What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV8 Stretch - Now DownUnder

Status
Not open for further replies.
RV8s Sports Car and Heavy-Lift Cruiser

Extract from an article by John de Fraine for VansAirforce Net:.

An experimental aircraft is an aircraft that has not yet been fully proven in flight. Often, this implies that new aerospace technologies are being tested on the aircraft.

So here are some further images of the Stretch RV8 build overseen by Innovative Wings of Canada. (See RV8 Newbie for the start of the build on this forum).

The concept of a stretch to the RV8 design was first instigated by Perry McNeil of McNeil Aviation Corp. (Canada and Australia).Perry brought the design modification and concept drawings to Innovative Wings, and their Engineering Team went to work on the redesign and fabrication.

Perry’s eldest daughter Heather is a Degree Qualified Aerospace Mechanical Engineer (who was working with Boeing Australia at the time), and his youngest daughter Kristy is an AME. The Engineering Team at Innovative Wings "meshed" well with the Australian Concept team and an extremely innovative and exciting project developed for the RV8 stretch.

When asked about the concept Perry states "please understand the objective and concept was not all about Speed per se. There are plenty of F1 Rockets and Super RV8’s already in the skies over Northern America and Australia. The requirements for cruising over the Continent of Australia and for this build was the use of advanced design dynamics to improve upon a known entity".

Firstly, the team looked at the stretch that would have minimal effect on handling characteristics. The aim was to keep the C of G centralised. Then they investigated utility design features. Note, that there is a second cargo locker located forward of the cockpit.

The main stretch was to the second control seat (aft) built with independent Rudders, Brakes, Throttle and its own Instrument Panel. Here an additional 20 inches was added making the entire area suitable (and very, very comfortable) for someone well over 6ft tall (183cm) and at least a size 2XX.

Perry’s wife Leigh is also a Pilot, and he and Leigh share the sectors. Leigh is quite petite and fits well into the RV8s front seat.

Perry’s original design was a 40-inch stretch. Cad-Cam modeling proved the feasibility however not the appearance or aesthetics.

The final design was over 36 inches in length and six inches in height. The extra undercarriage height suits the “rough” unimproved airfields that predominates throughout the Australian outback and a change to the tailwheel was also instigated. The aircraft is fitted with a forward micro camera (lens size about the size of one confetti ring) which enables the aircraft to see forward and the Pilot to easily taxi straight ahead on either of the three Garmin Screens.

Being a Builders Assist project, Perry, his charming wife Leigh and youngest daughter Kristy, were hands on throughout every phase of the construction project. Innovative Wings in Canada have been completing innovative Builders Assist and supervisory build programs for over 15 years now and Perry decided this was the team for surveillance of the build.

The full fast-build kit was purchased from an owner for $17,000 in the USA. Innovative Wings located and transported the RV8 kit aircraft from Florida USA to their base at the Springbank Airport in Calgary, Canada. They used a local, highly skilled DAR to complete the final Engineering and requisite design drawings.

Being a proof of concept aircraft the team manufactured complete new full-length longerons and stringers to deal with the stretch and increased MTOW. Therein they had to dismantle the airframe to rebuild the airframe to structural design. Yes, this Rv8 is built as tough as a Boeing!

The Innovative Wings build team then set-about the reconstruction of this popular aircraft to the new and advanced design by McNeil.

The engineering project manager Shane Daly, states "that this RV8s is now longer than a P51T at just over 24ft in length and the height exceeds 6ft". It is powered by a New 215hp Turbo-Normalised Superior Aero-Sport Power Engine (TIO-400) out of Kamloops, Canada and has a suite of Garmin G3X Avionics with full rear controls and separate G3X panel.

Two Garmin 430W and a Garmin GMC 305 Autopilot and 3 GSA 28 “smart” servo units assisting towards its VFR - NVFR - IFR ratings.

The addition of Two Wing Tip Tanks added extra Range so necessary to meet the "tyranny of distance" in outback Australia and a set of Hollow Point Speed brakes assist with descent from the Flight Levels. The aircraft carries O2. Descent is aided by the electric Speed-brakes.

