What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Bailing out of an RV-8 especially if you're on fire

donaziza

Well Known Member
I've started a couple of threads on this subject in the last 7 years. Got various answers on how one couldn't open the canopy in flight on an RV 8 due to high/low?? pressure. Paul Dye, years ago, suggested I put easy to remove "pip Pins" in the front of the canopy, where there are presently bolts with nuts. Or even to take off with them not installed at all, (the forward windscreen metal hoop would hold the canopy in place. (This I did with my old 8, and it worked fine even during acrobatics)

I had also asked Vans if they had any documentation on anyone ever bailing out of an RV 8. They said "yes", but unfortunately, the poor guy didn't have a parachute. (Obviously a fire, else why would he have done it)

So here's my question: I'd like to write Vans and see if they would be willing to sacrifice an 8 to see if one can indeed get out of the thing if one had a rip roaring fire. If one uses the "pip pins" as per Paul Dye, I'm assuming you'd only have to slide the canopy back a half inch or so, push up, and bang, that canopy is gone. Would it hurt the vertical stabilizer?? Sure, probably,---- probably put a nice dent in the upper forward leading edge of the VS, but who cares, you're leaving anyhow. Maybe there is something Vans could do in a wind tunnel test vs a real airplane.

So now the point of all this. If I'm the only one to write Vans, I think I'd probably be dismissed as "Yeah Right". But if a whole lot of us write, maybe 50 guys or so, I would think we'd have their attention. I only know RV 8's, but I would think my thinking would apply to any slider canopy, ie RV 6's etc. ( Don't know how one would deal with the "tip up" canopies.

Whadaya'all think of my idea?
 
Last edited:
I may not quite understand what you want but what happens to the pilot in this test?

George

Of course I wouldn't want anything to happen to a test pilot----that's a given. -----Vans would have to engineer it where the test pilot gets out no matter what. (I.m no aeronautical engineer---is this not possible?
 
Last edited:
hjo.jpg

I see lawyers....

:D
 
hjo.jpg

I see lawyers....

:D

That is funny!

If the canopy comes off cleanly, the pilot can land the plane. Someone will still need to pick up the pieces. (It has been reported that -8's fly fine w/o the canopy.)

If it hits the VS or HS, the pilot (Joe Blank?) is going over the side, then IF the plane doesn't hit anyone/anything, Van's will have a mess to clean up. The environmentalists will go crazy due to the spilled oil and 100LL. Oh, that leaded fuel will be a BIG issue.

I don't see it happening because I'm not sure the certified manufacturers have done the same test.

Good luck, I think the results would be interesting. BTW, I would think they would run this test on a SbS simply because there are more 6, 7, 9, and now 14's than 8's.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm. Yeah, you're going to get a "yeah right" even if 50 folks write.

To sacrifice an aircraft and put a pilot at risk for such an answer is not realistic.

This the experimental/amateur built market we play in. It's not like they're selling certificated aircraft here with airframe parachutes that need to be proven.
 
wind tunnel, or uber-simulator?

how about bolting an -8 fuse to the back of a flat-deck, and taking it down a deserted Nevada highway at 100 kts? Pop the canopy, see if you can send it skyward...attached with a lanyard to keep it off the road of course!
...or perhaps Paul Dye knows where to find a 747 that we could piggyback an -8 onto? :) ( might be one parked somewhere with a 'for rent' sign on it?!)
heck, could test the entire Van's fleet at once!
 
Why limit it to just the -8's? As a soon-to-be -9A driver I'm interested in knowing if my canopy will depart cleanly too. And what about the 10's and their gullwing doors?

They won't do it, no matter how many people write to them for the simple reason the risk doesn't justify any potential reward.
 
Ummmm. Yeah, you're going to get a "yeah right" even if 50 folks write.

To sacrifice an aircraft and put a pilot at risk for such an answer is not realistic.

This the experimental/amateur built market we play in. It's not like they're selling certificated aircraft here with airframe parachutes that need to be proven.




My thoughts exactly.
 
Allow me to elaborate a bit beyond my first tongue-in-cheek post. I?m not a lawyer nor have I ever played one on TV, but I have had a bit of experience into how their thinking often runs, and that is usually along the lines of risk vs. benefit. Examining the matter from all aspects, and using the most negative default position, one might (I say might) arrive at something like this?

First, since RV-8s can be and are built to an infinite universe of variables, it would have to be established what is the one and only Factory Designated Configuration (FDC) RV-8, down to the exquisite detail level.

