs.
no acro or grass
 
Empennage

If I wanted to change out the whole empennage on a older RV6. Could I use a RV7 empennage ? It would be new parts.

Will it fit?
 
Last edited:
If I wanted to change out the whole empennage on a older RV6. Could I use a RV7 empennage ? It would be new parts.

Will it fit?

I think so. Check with Bob Mills (VAF: rvmills) , a year ago or so. He changed out the tail on his Super Six for a -8 tail.
 
Last edited:
7 Tail on an Older 6

Jay Pratt and others

I replaced my entire older non-counter balanced 6 empennage with a newer 7, and have the following observation for you.

I weighed all components removed, and all components installed, and ended up with a heaver tailwheel weight by an order of several pounds plus.

This necessitated a Saber propeller crush plate to bring me back into my comfort zone on W/B, and I lost a little useful load because of it.

The aircraft handles a little different, and seems less sensitive to trim during landing approach and flare. It definately prefers slower approach and touchdown speeds, and lifting the tail for maintenance ops is slightly heavier. I do not crosswind fly to the limit, so no comment there yet on the larger rudder. 138 hours on this new tail, no inspection yet, will report.

This all to say yes, you can do it, expect it WILL change the handling characteristics of your unit and might reduce a little useful load. And, since I also changed from an O-320 to an O-360 at the same time, Helena FSDO gave me a gift of another 40 hour Phase 1 test period, much to my chagrin.

Mike Bauer
RV6 20716 N918MB O-360C1A
 
Last edited:
RV-7 290 hrs
No cracks

75 % pavement
20 % grass
5 % snow-covered ice rwy's

Lots of std acro maneuvers (max +4)
Lots of formation

10 % at MTOW

Superior IO-360
MT C/S prop dynamically balanced

Moved with towbar on TW
 
No cracks

RV Super Six (IO540) with an RV 8 tail.
960 hours TT
About 100 TO's and Lndgs off grass and rough surfaces
Some Acro

No cracks
 
Hangar partner's aircraft:

RV8 C-GLZR Bald Eagle
Completed 2007
300 hours
O-360
Sensenich FP
Moderate positive G acro
Mostly pavement
No cracks
 
Logbook entries

Can some of the experts talk about log book entries?

In one post a requisite log entry is mentioned...

Mandatory vs. non mandatory SB

Keeping a separate list of SB and compliance ?

After reading this thread I think many folks forget that they built an experimental aircraft... I always think of my airplane the same way I would think about any home built airplane....it's not a"certified aircraft"

Cm
 
Can some of the experts talk about log book entries?

In one post a requisite log entry is mentioned...

Mandatory vs. non mandatory SB

Keeping a separate list of SB and compliance ?

After reading this thread I think many folks forget that they built an experimental aircraft... I always think of my airplane the same way I would think about any home built airplane....it's not a"certified aircraft"

Cm

This Q goes back to another older thread.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=822742&postcount=56

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=823112&postcount=58

I have asked the EAA ([email protected]) three times to clarify their statements on the web wrt the FAR. First time in early Nov. 2013, with follow ups in Dec and this Feb.

The response has been absolutely zero....
 
The way I interpret it is, except for SLSA, no one except the FAA can actually mandate that something be done to an aircraft. So for part 91 operations, a manufacturer or kit supplier, although they may feel passionately about the need to do a service bulletin, can't really enforce compliance.

There are a lot of opinions on whether an AD applies to experimental. After looking at both sides of the argument, my sense is that the ADs apply if they say they do.

So, if Van's issues 14-01-31 as "mandatory", solely from a regulatory perspective, I don't think it is truly mandatory. On the other hand, to speculate, if the FAA issued an AD that directed compliance with the SB (whether or not it had mandatory in the title) then one would have to comply with the AD.

All of that aside, some difficult questions could arise if there were ever a situation where insurance claim were involved.

Also, as judgmental as this may sound, were I as an A&P asked to do a condition inspection on an aircraft I did not build, I think I'd have a hard time not following such a SB (that is to say, do the inspection - finding no cracks note it; finding cracks, no signoff until the SB is accomplished).