The aircraft is aerobatic maneuver approved and the cruise speed regime is the same or slightly improved over the standard RV8.

MTOW is 2350lb or 1066kg.

A hybrid, the aircraft can holistically be a very comfortable cruiser and “Winnebago” its occupants around Australia with built in seat-warmers for the cool high-level Turbo-Assisted cruise. It certainly has the cargo/baggage capacity and uplift capability. Whilst on other occasions it can morph into a weekend Sports Machine and thrill passengers and spectators alike!

This RV8 was issued its Transport Canada C of A, on 21st December 2016 AND was issued its Australian C of A, on the 21st July 2017. VH-FSX next chapter is an appointment with the Paint Shop!


Safe Flying! :)

2Rc3lAPl.jpgg


pkodANs.jpg


HXJUDeH.png


YoKNl3e.jpg


vD0pdUq.jpg


P.S If you are contemplating do something similar yourself and would like to discuss Perry's build, you can contact Perry through this forum or at [email protected].
 
Last edited:
Interesting project indeed. Was the wing design changed to handle the increase in MTOW, and is the aircraft still capable of two-up aerobatics?
Tom.
 
Cool!

I find it odd, though, that the throttle is on the right. Was that a personal preference? Or is there a more technical reason?
 
It looks as if the forebody and thus the prop have been moved forward, probably to get the CG in reason. But this decreases stability - was this taken into account?

Dave
 
Cool!

I find it odd, though, that the throttle is on the right. Was that a personal preference? Or is there a more technical reason?


Hi Mark

As you are aware, there exists No Protocol where one places the throttle. It is the builders/pilots choice. As I fly Heavy Jets from the Left seat, it suits me to place the Throttle Quadrant on the Right Side (personal preference).

However, one can place the Throttle Quadrant on the Left Side just as easily within the scope and design of the aircraft.

BTW I am an EAA member as well. My Airline slip?s Tech Crew in at Long Beach, Ca. Do you know if there is a Chapter near by that I could visit on my layovers please?

Thanks
Perry
 
Super cool - thanks for sharing!

Talk to me about canopy - was the tip-up easier/better option to stretch than a slider or was that also personal preference?

thnx
 
Hey Perry

I live almost 4000kms from Long Beach so I have no first hand knowledge, but I think EAA chapter 7 is based there.

I was just curious about the throttle position. Most tandem/stick aircraft and pilots chose throttle on the left, but I completely understand your choice. I'm going the other way soon; I have an -8 with the throttle on the left/stick on the right and am building a 4 seat Bearhawk where the stick will be on the left and the throttle on the right.

I used to fly a Grob 115C with that setup and I found after the first 15 minutes I didn't even notice the difference. Of course, the far majority of RV-6/7/9/10/12/14 drivers don't understand why we are even talking about it :D

Cheers
 
A totally wrong assumption on your part!

If the forebody really has been lengthened, for any reason, that has a destabilizing effect. There might be mitigating factors or perhaps the wing-nose distance hasn't been changed. I'm not a -8 guru.

Could you please discuss this a bit?

Thanks,
Dave
RV-3B, now skinning the fuselage
 
Back to the Future!!!

Surely this is a typo...

"This RV8 was issued its Transport Canada C of A, on 21st December 2017..."

If not, then I think I see a DeLorean in my driveway!! :eek:
 
Super cool - thanks for sharing!

Talk to me about canopy - was the tip-up easier/better option to stretch than a slider or was that also personal preference?

thnx

Hi Tim

The Turtle deck is the limiting factor for the Canopy given its profile and length. If I could have figured the Engineering out here, I would have preferred to go to a Slider (looks way cooler:cool:) or even and aft Lift-top. There was a lot of work in stretching the Show-Planes frame.

However, ease of entry and exit is one benefit of the Tilt-over canopy. The design allows for unrestricted forward visibility and improves cockpit ventilation while taxying. The design has a removable instrument access cover as well, that allows a clear view and access for maintenance of your forward instruments/avionics if required.

Todd’s Canopy made the extended Canopy for me. PM me if you have any further questions.
 
