What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Canopy Eject RV-6 Slider for parachute use test

petercavallo

Well Known Member
Spent some time yesterday testing the ability to eject the slider canopy in my RV6. I have installed removable pins in the canopy bow foward (with nice cable handles) so the test was to see if the canopy could be pulled back enough to push up and off.
With interepit assistant we safety cabled the canopy latch and tested at 120kts and 140 kts. At 120 kts we had to tug back but it cleared the windscreen fiberglass enough , at 140 kts it popped itself back enough as well.
Both times it was not happy about allowing any pushing any farther back. To close and latch the canopy we had to slow to 70 kts to make that possible.

Well it now seems in my RV6 use of a parachute looks possible if needed
Cheers, hope this helps , PS it takes 2 do do this kind of test

Peter RV6 inv system
 
Hi Peter,
Thanks for testing that! I installed the quick release pins on my slider canopy, too...but I've never tested opening it in flight. Thanks for going there! :D
 
2lusaaw.jpg
[/IMG]

Here is the eject pin set up, replaces the an3 bolt and nut, used cable and fuel tube, tuck into holes when not used
Peter
 
Mine is similar, without the yellow lanyard. I just replaced the AN3 bolt with an equal length T-handled pip-pin. I also drilled the holes at about a 45 degree angle so the T-handle is pointing at me. Makes it easier to remove if required, and it gives the other end of the pin more clearance around the windscreen roll bar (since it now is positioned off to the outside).
 
As you suggest, little point in wearing a parachute unless you can get out to use it ;)

However, adding a jettisonable canopy has, to me, it's own risks. Nobody has done any testing, AFAIK, on the canopy v the fin. We had a Aermacchi SF.260 lose a canopy in flight last year in the UK, and the pilot survived the "barely controllable flight" into a field shortly thereafter, the SF.260 did not :(

As a Mil trainer, most might consider the SF.260 "over engineered". If the consequences of canopy loss in that were so bad, what prospects for an RV?

Seeking opinions:
  1. Has anybody successfully bailed out of an RV?
  2. Has anybody apparently needed to bail out of an RV, but failed to do so? (i.e. effectively a fatal accident where successful use of parachute(s) would have saved the occupant(s) - so would need whatever "problem" occurred to have been at a good height, and bad enough to force jumping out).
  3. Do the above (if any exist) outweigh the prolems that might occur from an inadvertant canopy jettison at an altitude that lost control of the aircraft, but too low / not wearing chutes preventing successful abandonment).
Genuine questions - open to opinions.

Andy & Ellie Hill
RV-8 G-HILZ
RV8tors
 
Andy, spoke with a RV-4 driver this weekend that lost his canopy in flight not too long ago. Saw the dings on his tail from the ordeal. Looks like the canopy bounced off the rear fuse and then off the fin. It just had a ding in it. I don't think the canopy is going to take the tail off if it were to be jettisoned.


"As you suggest, little point in wearing a parachute unless you can get out to use it ;)

However, adding a jettisonable canopy has, to me, it's own risks. Nobody has done any testing, AFAIK, on the canopy v the fin. We had a Aermacchi SF.260 lose a canopy in flight last year in the UK, and the pilot survived the "barely controllable flight" into a field shortly thereafter, the SF.260 did not :(
 
However, adding a jettisonable canopy has, to me, it's own risks. Nobody has done any testing, AFAIK, on the canopy v the fin. We had a Aermacchi SF.260 lose a canopy in flight last year in the UK, and the pilot survived the "barely controllable flight" into a field shortly thereafter, the SF.260 did not :(
The probablity of an undesired canopy jettison are extremely low as three independent things need to happen for this to occur:
  1. The canopy latch must become unlocked,
  2. The canopy must be pulled aft. This requires significant force,
  3. The quick release pins must be pulled.
The odds of all three of these independent events happening are close enough to zero that I won't worry about it.

If I am not wearing a parachute, I remove the quick release pins and install the bolts, which completely zeros out the risk on those flights.
 
Andy, spoke with a RV-4 driver this weekend that lost his canopy in flight not too long ago.
Brian... RV-3/RV-4 not relevant IMHO.. they are designed to be jettisonable, and side mounted. The 6/7/8/9 are centreline... and as I said, the SF.260 nearly did lose the pilot :( Having seen that accident, I am not optimistic that an RV-8 canopy coming off would not either take off the fin, or as in the SF.260, alter the aerodynamics enought to make it unflyable (the SF.260 was relatively undamaged, but was pitching down strongly).

Kevin... your points well made. However, as with quite a few RV "mods", there is quite a difference between someone who has thought through the requirement for, and balanced risks, of a "mod" - and mitigates those risks. So as I see it, fine for yourself - but as a general offering / recommend to others? Or put another way, is everyone really going to replace pins with bolts according to whether they are wearing a chute or not?