Dan
 
the point

here is my point...

to the best of my knowledge, a SB issued from Van's has no effect on the airworthiness of the aircraft. If I don't have to do an AD on my once certified engine, then I don't have to do a SB to maintain airworthiness.

I am not advocating for not doing the actions on the SB or the repairs.

My point goes to the comments that OMG van's issued 2 SB in one week that the whole fleet will drop out of the sky or that your resale value will plummet. There was a time when a "homebuilt" couldn't be sold for the cost of the materials to build it ,or that other kit sellers don't even make an effort to tell kit owners about potential problems. Every airplane, with few exceptions, experiences these kind of issues as time goes by.

As far as the repair goes, if the jam nut is loose after adding the doubler, it will just pop rivet heads off and that would be worse than a crack. Just make sure the Jam nut isn't loose.

cm
 
Chris,
I believe Dan is pretty much spot on. Even in the certified world there is no such thing as a mandatory SB. Even though it may say so at the top of the document. When going to A&P school it was made clear that the only thing mandatory was an AD (certified world). Most AD's evolve however from a SB.
With that said we don't see AD's for our airframes so it is a very good idea to take a close look at the service bulletins as they come along and AD's as they may apply to our engines or appliances.
As far as documentation goes simply make a notation as to the date and airframe or engine time (whatever is applicable) and how you complied with the SB or AD. In other words is it a terminating action, is it good for X amount of hours or due again at next condition inspection. Since you are not bound by SB's no documentation is required but probably not the best way to do it.
Ryan
 
I agree

Ryan,

I agree with what you said....

Sometimes I think Van's should just call these SBs something else.

I am looking at another thread with pictures of a repair and I see what could be a degradation of the structure by making a repair. I hope guys don't make things worse by making a repair. ( the other SB concerning the stab spar on other models) For me, I wouldn't do anything until I find a crack.


Chris M A&P
 
Hi. My -4 elevators skins are still unriveted. So, I may be in time to install the new plates. However, I think Van's does not reccommend a preventative installation. Am I right or do you believe is better to upgrade to the new plates? Van's Note follows:

NOTE: Installation of this service bulletin as preventative maintenance is not recommended. If cracking has occurred at an outboard hinge position, install a doubler only at that position.

Thanks.
Camillo
 
The way I interpret it is, except for SLSA, no one except the FAA can actually mandate that something be done to an aircraft. So for part 91 operations, a manufacturer or kit supplier, although they may feel passionately about the need to do a service bulletin, can't really enforce compliance.

There are a lot of opinions on whether an AD applies to experimental. After looking at both sides of the argument, my sense is that the ADs apply if they say they do.

So, if Van's issues 14-01-31 as "mandatory", solely from a regulatory perspective, I don't think it is truly mandatory. On the other hand, to speculate, if the FAA issued an AD that directed compliance with the SB (whether or not it had mandatory in the title) then one would have to comply with the AD.

All of that aside, some difficult questions could arise if there were ever a situation where insurance claim were involved.

Also, as judgmental as this may sound, were I as an A&P asked to do a condition inspection on an aircraft I did not build, I think I'd have a hard time not following such a SB (that is to say, do the inspection - finding no cracks note it; finding cracks, no signoff until the SB is accomplished).

Dan

AC 20-27G covers building and maintaining a home built airplane. Advisory Circulars are not regulations and not mandatory, they are advisories only.

BUT if one attempts to build and certify a aircraft not in accordance with AC 20-27G, the FAA can and will deny certification.

As far as complying or not complying with a SB from Vans is concerned, that is up to the owner of the aircraft. But the owner needs be aware that operating the aircraft without complying could be construed as operating an unsafe aircraft and that is a violation of FAR's. Experimental aircraft are not exempt from the regulations with regard to safe flight condition.

This is all somewhat mirky but in the end one can not go wrong treating the SB as if it were an AD and making an entry in the log book that it has been complied with. No one concerned with the regulatory process be it the FAA, an insurance company or a future owner, will have a problem with such an action.
 