Last edited:
Perry, I realize you're proud of your creation, but David is a vastly experienced aerospace structural engineer. Exactly what wrong assumption did he make?

Hi Dan

Happy to discuss all elements of the build and our challenges over the four years of construction. Especially if that assists fellow RV builders, who may want to achieve variations to their own build.

Yes, we are very proud of what our little team has achieved.;)

Alas, I have noted on some threads on Vans AirForce forums, the arrogance by some constituents to post blind (uniformed) statements and to challenge rather than to inquire or simply politely ask a question showing a degree of "self-importance" I do would not wish to engage with.

Noting that your ?friend? missed the fact that my daughter is a degree qualified Aerospace Mechanical Engineer and that I engaged another Aeronautical Engineer and a DAR, might have most informed individuals assume that we mapped out all aspects and contingencies of this build. In fact, the aircraft is more stable than an ordinary RV8.

Blind Freddy can determine that from simple Aerodynamics (i.e. longer lever arm - the same surface area of the original control surface ? simple mechanics). Given I was not going to enroll the aircraft and myself in the next world-aerobatics championship, this is not of a concern.

It performs nicely in all Aerobatic Maneuvers.:cool:

Finally, I used a highly qualified Test Pilot for most of my Flight Testing in Canada. His Professional Opinion (someone who flew the aircraft through all flight regimes) was that he could note No difference in handling between this RV8 and an ordinary RV8.

I hold some test-flight qualifications myself and although I have only flown two RV8?s, I find this aircraft almost indiscernible (i.e. no difference) in-flight around the all three axes to an ordinary RV8.

The only real aerodynamic challenge was the speedbrakes. They were far too efficient for the NACA type wing design. However, modification to the face plates rectified that little problem.

Yes, we did our homework! :)
 
Surely this is a typo...

"This RV8 was issued its Transport Canada C of A, on 21st December 2017..."

If not, then I think I see a DeLorean in my driveway!! :eek:

This RV8 was issued its Transport Canada C of A, on 21st December 2016 AND was issued its Australian C of A, on the 21st July 2017. VH-FSX next chapter is an appointment with the Paint Shop!

Thanks, Don - Typo Corrected! :)
 
Thanks for the discussion. Your original description was solid on the structural and similar characteristics but didn't get into the aerodynamic aspects. It was obvious that you had qualified people on the project and if you had said something about this initially I wouldn't have asked in the first place.

I wasn't trying to set a trap or promote myself, merely to learn how you worked that out. It's one of the things that does sometimes catch the unwary. While your initial reply wasn't encouraging, I do appreciate your further comments, and am glad that you succeeded in your goals.

Also - thanks, Dan. I'll admit to half-vastly but not the full vastly.

Dave
 
Hi Dan

Happy to discuss all elements of the build and our challenges over the four years of construction. Especially if that assists fellow RV builders, who may want to achieve variations....

I'm curious about the gear towers, having had a recent discussion with another builder about bolting on longer legs. If I understand correctly, you've gone with both longer legs and a gross weight increase. What can you tell us?
 
I'm curious about the gear towers, having had a recent discussion with another builder about bolting on longer legs. If I understand correctly, you've gone with both longer legs and a gross weight increase. What can you tell us?


Hi Dan

The standard RV8 gear legs were not suitable. So, we had Grove manufacture a custom one-piece landing system for this aircraft. Precision CNC machined with Gun-Drilled Brake Lines. This allowed for the MTOW increase using the cross-axil support. (Not dissimilar in shape and performance of the Zenith CH801 landing gear manufactured by Grove). Subsequently, we achieved a slightly wider track additionally fitting uprated Wheels and Larger Brakes in consideration of the Static Load Rating, Braking Torque and Kinetic Energy absorption required.

Given the nature of unimproved strips and ALA?s in Australia the aircraft benefits from the extra height and larger wheels. Notably, I have to discipline myself to keep my Big Fat Feet away from the brakes being a Tailwheel aircraft until the appropriate phase in the landing!