ATB
Andy
 
andy someone jumped out of his 8 that was on fire, unfortunately i do not think he had a parachute and he fell to his death. One example of someone getting out...
 
Brian... RV-3/RV-4 not relevant IMHO.. they are designed to be jettisonable, and side mounted. The 6/7/8/9 are centreline... and as I said, the SF.260 nearly did lose the pilot :( Having seen that accident, I am not optimistic that an RV-8 canopy coming off would not either take off the fin, or as in the SF.260, alter the aerodynamics enought to make it unflyable (the SF.260 was relatively undamaged, but was pitching down strongly)...
The RV-8 has been shown to fly well on multiple instances without the canopy.
 
Excellent Questions that Vans could/should answer

Seeking opinions:

1. Has anybody successfully bailed out of an RV?
2. Has anybody apparently needed to bail out of an RV, but failed to do so? (i.e. effectively a fatal accident where successful use of parachute(s) would have saved the occupant(s) - so would need whatever "problem" occurred to have been at a good height, and bad enough to force jumping out).
3. Do the above (if any exist) outweigh the problems that might occur from an inadvertent canopy jettison at an altitude that lost control of the aircraft, but too low / not wearing chutes preventing successful abandonment).

Genuine questions - open to opinions.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Van's is large enough now and has enough engineering talent to determine the answers to these questions for us. With the current safety emphasis , we do not know if we could even get out if we had chutes. With all the formation and acro done in RV's, we know that just about no one wears a chute because of our lack of answers to these questions. Everyone assumes we can't get out.

So, why can't we know? The tip up side by sides have a jettison option. What about other RV's? Testing is needed.

My opinion is that it is time for answers. I look to Vans for some factual data and hopefully some testing for the unknowns. I salute the original poster for taking a stab at it.

Van's-what about the early Nigerian Air Force Air Beetle Project? Did those planes have a bailout provision? Any data there from the use of 60 RV-6A's in a military training role?
 
My opinion is that it is time for answers. I look to Vans for some factual data and hopefully some testing for the unknowns.

Vern you cant be serious.
You expect Vans to test and provide data?
I dont feel this is realistic to put it mildly.

I think I could get out of mine. I have simple pull pins that come out easily. I dont wear a chute due to the low level nature of my flying. I have made the decision that the weight, rigging, and complexity of wearing a cute for me is not worth doing.
I only have a canopy pin system for ditching in the water. My untested plan is to jettison canopy just prior to impact.
 
Last edited:
Testing

Yes I am serious.

Vans hired spin testing. They could test jettisoning real canopies and give us the results. With literally thousands of customers now they could easily absorb a few canopies lost /dinged rudders.

If safety is what 'the man wants', determining the most basic question of all: 'can you get the door open and get out?' seems reasonable.

Legally -parachutes required for other than solo acro. The T-34/T-28 formation group requires chutes to do formation.

People doing serious acro in Pitts,etc wear parachutes even solo.

I'd bet Van wears a chute in his sailplanes.

Our community says, 'Oh well,we don't think we can get the canopy off so we are exempt.'

It may well be true. What's wrong with some facts? Perhaps Van already knows the answer?

I do not own stock in any parachute company!

P.S I have removable pins also
 
Last edited:
Legally -parachutes required for other than solo acro.
Ummm... really? Not sure I've seen that rule :eek:

Or might you mean, maybe, just in one part of our world :D (and as pointed out above, pretty meaningless if you have no means of getting out).

Andy
 
Interesting article on bailouts

Whole article at : http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm

" The odds of successfully bailing out in an emergency seem pretty good, especially when compared to the statistics when no bailout was attempted at all, or was attempted too late. It's also likely that a number of the fatal bailouts themselves would have been survivable had the pilots exercised better judgment before or as the accidents unfolded.

Those who escaped with their lives did so from a range of estimated bailout altitudes: 300, 400, 500, 560, 1000, 1300, 1800, 2000, 4500, 6500 feet. They exited from a variety of aircraft: Rebel 300, Beech A36, Cessna 150 and P210, Bellanca 7 and 8KCAB's, Pitts S-1 and S-2B, One Design, Su-29, Aeronca 7BCM, Cap 10B, DG-400 and Concept 70 motor-gliders, T-28, Slingsby Dart and Vega gliders, Goshawk 350, Cassutt, Velox Revolution II. Some of the narratives tell amazing stories: the pilot who attempted to land his crippled airplane, aborted the idea, climbed back to altitude, and bailed; the pilot who parachuted to Earth while still strapped to the tail section of his Moni after it disintegrated around him; the strange case of a Cessna 150 pilot who ran out of fuel on final approach, turned the airplane away from the airport, and jumped.