Second, wind tunnels and computer models validate theories. Once a design has been so validated it is tested in the real world to find out if the expected conclusions are manifested in reality. Therefore, actual flight testing must ensue.

Third, then the ?what ifs? come into play.

What if the test is positive and it is held that the RV-8 is escapable in flight? Then if someone, even in an FDC RV-8, fails in an attempt to evacuate the aircraft during an emergency, the factory could be targeted for a liability action.

What if the real world test fails? It?s assumed that a backup system is in place and deployed. The factory has then inadvertently cast a shadow of doubt over the design that may be reflected in the marketplace.

Further, how many RV-8s would have to be sacrificed in testing to establish a valid result trendline? Who will donate theirs?

Where is the win/win? Is it all risk and little or no benefit?

Let?s assume the factory has insurance and their insurance carrier has a legal department which exercises veto power. That?s what my ?I see lawyers? comment was referring to. I hope no one took it as another lawyer bashing joke. It wasn?t.

Like I said, this is deliberately the most pessimistic viewpoint, for the sake of establishing a baseline if you will. In this realm it would seem that the occurrence of egress testing would be unlikely.

From the opposing POV?well, it isn?t called Experimental for nothing, right?

ps: Any and all flaming is most welcome. I could be completely fulla hooey.
 
Another consideration - what attitude would you propose that the aircraft be in to establish the standard RV8 escape configuration? Straight and level, banking, inverted, climbing, diving, fast, slow ... etc? There are so many possibilities that one experiment wouldn't prove much one way or the other. I'm willing to bet that Vans wouldn't go anywhere near this, well intentioned as the question may be.
 
I don't know why it is any harder/easier to exit an RV vs a certificated aircraft like, say, a C182. I'd say we have much better odds. My objective is to make an airplane I don't want to get out of.

Now that the serious comment is completed, I laughed out loud that 50 people could get Vans to sacrifice a flying aircraft!!

Heck, 500 people couldn't get Vans to change drawing with a hole in the wrong place! (not that there is anything wrong with that)
 
Canopy

Most of the aerobatic airplanes have side opening canopies. I lost the canopy on a Sukhoi SU29 at a relatively low speed . I was in the front seat. The back seater was injured by the departing canopy. The canopy did not hit the tail.
The unfortunate truth is that if you break a wing on a low or mid wing aircraft you will almost certainly be struck and killed by the wing, unless it is a negative G event. One rare exception to this is that Neil Williams partially folded the wing on a Zlin(upward), rolled the airplane inverted, which popped the wing more or less into position. He flew an inverted pattern and rolled upright very close to the ground and crashed.
On a Cassutt the wings literally exploded into a lot of very small pieces. The pilot had a very tough time exiting the airplane but bailed out safely. It was probably going well over 400 when he cleared the fuselage. One of a kind wing that wasn't quite good enough.
There have allegedly been two canopies lost for every two seat Pitts with the double canopy. I never heard of one hitting the tail.
The late Montaine Mallet bailed out of a CAP10, along with a student, after a control blockage. Sliding canopy, I can't remember if it jettisons.
 
Why limit it to just the -8's? As a soon-to-be -9A driver I'm interested in knowing if my canopy will depart cleanly too. And what about the 10's and their gullwing doors?

I believe the 10 has been tested by several customers.
The door will depart the aircraft even if you didn't meant for the door to
separate from the aircraft......

The unfortunate accident previously mentioned is prove enough that you can get out of a flying 8.

Can't tell you what Van will do about your request, although I have a pretty good idea.

Fortunately in flight fires are extremely rare and perhaps you can redirect your ambitions to find solutions to post crash fire escapes.
You asked for opinions.
 
Since these are homebuilt aircraft, there's nothing to stop a builder from installing some sort of positive canopy separation device, and setting up a controlled test of the system. Such a test could be done on the ground, given suitable effort. Depending on the system, it might not even ruin any parts.

If canopy separation is a concern of yours, this would be a way to alleviate it.

Dave
 
Fire

At least two recent events and one older Rocket event were fires caused by loose fitting on engine driven fuel pump. Very preventable.
Very few fire causes that are not preventable. IMPECCABLE MAINTENENCE is the answer.
 
Parachute is the key

I've jumped out of 5 or 6 different planes that were not setup for skydiving. None were reall very difficult to get out of.

Usually if you could get the airspeed low you can then overpower any wind resistance.

I have not tried an rv. But I'll be glad to try:)
 
Internet legend?