Hindsight being an exact science, I could have decreased the arc of the gear leaving the fuselage as this gave the Innovative Wings team a challenge in designing a fairing to fit. However, RV10 Wheel Pants cover the Wheels and Brakes nicely. :)
 
The standard RV8 gear legs were not suitable. So, we had Grove manufacture a custom one-piece landing system for this aircraft.... additionally fitting uprated Wheels and Larger Brakes in consideration of the Static Load Rating, Braking Torque and Kinetic Energy absorption required.

One-piece gear for the -8 has been a previous forum subject. Other than the additional weight, there does not appear to be a downside ("Primum non nocere"). The upside would be increased capacity in a vertical drop, and better resistance to severe side forces as seen in a ground loop (a good ground loop wrinkles an RV-8 fuselage at the towers). How much improvement depends on details, which is where you and your daughter enter the picture.

1. Did you retain the inboard clamp block and AN5/AN7 bolts each side?

2. It's been shown in service that the standard gear length can strip the supplied nuts off the outboard clamp bolts...certainly evidence of significant load when force is applied to the axle in the fore and aft plane (brake application, or running the wheel into a hole, or a pavement edge). The one-piece gear would not help in this regard. The problem would be magnified by a gear leg extension. That was the crux of my discussion with another builder; his engine choice suggests a longer prop, and thus a lengthened gear, as you've done here. Could you share your daughter's analysis of the gear tower and clamp bolt strength margin?

 
One-piece gear for the -8 has been a previous forum subject. Other than the additional weight, there does not appear to be a downside ("Primum non nocere"). The upside would be increased capacity in a vertical drop, and better resistance to severe side forces as seen in a ground loop (a good ground loop wrinkles an RV-8 fuselage at the towers).

Hi Dan

I had a bit of a chuckle on reading your post/question.

What you assume is that I know what a standard gear build looks like! ;) Noting that we planned the one-piece gear from the beginning of this build, I had to work backward through your question and then looked up thread http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146999&highlight=RV8+Gear to gain a comparable handle on what you are asking.

The one piece gear was the obvious answer to our design. Firstly the weight is comparable. As I understand the numbers a builder can save between 11 to 17lbs (7.7kg) over stock landing gear using Grove options, so the added weight is only in the cross-centre section in our build.

Please have a look at the drop-test video http://www.groveaircraft.com/droptest.html, and you will understand the need for center section clearance.

Thus, this answers you attachment question in part I think. So actually the attachment can only be made at the standard attachment points. However, those wonderful people at Grove also sent the Attachment Hardware along with the one-piece gear. I think we used larger AN bolts?

However, don?t hold me to that just yet! Being in the middle of a flight pattern (BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE) I cannot confirm the above as I am floating around on your side of the Planet with only my Laptop. I am in LAX today, on my way to JFK tomorrow :cool:.

There is an image below of a standard gear attachment and the RV8s attachment (note please the bolt hardware employed in this image is seconds and was for initial positioning of the equipment only- not what we applied in the final attachment of the undercarriage)

However, if time is of the essence (you need to know to order) to answer your question then give Shane Daly a call at Innovative Wings +1 403-247-8890. Shane is an amiable chap and as this part of the build was his focus (OK I admit conceptionally, engineering and aesthetic planning was done over several Rum and Cokes in the hangar kitchenette over several weeks! :D). Shane will certainly be able to answer any detailed questions you may have on the Grove gear to assist you in your build in the short-term.

The rest of your post is entirely correct regarding the operational capability of the landing gear. Of course one should avoid potholes, running off pavement edges or excessive brake use as you describe and therein the outcomes that may prevail :(.

K0MaG8ol.jpg


TBVqtKw.jpg


UOOo1GUm.jpg


rcf9xLfl.jpg
 
Congratulations on your build Perry very :cool:! Let me know
if your down the Hunter Valley way or Narromine in October!
I would love to have a look! :D
 
Please have a look at the drop-test video http://www.groveaircraft.com/droptest.html, and you will understand the need for center section clearance.

Thus, this answers you attachment question in part I think. So actually the attachment can only be made at the standard attachment points.

The drop test video shows a gear on radius blocks, clamped at the longeron only, standard for a one piece gear on a wide range of aircraft. There are no inboard mount points in the video example.