Hi. My -4 elevators skins are still unriveted. So, I may be in time to install the new plates. However, I think Van's does not reccommend a preventative installation. Am I right or do you believe is better to upgrade to the new plates? Van's Note follows:

NOTE: Installation of this service bulletin as preventative maintenance is not recommended. If cracking has occurred at an outboard hinge position, install a doubler only at that position.

Thanks.
Camillo

I was at the point of closing my elevator skins as well and called Vans. They told me to install the plates as they are included in new kits. Of course, I was able to use solid rivets instead of the cherrymax in the repair kit.
 
RV-4s SB Compliance

Well I'm glad to report that I did the SB for my RV-4 yesterday and no cracks were found.

1986 RV-4
1106 hrs


Bruno
[email protected]
 
Last edited:
SB Update

Well I guess I celebrated a little too early.....

Yesterday I had to remove the whole empennage off the a/c so I could get access to all the small corners of the tail assy to clean all the craps left by my squatters ( Mices) and while doing so I had a much better view of the area to which the SB applies.....
Guess what: We found a small crack about 1/2'' on the left elevator ....so I will be fixing that first chance I get...replacing at the same time all the Rod End bearings...they've been there a few years...

BTW: Will anyone have the Part Number for the Rod Ends for the elevators and the rudder???I looked at the original plans today and I'm missing the plans I need to get the P/N, I have all the others plan sheets.

The a/c is an RV-4

If you could, I will appreciate it..

Thanks


Bruno
[email protected]
 
Last edited:
AC 20-27G covers building and maintaining a home built airplane. Advisory Circulars are not regulations and not mandatory, they are advisories only.

BUT if one attempts to build and certify a aircraft not in accordance with AC 20-27G, the FAA can and will deny certification.

As far as complying or not complying with a SB from Vans is concerned, that is up to the owner of the aircraft. But the owner needs be aware that operating the aircraft without complying could be construed as operating an unsafe aircraft and that is a violation of FAR's. Experimental aircraft are not exempt from the regulations with regard to safe flight condition.

This is all somewhat mirky but in the end one can not go wrong treating the SB as if it were an AD and making an entry in the log book that it has been complied with. No one concerned with the regulatory process be it the FAA, an insurance company or a future owner, will have a problem with such an action.

some definitions of terms need to be addressed in this type of thread.
first off, as stated, there is no such thing as a mandatory SB even in the standard certificate world.

an EAB is never airworthy. because it is not constructed under the rules of part 23, it cannot be described as airworthy. this is a issue I see a lot in logbooks, the word airworthy is not to be used in the signoff for a condition inspection. an EAB is only "found to be in a safe condition for flight" there is no definition of safe flight in anything the FAA puts out. that is up to the person that signs the logbook entry.

as for AC20-27G it has nothing to do with "found in a condition safe for flight" it states:

g. Meeting General Design and Construction Requirements.
(1) Amateur builders are free to develop their own designs or build from
existing designs. We do not approve those designs; it would be impractical to develop
design standards for the wide variety of design configurations created by designers, kit
manufacturers, and amateur builders.

it goes further when in following paragraphs it uses the phrase, " the designer should", notice it does not say "shall" big difference concerning what the FAA can do. as mel has stated many times, as the DAR its his call as to if the certificate is issued, there is really no hard guidance as to what is "safe for flight" a DAR must use their own experience to judge that, some are more conservative that others.

an insurance company would be hard pressed to deny a claim on an EAB that had a valid condition inspection. they might try to go after the person signing it, but even that could be a hard sell.

the point of all this is, there are really only a few things that must be in a logbook legally.

1. a condition inspection done in accordance with the operating limitations.
2. any AD that specifically calls out the aircraft,engine or appliance. most don't but some do. this one will be argued forever.
3.any inspection that is required by FARS such as transponder, pitot static ect

remember, the FAA is a government department that is really a legal firm. only the letter of the law is required.

so i agree with david that by complying and documenting it you can't go wrong, and its the correct thing to do, but there are a lot of things said in some of these types of threads that are just not legally true.

so inspect it, make a logbook entry such as "inspected rear horizontal spar in accordance with vans aircraft S/B 14-03-02 no cracks found. sign it and be done with it until the next c.

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
Back
Top