Kinda a side step on this, but it is my belief that Richard VanGrunsven himself tested all his aircraft, and he tested them wearing a parachute.

I would assume in all cases he believed he could exit the aircraft if required.

Has anyone ever tried and failed to exit one of these planes? After all, there are more than 8,000 flying.

:eek:

CC
 
fire

I think if you are on fire you will find the motivation to get out. The plexiglass is not very thick.
 
Fire, Really...

I must admit that these are fun to read. Somehow I think worring about bailing out of a flaming aircraft is a bit of a waste of time. Most people flying their RV's do very little aerobatics and that is very likely the only time one would be wearing a chute. I don't know anyone that wears a chute going cross country or out for the $$$ burger. I compare the odds of the engine fire while wearing a chute to something like getting mauled by a brown bear and a polar bear in the same day. If the fire occurs in the engine compartment shut off the fuel, fly the plane and get it down as fast as you possibly can. Practice emergency descents. See how fast you can get down from your normal cruise alt and get it in landing configuration, that's probably the best approach. If the fire is in the cabin and it's fuel related you might be SOL...
 
I must admit that these are fun to read. Somehow I think worring about bailing out of a flaming aircraft is a bit of a waste of time. Most people flying their RV's do very little aerobatics and that is very likely the only time one would be wearing a chute. I don't know anyone that wears a chute going cross country or out for the $$$ burger. I compare the odds of the engine fire while wearing a chute to something like getting mauled by a brown bear and a polar bear in the same day. If the fire occurs in the engine compartment shut off the fuel, fly the plane and get it down as fast as you possibly can. Practice emergency descents. See how fast you can get down from your normal cruise alt and get it in landing configuration, that's probably the best approach. If the fire is in the cabin and it's fuel related you might be SOL...

Years ago, I was tooling along at 11500 FT. ( No parachute) Suddenly started to get this acrid burning smell in the cockpit. Started looking for places to land like right-now-pronto. Then the smell suddenly went away. Maybe two years passed. One day, the mechanic was checking stuff. This required the two fuel gages to be pulled out. They turned out to be all misshaped and deformed. (As in high heat deformation) So I have to assume that was the source of the problem. ( This mechanic was what I would call an RV guru, ie, he knew how to fix everything RV---he helped guys build their RV's)

Later on, I became the owner of a parachute. Wore it virtually every time, including a trip out to the west coast and trips down to Florida just like the military does. Ya never know.
 
parachute

(The correct term for a parachute in a container is "rig") I wear a rig all the time in my 8, cross country or just a short hop. I cant say if a person could get out of a 8 under all conditions you take a risk every time you leave the ground. We do know one person did get out of a 8. Lots of people got out of all kinds of planes in WW1 and WW2. Ive made over 5000 skydives and over 500 base jumps. When people ask why I wear one in my plane I tell them I have more trust in parachutes than airplanes. I think a lot of people justify not wearing a rig by convincing themselves that there is no reason to wear one because there is NO WAY they could get out , that is just not true. You may or may not be able to get out but if the time comes that you want out I am sure you would be better off with a rig. Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.....
 
(The correct term for a parachute in a container is "rig") I wear a rig all the time in my 8, cross country or just a short hop. I cant say if a person could get out of a 8 under all conditions you take a risk every time you leave the ground. We do know one person did get out of a 8. Lots of people got out of all kinds of planes in WW1 and WW2. Ive made over 5000 skydives and over 500 base jumps. When people ask why I wear one in my plane I tell them I have more trust in parachutes than airplanes. I think a lot of people justify not wearing a rig by convincing themselves that there is no reason to wear one because there is NO WAY they could get out , that is just not true. You may or may not be able to get out but if the time comes that you want out I am sure you would be better off with a rig. Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.....

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You may or may not be able to get out but if the time comes that you want out I am sure you would be better off with a rig. Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.....

That argument can be used to justify anything like a second engine, fire extinguisher, back up air data, stall warning, . . . . . The list goes on and on. It all comes down to the risk vs benefit and everyone has a different opinion on both.