I was asking if the stock inboard mount points (which tie to the steel weldments on the inboard faces of the gear towers) were used with your installation. You need not be overly familiar; the weldment, bolts, and nuts are plainly visible in the cockpit. I don't see the fasteners in your first post, fourth photo, but it is a small picture. Are they there, or were they deleted?

Your first post states a six inch gear leg extension? Was that six vertical, or six along the length of the leg?

Shane will certainly be able to answer any detailed questions you may have on the Grove gear to assist you in your build in the short-term.

I've been flying Grove gear on an -8 about six years now.
 
Last edited:
Hi Perry
I was just wondering if your the same Perry as i know in Aussie through Bobby Taylor on the Sunshine Coast.
regards
Sweet RV8
 
Congratulations on your build Perry very :cool:! Let me know
if your down the Hunter Valley way or Narromine in October!
I would love to have a look! :D

Gibbo, I am just chalking up some hours in Hervey Bay between Flight Patterns.

I have Col Crittenden lined up to take me through the finer points of RV8 flying so I can deal with those August Westerly winds in the Bay ;)

After that, I will be on a quick sojourn South later in the year, and I will drop into the Hunter before or catch up with you at Narromine.

More than happy to take you for a fly! :cool:

Safe Flying :)
 
One pice gear

I suspect I'm who Dan was referring to in an earlier post. foxhound57 can you post some more pictures of the one piece gear as it mounts to the fuselage? Did you use a wider center web ?
 
Last edited:
That is an appropriate main gear for us Aussies. Much the same as my Corby Starlet. How long are you in Central Qld for.
 
BTW I am an EAA member as well. My Airline slip’s Tech Crew in at Long Beach, Ca. Do you know if there is a Chapter near by that I could visit on my layovers please?

Thanks
Perry

Chapter 7 is based at KLGB but we don't have a hangar. To my knowledge, there is only one aircraft under construction by a member who is building a -7. To my knowledge there are only 3 RVs on the field; My -10, a friend's -7, and a -7A that is powered by a LS1 V-8, which I believe is currently for sale.

There is also a chapter at nearby Compton airport that might be a better choice to see some actual building.
-Marc
 
Last edited:
When aircraft in service have failures of a certain type, it's generally because the design was a bit marginal there. The RV-8 fore-aft landing gear loading that DanH mentioned is one of those, and is worth taking with some concern.

Especially since the RV-12, with a flat gear, has also had its issues there. In fact, Van's published a service bulletin about that. See SB 12 11-09. Note that the same company had two models with roughly similar issues. To me, that lends additional credence to Dan's caution.

Dave
RV-3B skinning the fuselage
 
I suspect I'm who Dan was referring to in an earlier post. foxhound57 can you post some more pictures of the one piece gear as it mounts to the fuselage? Did you use a wider center web ?

VA Maule

No worries!

I think Dan missed my subtle point on my previous post – I am at work enjoying jet-lag ex LAX into JFK this evening. I am on a nine-day Flight Pattern. Therein, I do not, carry my RV Engineering data or Build images with me. They are safe and secure on the desktop at home!

NLdEP9Bm.jpg
602kts GS on the way across LAX to JFK!:)

However, I am more than happy to send you what I have back in Oz and if/when I can locate the installation instructions from Grove and my Engineers Drawings I would be delighted to forward them onto you with supporting images. Note, we had install options! ;)

BTW my one-piece Grove gear is working exceptionally well, and I am pleased with the product, design, and performance. :cool:

Meanwhile, I have sent what I have via PM to you!
 
Gibbo, I am just chalking up some hours in Hervey Bay between Flight Patterns.

I have Col Crittenden lined up to take me through the finer points of RV8 flying so I can deal with those August Westerly winds in the Bay ;)

After that, I will be on a quick sojourn South later in the year, and I will drop into the Hunter before or catch up with you at Narromine.

More than happy to take you for a fly! :cool:

Safe Flying :)

Col's a great guy Perry! He has always had time for me. Looking forward meeting you soon. :)
 
That is an appropriate main gear for us Aussies. Much the same as my Corby Starlet. How long are you in Central Qld for.

