VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-05-2015, 07:43 AM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronschreck View Post
All I want is the RIGHT answer. Who are the "folks"? When did they say it? Why don't they put it in writing?
Scott McDaniels has written it on here, as well as relaying information from Ken Krueger - a link to the actual post has been provided in my previous comments on this thread. Ken Scott has stated it in e-mails from the factory as well just a few days ago after conferring with Van's engineering staff.

Not sure what more is required - perhaps a notarized statement?

I'd add that Snowflake is correct - the responsible thing to do is remove the statement until it can be confirmed. As it is, it is really nothing more than hearsay that has been refuted several times by the factory.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything

Last edited by ChiefPilot : 08-05-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-05-2015, 07:53 AM
ronschreck's Avatar
ronschreck ronschreck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
Scott McDaniels has written it on here, as well as relaying information from Ken Krueger - a link to the actual post has been provided in my previous comments on this thread. Ken Scott has stated it in e-mails from the factory as well just a few days ago after conferring with Van's engineering staff.

Not sure what more is required - perhaps a notarized statement?
Great! Please post the email.
__________________
Ron Schreck
IAC National Judge
RV-8, "Miss Izzy", 2250 Hours - Sold
VAF 2021 Donor
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-05-2015, 09:00 AM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronschreck View Post
Great! Please post the email.
From Ken Scott on Monday 8/3:
Quote:
This question has been going round and round for a long time and even here we don't have
an exact answer. I'm not sure about the history of it, but the last time I asked the engineering
staff they said the weight of the fuel should be included in aerobatic gross weight calcs.
So there you go - word from the factory a few days ago vs. hearsay based on something that may or may not have been said a decade ago. Which is more authoritative?
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything

Last edited by ChiefPilot : 08-05-2015 at 09:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-05-2015, 09:23 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronschreck View Post
Great! Please post the email.
And here's the relevant portion of Scott's post to get it all in one place:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
Does fuel need to be factored in when calculating gross weight for aerobatics? Ken Krueger, Vans head of engineering has told me it does.

Van has apparently in the past said that it didn't need to be for the RV-3. I think that is related to its wings originally being designed for the use of a fuselage fuel tank. I think a miscommunication happened somewhere, and a statement Van made may have been taken out of context. I don't believe Van ever meant to say you didn't need to consider fuel in aerobatic gross weight for all models. But I can't speak for him.

The issue is that fuel in the tanks does reduce the bending moment on the wing, but as Kevin pointed out it only effects the portion of the wing where the fuel is. In an RV, the portion of the wing outboard the tank would be loaded higher than intended. If the wings were originally test to 9 G's using the aerobatic gross weight value, then the wing is only proven to that load value. If you fly at a weight higher than that, but with all of the extra weight in the cabin area, it is true that you have downward fuel load (induced by G's) counteracting the upward bending moment of the wings. It is possible that it would make the bending moment at the root end of the wing no higher than it would have been at a lower weight. The problem is that the portion of the wing without fuel actually does have a higher bending moment on it; beyond what was tested.

Regardless of what you have heard, or where you have heard it... my opinion is that you are reducing your safety margin if you do aerobatics at higher than the published gross weight Period
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-05-2015, 06:39 PM
Roy Thoma's Avatar
Roy Thoma Roy Thoma is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 154
Default Is canopy ejection mechanism required for SBS tip up?

(At the risk of starting another debate about what should be done....) I have heard that to participate in an IAC event, side-by-side RV's with a tip up canopy are required to have the ejection mechanism functional. The presentation does not mention this?

Is it a requirement to have the tip up ejection mechanism functional in a side-by-side RV to participate in IAC events?
Does "Aerobatic Airframe" imply having a functional canopy ejection mechanism for a tip up RV?

Regards,
__________________
Roy

N174RT (RV-7A) first flight 5/31/11, 1780hrs as of August 2020:
Tip-up, Lycon IO-360 EXP, WW 74HRT, AFS 5600T, AF-Pilot, IFD440, SL-30, echoUAT, D100 for backup, CQ1 headsets, CMW E-Lift

Our other riveted aluminum monocoque RV is a 25' Airstream

Past aluminum monocoque vehicles:
N601RT (CH601HDS) First flight 5/03, 1550hrs after flying 8 years: 912ULS, GNS430W, SL-30, D10A Sold
1995 Midnight Pearl NSX w/BBSC Sold

EAA Chapter 105 board member 2010->2015
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-05-2015, 08:18 PM
ronschreck's Avatar
ronschreck ronschreck is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Thoma View Post
(At the risk of starting another debate about what should be done....) I have heard that to participate in an IAC event, side-by-side RV's with a tip up canopy are required to have the ejection mechanism functional. The presentation does not mention this?

Is it a requirement to have the tip up ejection mechanism functional in a side-by-side RV to participate in IAC events?
Does "Aerobatic Airframe" imply having a functional canopy ejection mechanism for a tip up RV?

Regards,
Section 2.3 of the IAC Official Contest Rules does not require any sort of canopy ejection mechanism. (It does address cabin type aircraft, but not tip up canopy aircraft.) And the Official Tech Inspection Form does not address the issue.

As a practical matter it would seem that the requirement that all competitors must wear a parachute implies that the wearer know how to use it and has the means to exit the aircraft. That said, it may likely be the case that the tip up canopy can be opened when the aircraft is out of control as normal air loads might no longer be holding it in the closed position.

Personally, I would sure like to know that I could jettison that canopy in any and all situation should I need to make a hasty exit.

I cannot say that a savvy tech inspector might not ask how you intend to exit your tip up canopy enclosed cockpit in an emergency. If you have no good answer there may be a reason to exclude you from competition.
__________________
Ron Schreck
IAC National Judge
RV-8, "Miss Izzy", 2250 Hours - Sold
VAF 2021 Donor
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-05-2015, 08:38 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Thoma View Post
(At the risk of starting another debate about what should be done....) I have heard that to participate in an IAC event, side-by-side RV's with a tip up canopy are required to have the ejection mechanism functional. The presentation does not mention this?

Is it a requirement to have the tip up ejection mechanism functional in a side-by-side RV to participate in IAC events?
Does "Aerobatic Airframe" imply having a functional canopy ejection mechanism for a tip up RV?
It is a reasonably common requirement. Checkout this thread in the IAC forums :
http://www.usnationalaerobatics.org/...?g=posts&t=376

Excerpt:
Quote:
As a contest safety director, I would not allow that airplane to fly. Without installing the emergency release, there is no way to get out of that airplane while in flight, thus making wearing a parachute pointless. If the airplane had an installed and current airframe parachute, that would be OK in my perception, as then there would be no need to exit the airplane.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.