Back to the original poster. Even if every one that owned an RV asked for Van to "sacrifice an 8 to see if one can indeed get out of the thing". Van has no reason to do it as even certified general aviation aircraft are not required to provide a way to egress in flight. Plus what do you test, straight and level, in a dive, in a roll, in a stall. . . . ? All are plausible times you remotely may need to bail. A wind tunnel test would tell you what happens in a wind tunnel but not likely to be correct of what happens on the real airplane.
 
parachute

Yep that is true "that argument can be made to justify anything" Best thing to do to be safe is stay inside and don't do anything. OH,,,, wait a second,,,, if a person does nothing dangerous he/she is still going to die. dam if ya do dam if ya don't. :D
 
Life

Burt Rutan once said that in order to live to be a million years old one would have to spend the entire million years inside a lightning proof building to avoid being killed by a lightning strike.
 
... And what about the 10's and their gullwing doors?
...
There was a post, with pictures, since taken down of a 10 that lost the left door. It his the HS, twisting the entire tail cone, not to mention the damage to the HS. The pilot was very lucky to get it back on the ground. However, it would have been easy to jump out.
 
However, it would have been easy to jump out.

Had he jumped we would have never known that a 10 can still fly without doors and a twisted tail.
The OPs main concern was fire in flight and all of the RV-10 accidents that I can think of experienced fires post crash.

I wear a rig all the time in my 8, cross country or just a short hop.

Really?
I won't knock your choices and for all I care you can wear a rig anytime
along with a helmet , fire suit and oxygen mask and whatever else you feel is needed to be save and I mean that sincerely without sarcasm.

I cannot however figure how you deal with passengers.
Do you brief them on the proper emergency procedures and use of a parachute? Do you make them take a 1 day parachute jump training class
before allowing them to fly with you?
Do you only fly solo?

I have worn a parachute for a couple of thousand hours of flying but my passengers for those hours were skydivers so we all had a rig.
But with the exception of aerobatic training and flying I cannot imagine
wearing a rig for recreational flying with or without passengers.
 
Don,

My opinion on this to get a rig and wear it whenever you fly if you want the option should it ever be needed.

As some others have experimented with, I believe that opening the canopy in straight and level flight in the mid to high speed range may well be impossible but that is only one flight condition I think anyone has tried.

Setting up your canopy with pull pins would help considerably.

Sadly, we have lost RV pilots who may have survived if the option had been available. Lightening does strike, though rarely thank goodness.


Glenn Wilkinson

P.S. Get a flightsuit too.....I sure like mine.
 
I've started a couple of threads on this subject in the last 7 years. Got various answers on how one couldn't open the canopy in flight on an RV 8 due to high/low?? pressure. Paul Dye, years ago, suggested I put easy to remove "pip Pins" in the front of the canopy, where there are presently bolts with nuts. Or even to take off with them not installed at all, (the forward windscreen metal hoop would hold the canopy in place. (This I did with my old 8, and it worked fine even during acrobatics)

I had also asked Vans if they had any documentation on anyone ever bailing out of an RV 8. They said "yes", but unfortunately, the poor guy didn't have a parachute. (Obviously a fire, else why would he have done it)

So here's my question: I'd like to write Vans and see if they would be willing to sacrifice an 8 to see if one can indeed get out of the thing if one had a rip roaring fire. If one uses the "pip pins" as per Paul Dye, I'm assuming you'd only have to slide the canopy back a half inch or so, push up, and bang, that canopy is gone. Would it hurt the vertical stabilizer?? Sure, probably,---- probably put a nice dent in the upper forward leading edge of the VS, but who cares, you're leaving anyhow. Maybe there is something Vans could do in a wind tunnel test vs a real airplane.

So now the point of all this. If I'm the only one to write Vans, I think I'd probably be dismissed as "Yeah Right". But if a whole lot of us write, maybe 50 guys or so, I would think we'd have their attention. I only know RV 8's, but I would think my thinking would apply to any slider canopy, ie RV 6's etc. ( Don't know how one would deal with the "tip up" canopies.

Whadaya'all think of my idea?

Your idea won't be considered because the test is not worth the risk of a pilots life and the certain loss of the aircraft. Nor will it prove anything.

One egress may be successful, the next the pilot gets clobbered by the HS or VS. How many RV-8's should be sacrificed? How many test pilots?

Flying is risky, some of it more, some of it less. If wearing a chute is comforting, do it. One guy did get out of an 8 on fire although he did not have a rig. Assume you will be able to do likewise, wear the thing and be done with it. If ever there is a fire, there will be great incentive to leave.

My take on the risk is this. Check fuel lines for security every time the cowl is off. Fix the brain, first sign of fire - fuel valve off, shut the engine down, push the nose over and blow it out. Fly the airplane into the crash if you can.