Yes, indeed the Corby Starlet has an appropriate size gear to keep it out of the rough in our bush strips.

Yen, I have a Hangar I own in Hervey Bay.

wtSyssLl.jpg


Which I will be operating the RV8 out of and I also have a Lancair ES which I am Building.

r82bftQl.jpg


So it is a permanent base :)
 
I think Dan missed my subtle point on my previous post – I am at work enjoying jet-lag ex LAX into JFK this evening. Therein, I do not, carry my RV Engineering data or Build images with me.

Thank you for your previous Perry, but no, he didn't.

You see, the first question doesn't require engineering data, and I supplied an image from the plans. I simply asked if your one piece gear incorporated the standard inboard fasteners. The assembly is right there in plain sight on the cockpit floor, so to use your phrase, even Blind Freddy can tell if they are present or not. We can all see the weldment in your photo, but it's too small to see the nuts.

Second question merely asked for a clarification of what you wrote in your first post, which was "The final design was over 36 inches in length and six inches in height. The extra undercarriage height suits the “rough” unimproved airfields that predominates throughout the Australian outback". Given that you also posted "Being a Builders Assist project, Perry, his charming wife Leigh and youngest daughter Kristy, were hands on throughout every phase of the construction project", I assumed you would have some memory of the simple stuff.

I would certainly expect a need to consult your notes, or ask Heather, or your hired gun, if I had asked for the tension loads on the outboard bolts with the longer legs. The standard 0.375" NAS bolts have an expected strength of about 14,000 lbs. The nut shown in the plans was stripping in service at about 12,500, per actual test by a good engineer. Many of us have replaced it with a nut which tested at 15,800 or 16,200. There has been some minor debate about that choice, as the softer nut surely protects the gear tower to a degree. Obviously lengthening the gear legs requires a good look at the new loads, for both the bolts and the towers, so yes, many of us would like to know what your numbers look like when you get back to Oz. Your team's analysis could be a serious contribution to the RV-8 community's knowledge base.

For now, back to simple questions please. Can we get a "yes" or "no" on the inboard bolts being present, and (A) or (B) on the leg length?

 
So yes, many of us would like to know what your numbers look like when you get back to Oz. Your team's analysis could be a serious contribution to the RV-8 community's knowledge base.

Dan!

Polite approaches and courtesy are customary in my part of the world.

Kindly note please, that I have supplied what I have on my work laptop to VA Maule by PM regarding my one-piece Grove gear.

I have also shared further build information to other readers of this forum who have inquired via PM and E-mail.

Some members apparently seem to prefer to PM or E-mail rather than Post. Is that because of You?

As stated to members on this thread once I am back on the other side of the Planet, (Australia) I will forward whatever further data I can locate regarding my Grove one-piece gear installation plus multiple images (both external and internal images) as applicable. Accuracy, Exactness, and Correctness being the aim of the information sharing process.

Dan, patience, please. Kindly read this and attempt to comprehend same. Thanks. :)

5vL47Dql.jpg
 
Grove gear

Very helpful and thanks for taking the time to share.

No problems yet as most of the fuselage is still in the box:rolleyes: Doing all the due diligence investigating I can, will probably fabricate a full scale mockup out of low grade Al. to determine adequate prop clearance and most likely a somewhat wider stance. I'm also strongly considering a 5" to 6" web under the gear towers to counteract the forces of the longer legs.
 
Perry, did you or your group spin-test the airplane? And if so, could you outline the aft CG and gross weight test points covered?

The reason I'm asking is that while some of the changes might indeed be favorable, one thing is certain, that the pitch and yaw mass inertia increased. These can have an effect on spins.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Perry, did you or your group spin-test the airplane?

Thanks,
Dave

As you are aware, David, Spins are required by demonstration for certification. However, I noted in my Pre-Flight Testing research for my RV8 that even certified aircraft could bypass the requirement with a FAA waiver in the USA! I could not find anything regarding the JAA or EASA (not that I looked too hard at the time!)

I believe Cirrus ascertained a FAA waiver for the SR-20/22. I ponder why they sought that?

Allegedly, the waiver was granted with the understanding that apparently the only way to recover a Cirrus from a spin is to pull the ballistic chute! (certainly not my first choice of options!).