Of the bailout survivors, fifty-six percent exercised the option to use their parachutes as a result of some sort of mechanical problem with their aircraft (elevator, aileron, or rudder control problems, structural failures, flutter). Twenty-five percent successfully used their parachutes following the loss of control of the airplane (spins, severe turbulence, etc.). Thirteen percent exercised the bailout option as a result of fire, fuel, or engine problems. Seven percent bailed out after a mid-air.
 
The odds of all three of these independent events happening are close enough to zero that I won't worry about it.

If I am not wearing a parachute, I remove the quick release pins and install the bolts, which completely zeros out the risk on those flights.
These two statements seem totally at odds to me... If it's so unlikely that you'll accidentally jettison, why swap to the bolts ever?

The one downside I see in the tip-up canopy I have is that despite the jettison handle, I have serious doubts that I could jettison it in flight, due to the angles required to get the arms that it pivots on out of the fuselage. The pull-the-pins method described at the beginning of this thread seems to be a whole lot more likely to succeed, IMO.

Realistically, whether it takes the tail off or not, if you're jettisoning the canopy, you're committing to exiting the aircraft. Who cares if it's uncontrollable? If I'm staying with the plane, I want the canopy to help protect me when/if the plane ends up on it's back on touchdown.
 
Having pins is a great idea... but, as the OP saw, he couldn't even pull the canopy back more than 1/2", and that's with it on rollers. The pins don't have the benefit of rolling bearings, so it seems they'd have much more friction to pull out than the rollers do at (not) allowing the canopy to roll back.

Not only that, but you're putting the pins through TUBES, which means that EVEN IF you could get the pin past the first wall of tubing, you most likely couldn't get it past the second wall, because the inner tube would rock out of alignment and then put a severe contact load on the pin and effectively jam it in there.

You guys need to go up again and try to pull a pin out completely. Question is, how do you do that safely?

Maybe if you're in a flat spin, there wouldn't be enough aerodynamic lift on the canopy to prevent opening it... that and also maybe near stall speed... but, in any other regime of flight, then I would think that canopy ain't going nowhere.
 
Pulling pins out

In the past, while flying at speed the pins came out pretty easily while the canopy was closed, unknown how that would be in an unusual attitude. IMHO I have a pretty good chance of getting the canopy off if I need to.
Peter
 
I have no empirical data at all but I gave this canopy jettison issue quite a bit of thought while in the testing phase. I do have the jettison handle on my RV-6 but it has the newer style gooseneck hinges.

My thought was that adrenalin is a powerful thing. I envisioned and rehearsed in my mind many times what I would do. It involved getting on my back in the seat and kicking the canopy outward after pulling the release handle. I think I could break the canopy, even if it didn't come off.

Anyway, it did give me some comfort and some reason to wear the parachute. Who knows?
 
In the past, while flying at speed the pins came out pretty easily while the canopy was closed, unknown how that would be in an unusual attitude. IMHO I have a pretty good chance of getting the canopy off if I need to.
Peter

That's one thing I didn't think about. You could pull the pins while the canopy is still closed and secured by the windshield bow overhang.
 
While this is an interestuing thread, I guess my question would be what problem is this endeavoring to solve? I can see asking Van's to work on something that is a known issue, but I'm wondering what the issue being discussed really is? Also, Von's RV8 accident isn't exactly cut/dried either.

Cheers,
Stein
 
"The Problem"

There are 7,280 RV's flying, many more in the pipeline. Many are flown in aerobatics and close formation. Virtually no one obeys the FAR's regarding acro and parachutes. The few that do are told by their buds that 'I don't wear chutes cause you can't get out anyway.'

Is that a fact or hearsay?

It would not take much for an airplane company to answer that question for us. Eventually, there will be a notable formation or acro accident where the answer and our action based on the facts would have made a difference.

I do not own chutes{yet} and had several opportunities to eject in the USAF that I was reluctant to take. I know the reassurance that comes when know I have one more option even if if it is a nylon letdown. Otherwise, we are all flying up blind canyons with no place to turn around.

Bottom line: Is that one more option-bailing out- an option or not? Simple question.
 
Vern, for me that "option" was more realistic with the ability to lose the canopy. I agree with the earlier post that said if you're jettisoning the canopy, you don't care if it takes out the VS. At that point, I've committed to leaving the airplane.

It would be nice to know whether it works or not, though...but even without that data, I feel better about having the pins installed.
 
You don't need to go up and test this in flight...you need a test article and a wind tunnel. A cockpit/front fuse mockup or partial assembly with a canopy, on a test stand, in a wind tunnel and some mechanism to pull the release pins or handles or whatever (and measure the force required to do it).

There's a nice big wind tunnel up at NASA Ames :). See if there are any NASA aviation safety grants available and write up a proposal...