If that doesn't work, kiss your butt good bye and thank the great spirit for what life has been granted. No one is getting out of here alive anyhow so it is not that big a deal. Do your best to minimize risk and enjoy flying as it is a rare privilege. If you worry a lot, quit flying and worry less. Worrying is not healthy.

(Flew in perfectly calm air early this morning, nothing comes close to the satisfaction of such an experience for me. Yea, I know, to each his own, some are not happy with less than 3G's and constant yanking and banking, but it was a delight for me :)
 
More thoughts...

Wear a "rig" every time you go flying? hmmmm...

If you are considering balancing risk, not getting into the plane at all is the best choice. BUT if you are balancing risk vs. fun, you might consider:
================
No passengers
Nomex flight suit
Full cockpit fire suppression (a la race car, not that expensive)
Certified instead of experimental
CAVU only
Recreational pilot license only.

I'm actually considering a cockpit fire suppression system. Not heavy and not expensive. Given I'm building an RV-9A I believe it will be safer to ride the plane down that try to jump. Remember, even the Cirrus whole aircraft chute did not save every pilot.

Just my opinion.

CC
 
Regarding the parachute system, I am curious as to what to heavier people wear? A "big rig"?? And if I fly over the bay or Gulf, would I need an "offshore rig"???
 
So, what about jettison the canopy and stay with the ship? Assuming a cabin fire fed by fuel would be the most dangerous, would the additional air flow excite the fire to a point that is intolerable? Or maybe change the airflow away from the pilot long enough to get near the ground? There is a non destructive wind tunnel test that would be interesting......

Seems to me that the worst aspect of an electrical fire is smoke inhalation. Ditching the canopy would provide clean air to breath. Again giving the pilot a couple more minutes to get down.
 
Having carefully fire-hardened my -8, I have no worries about in-flight fire.

Based on a good bit of testing, in my opinion, most of the cabin fire risk in RVs and Rockets is builder-induced.....really bad choices of material in contact with the firewall and the forward belly skin.

§ 23.1191 Firewalls.

(f) Compliance with the criteria for fireproof materials or components must be shown as follows:

(1) The flame to which the materials or components are subjected must be 2,000 ±150 °F.

(2) Sheet materials approximately 10 inches square must be subjected to the flame from a suitable burner.

(3) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required test temperature over an area approximately five inches square.

(g) Firewall materials and fittings must resist flame penetration for at least 15 minutes.

§ 23.1182 Nacelle areas behind firewalls.

Components, lines, and fittings, except those subject to the provisions of §23.1351(e), located behind the engine-compartment firewall must be constructed of such materials and located at such distances from the firewall that they will not suffer damage sufficient to endanger the airplane if a portion of the engine side of the firewall is subjected to a flame temperature of not less than 2000 °F for 15 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Having carefully fire-hardened my -8, I have no worries about in-flight fire.

Based on a good bit of testing, in my opinion, most of the cabin fire risk in RVs and Rockets is builder-induced.....really bad choices of material in contact with the firewall and the forward belly skin.

Examples, Dan?
I'm not there in my build yet.
 
It is interesting that the NTSB report on the accident with the pilot who jumped, indicated little fire injury to the pilot. If the report is accurate it in fact looks like whatever fire injuries occurred, happened because he opened the canopy.

It looks like no smoke inhalation, no burns, just singed hair. The melting canopy was telling that heat/flame was exiting the cowling and coming up over the canopy. They cited low pressure behind the windscreen, which would pull the fire into the cockpit with the canopy open. :confused:
 
Well, thank goodness this is not true.

My post says "That I can think of" and I can think of only 3 RV-10 accidents that experienced post crash fires but none that developed a fire while in flight.
To the best of my knowledge only my wife knows what I am thinking of.:eek:

Can you be more specific?

One more thought on bailing out.
Your day is going terribly wrong with an inflight fire and you are lucky to wear a rig and decide to bail out. Now it gets worse and your out of control airplane kills a couple of people on impact. My guess is, you'd probably wish you were dead rather than face the legal consequences arising out of your act of self preservation.
 
Would the canopy take off the tail????

So, what about jettison the canopy and stay with the ship? Assuming a cabin fire fed by fuel would be the most dangerous, would the additional air flow excite the fire to a point that is intolerable? Or maybe change the airflow away from the pilot long enough to get near the ground? There is a non destructive wind tunnel test that would be interesting......

Seems to me that the worst aspect of an electrical fire is smoke inhalation. Ditching the canopy would provide clean air to breath. Again giving the pilot a couple more minutes to get down.