The FAA stated that for Normal category aeroplanes. A single-engine, normal category aeroplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.

Of course, we now move into the area of Experimental Aircraft and the rules as applicable to FAA, Transport Canada and the MDRA and Australia with the SAAA and CASA.

As much as I wanted to do my own Test Flying I yielded to appointing a Test Pilot under advice. His flight notes indicate a 1 Rotation Spin.

This requirement was also met for the application for increased MTOW.

The aircraft spins. The aircraft is recoverable :cool: and I believe your synopsis to be correct given the longer arm to the Rudder. The aircraft is approved for Loops, Rolls, Spins, and Combinations thereof, I surmise as much as any RV8!

I cannot give much more advice as,

a) I have never placed a normal RV8 into a Spin and

b) At present are dealing with my Tailwheel Landings given that the August Westerly winds make landing in Coastal Areas of Australia a tad challenging!

I'll get to testing the Full Flight envelope a little later and can let you know more details then! I will also be back home on Friday from this current flight pattern so if there is any further information in the Test Notes I'll P.M. you.

Perry :)
 
Yes, I got it. Can you now confirm the clamp bolts as being 0.375 diameter?
 
I would also like to know how the gear was attached (outboard only, or utilizing the inboard point that the two piece gear uses).
I have one piece grove gear on my project.
Should I send a PM, or can it be shared here?
Paul.
 
I would also like to know how the gear was attached (outboard only, or utilizing the inboard point that the two piece gear uses).
I have one piece grove gear on my project.
Should I send a PM, or can it be shared here?
Paul.

Perry's airplane is outboard clamp only, which means the skin must be left open to form a slot across the entire width of the belly.

The additional leg length increases clamp bolt stress in proportion to the length increase. Here the legs are roughly 10" taller, so stress applied to the bolts, clamps, and gear box structure would be roughly 25% higher for the same braking or chuckhole loading.
 
Yes, I got it. Can you now confirm the clamp bolts as being 0.375 diameter?


Apologies Dan. I've been away.

Answer: Installation: 3/8" inner diameter = 0.375 inch. Yes.
Place a radius block (2 parts) on top and bottom of gear leg and bolt to fuselage through the predrilled 3/8" holes.
Repeat for the other side of the fuselage. No other clamping required.
 
I would also like to know how the gear was attached (outboard only, or utilizing the inboard point that the two piece gear uses).
I have one piece grove gear on my project.
Should I send a PM, or can it be shared here?
Paul.


Paul, you should have the Radius Blocks then.
The Radius blocks are mounting brackets for the aluminum landing gear. Inside faces have a special radius to eliminate torsional loads on the fuselage as the landing gear deflects. The Material: 7075-T6 aluminum. For a one-piece unit, Grove, from their testing state that this is all that is required by placing a radius block on top and bottom of gear leg and bolt through to the fuselage using the predrilled 3/8" holes. Working exceptionally well on my RV8s. :)

9XjVbQdm.jpg
[/IMG]

BTW Dans Maths is totally wrong. The stress increase (if any) is absolutely nothing like he incorrectly asserts!
 
Last edited:
Well David, being curious is good, as then one may seek out the correct facts.:)

However, I have noted on some threads on Vans AirForce forums, the arrogance by some constituents to post blind (uniformed) statements and to challenge others dedicated work, rather than to correctly (and politely) inquiring of all the facts (Engineering and Science) indicating a degree of "self-importance and arrogance" by those individuals that I would not wish to engage with.

The author of post 09-19-2017 12:12am, (Dan) in this instance, has little knowledge (near none) regarding the unique design of my Landing Gear. He can’t, as it was made specifically for my aircraft alone, under precise engineering design instructions. Yes, that individual, has no knowledge of the Width and the Tapering, the Thickness at the Mid-Point, Radius of Bend (and therein the distortion angle) or the Flare of the Pneumatic Type Coupling or the Size of the Pneumatic Wheel.

Rendering any calculation by that individual, incorrect, mere self opinion, or if you like “ Fake News”
 
Last edited:


I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top