Steve
 
Do you know how to jump?

Years ago, when I owned an AT-6, the seat pack was worn so you'd have a cushion and also the option of bailing.

I decided that if/when I ever bailed, it would be wise to know about jumping out of an airplane and what it entailed, so I flew it over to Barnwell, S.C. and signed up for jump lessons. One of the first things learned was to arch your back so that you fall in a stable position, not tumbling, or you could get wrapped up in your lines.

There's more to this bailing out idea and to my mind, if you're gonna pursue canopy ejections...just in case....it would behoove you to find a jump school as well:)

Best,
 
Great idea!

You don't need to go up and test this in flight...you need a test article and a wind tunnel. A cockpit/front fuse mockup or partial assembly with a canopy, on a test stand, in a wind tunnel and some mechanism to pull the release pins or handles or whatever (and measure the force required to do it).

There's a nice big wind tunnel up at NASA Ames :). See if there are any NASA aviation safety grants available and write up a proposal...

Steve

This morning I conferred with an experienced test pilot about this whole RV bailout question. He agreed with Scotsman's idea.

If Vans could provide some damaged canopies/fuselages, a engineering class with access to a low speed wind tunnel could provide some data for our community. Any data is better than none.

Any Aero profs out there need a project for your students?
 
This morning I conferred with an experienced test pilot about this whole RV bailout question. He agreed with Scotsman's idea.

If Vans could provide some damaged canopies/fuselages, a engineering class with access to a low speed wind tunnel could provide some data for our community. Any data is better than none.

Any Aero profs out there need a project for your students?

Guys -

I keep hearing "if Van's could just...". There's about as much chance of Van doing bailout testing (of any sort) as there is of me making the Astros lineup this next spring. And I'm not planning to try out.

Let's think about it - why on earth would he even consider touching this? 1. It's not a problem. RVs are reasonably safe for light GA airplanes. 2. Lawyers would be all over him the very next time any RV had an accident. Could that person have bailed out? Did they try to bail out?

This is good discussion for the sake of discussion. But mentioning Van or thinking his company is going to do this is, IMVHO, pure fantasy.
 
Guys -

I keep hearing "if Van's could just...". There's about as much chance of Van doing bailout testing (of any sort) as there is of me making the Astros lineup this next spring. And I'm not planning to try out.

Let's think about it - why on earth would he even consider touching this? 1. It's not a problem. RVs are reasonably safe for light GA airplanes. 2. Lawyers would be all over him the very next time any RV had an accident. Could that person have bailed out? Did they try to bail out?

This is good discussion for the sake of discussion. But mentioning Van or thinking his company is going to do this is, IMVHO, pure fantasy.

Correct. Van's would never do this, and I don't blame them. My suggestion was only that to move this discussion past he-said/she-said kinds of debates, you need some real data. And to get that real data, you need to develop a test procedure and execute it.

The bigger question is as several people have said...what problem are you trying to solve? Engineering doesn't involve just going off and randomly running tests on things. It starts with a question or problem that needs an answer or a design solution.

But it also doesn't involve just saying "well, that's the way it is, and we'll just accept that", either.

So formulate your problem statement, and then start your analysis to see if one part of the solution space involves canopy jettison. IF it does, THEN develop a test of various possible solutions.

If your problem statement is such that jettisoning the canopy is never (or virtuallly never) required, then you don't need to run the test.

Remember the ancient maxim...a design is optimal not when there is no more to add, but when nothing more can be taken away.
 
There's more to this bailing out idea and to my mind, if you're gonna pursue canopy ejections...just in case....it would behoove you to find a jump school as well:)

+1

I've only jumped twice....but there are some east things to learn that are not too natural...that would help you out if you had to bail.
 
+1

I've only jumped twice....but there are some east things to learn that are not too natural...that would help you out if you had to bail.

Yeah- I'd like to know how many engine off procedures the person has done that really wants to know about jumping out . Seems like you should practice that a lot more than worry about parachuting to the ground...
 
Good point

Years ago, when I owned an AT-6, the seat pack was worn so you'd have a cushion and also the option of bailing.

I decided that if/when I ever bailed, it would be wise to know about jumping out of an airplane and what it entailed, so I flew it over to Barnwell, S.C. and signed up for jump lessons. One of the first things learned was to arch your back so that you fall in a stable position, not tumbling, or you could get wrapped up in your lines.

There's more to this bailing out idea and to my mind, if you're gonna pursue canopy ejections...just in case....it would behoove you to find a jump school as well:)

Best,

Very good point and advice Pierre. I did 3 statics a number of years ago, all went well except for the first one. I forgot to throw the head back in the arch, the next thing I knew I saw the risers between my legs. :eek:

Cheers.......LL
 
Back
Top