Hi Blaine, I'm the guy that started this thread. Before jettisoning the canopy, one has to know if the vertical stab or horizontal stab would be taken off, by the jettisoning canopy,BEFORE you jettison it. That's why I was wondering about a wind tunnel test with a full size RV 8, a 180 MPH wind. Naturally ( as some thought, I wouldn't do this live with a human body on board)

Maybe if one removes the canopy "before" flying, things would be just peachy----BUT no one is going to do that, because no one knows what a 180 MPH jettison would do to the VS and/or HS.:eek:
 
Examples, Dan?
I'm not there in my build yet.

In simple terms, don't put anything in contact with the cabin side of a firewall unless proven to be smokeless and flameless at 2000F. That includes paint.

There are lots of vendors selling "firewall insulation" and claiming it meets some FAA standard...usually FAR 25, Appendix F, Part 4. The reality is that it is not firewall insulation, but rather airliner cabin wall insulation.

An ordinary stainless steel sheet does fine...but it glows bright red at 2000F. Anything you place against the backside of it is subjected to the same 2000F. When tested in this manner, without exception, all FAR 25 Appendix F materials burst into flame and emitted huge quantities of smoke. Some were truly frightening.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=37012

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=72087

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63633
 
Last edited:
But if there's an engine fire while in flight, won't the flames be shooting out along the bottom of the fuselage where there is no stainless sheet, and not onto the firewll except right at the bottom?

Bevan
 
But if there's an engine fire while in flight, won't the flames be shooting out along the bottom of the fuselage where there is no stainless sheet, and not onto the firewll except right at the bottom?

Correct. Most have burned through the belly skin just aft of the firewall. Ted Chang's RV-10 fire was good example.

My -8 has a stainless steel exhaust ramp.
 
Firewall

In simple terms, don't put anything in contact with the cabin side of a firewall unless proven to be smokeless and flameless at 2000F. That includes paint.

There are lots of vendors selling "firewall insulation" and claiming it meets some FAA standard...usually FAR 25, Appendix F, Part 4. The reality is that it is not firewall insulation, but rather airliner cabin wall insulation.

Read the FAR for GA firewalls, Part 23.1191:
(1) The flame to which the materials or components are subjected must be 2,000 ?150? F.
(2) Sheet materials approximately 10 inches square must be subjected to the flame from a suitable burner.
(3) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required test temperature over an area approximately five inches square.
(g) Firewall materials and fittings must resist flame penetration for at least 15 minutes.


An ordinary stainless steel sheet does fine...but it glows bright red at 2000F. Anything you place against the backside of it is subjected to the same 2000F. When tested in this manner, without exception, all FAR 25 Appendix F materials burst into flame and emitted huge quantities of smoke. Some were truly frightening.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=37012

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=72087

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=63633

In addition to what Dan says, I am using all stainless steel bulkhead fittings, stainless cabin heat box and stainless shrouds for all wiring etc that is not a bulkhead fitting. Center of belly is stainless for about 14" aft of firewall. (Not an RV) Belly and firewall covered with 2000 degree insulation.
 
No,No, No.

I road in #2 less than six weeks before it went down, with John.
I have an RV-8A and I am the MANUFATURER. IT is my choice and testing that will get me out, if I can get out. Buttler will build me a custom rig for me and my seat. If I build something to my likings, I would not think someone other than me would be responsible for it. I would never ask Van to agree to this, but I would think they will share what data they have on this subject.
Yours most as always. R.E.A. III #80888
 
Last edited:
Correct. Most have burned through the belly skin just aft of the firewall. Ted Chang's RV-10 fire was good example.

My -8 has a stainless steel exhaust ramp.

Exactly. I would think the first area to improve (should one feel improvement was necessary) would be to what is sitting directly on top of that potentially hot stainless fuselage bottom? In the case of side by side RVs, there are fuel lines above the center fuselage floor, and carpets (or your shoes) on either side. All of which is going to smoke pretty bad.

I think one practical solution, is to make an insulating sandwich on the "exterior" of the aircraft bottom skin. What about applying 1/8" self adhesive kiln insulation strips to the bottom of the lower fuselage skin. Then cover that with thin stainless sheet to mechanically hold it and handle the heat. The stainless sheet will need to be sealed all around the edges to prevent the insulation from wicking up engine oils.

This sheet can be carried forward into the cowl to make a nice transition to smooth the airflow exiting the cowl.

My thoughts anyway.

Bevan
 
Back
Top