What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Poll: Do you have a canopy release/ejection mechanism?

6/7/8- do you have a functional canopy/ejection release mechanism?

  • I have an 8 and HAVE a mechanism to eject the canopy.

    Votes: 12 9.4%

  • I have an 8 and DO NOT HAVE a mechanism to eject the canopy.

    Votes: 21 16.4%

  • I have a 6/7 tip up and DO NOT HAVE a functioning canopy release/eject mechanism.

    Votes: 49 38.3%

  • I have a 6/7 tip up and HAVE a functioning canopy release/eject mechanism.

    Votes: 24 18.8%

  • I relocated the original 6/7 tip up canopy release/eject mechanism handle.

    Votes: 14 10.9%

  • I have a 6/7 slide and HAVE a functioning canopy release mechanism.

    Votes: 8 6.3%
  • Total voters
    128
  • Poll closed .
BillL

BillL

Well Known Member
I have a 7 tip up and will finalize my canopy release mechanism very soon. The lever shaft has been extended below the bottom rail of the sub panel. I have the options of a fixed attachment or design of an alternate release handle location.

The poll is to get an idea of what % of aerobatic capable 6's, 7's, & 8's actually have a functioning release/eject mechanism.

I am leaning toward a fixed attachment that can be ground activated -i.e. a bolted in place termination. I can always make a mod if it becomes necessary. Hopefully not in flight.

You vote will be greatly appreciated.
 
I'll assume that by "release/ejection mechanism" you mean a mechanism that can be used in flight, rather than a release mechanism that can only be accessed on the ground (since every canopy, as far as I know, has to have *some* sort of way to install/uninstall it).

I originally had modified the mechanism so it was accessible by turning the lever from underneath the panel (i.e., oriented vertically), but then naturally that interfered with the radio stack, and I really didn't want the handle sticking out of the panel, so I abandoned it and went with high-quality push-button quick-release pins instead...
 
Last edited:
Interesting poll but...

Are you going to base your decision on the results of the poll? I don't wear a parachute so the option wouldn't matter to me. I would say it would depend on how much acro you plan to do and how extreme.

-Andy
 
RV7A Flyer said:
I'll assume that by "release/ejection mechanism" you mean a mechanism that can be used in flight, rather than a release mechanism that can only be accessed on the ground (since every canopy, as far as I know, has to have *some* sort of way to install/uninstall it).
Click to expand...

Yes, I mean to release in flight. An available handle for egress.

simpkinsona said:
Are you going to base your decision on the results of the poll? I don't wear a parachute so the option wouldn't matter to me. I would say it would depend on how much acro you plan to do and how extreme.

-Andy
Click to expand...

You are right, not useful to jump out without a parachute, and the need for one is certainly a big question too, but not in the scope of this poll. Mild aerobatics is the plan.

With many panels, the center upper area where that handle is located conflicts with a stack style panel. I have never found (searching was done) where anyone has ejected themselves from an RV. Since that poll would not likely give much information, I wondered how many are prepared with an inflight canopy release.

The release torque tube has been extended with the stock lever on the bottom. The plan is to secure it with screws/bolts, so ground removal is easy.
 
On the other hand, if you *ever* want to participate in a sanctioned IAC event you need a quick release canopy. The aircraft won't pass a tech inspection without it and that means it wouldn't be eligible to fly in such an event.

Modifying a slider can be as simple as replacing two bolts with two pip pins or similar. The tip-up is designed to be jettison-able but many builders opt to leave this out for various reasons.

For a slider, I see no downsides to making it jettison-able and mine has been that way from the start. I do wear a chute when doing aerobatics.
 
A fair bit of my flying is over water...

I installed pip pins in the forward canopy attach points of the -8, primarily to jettison the canopy should I have to ditch. My feeling is that the aircraft would most likely flip inverted at touchdown, and that the canopy would most likely not be openable inverted in water due to the pressure.
 
I'm finishing up my -7 and similarly, extended the canopy release down below the sub-panel such that rotating it would release the pins. Not sure if I'd be able to access it in flight in an emergency. I'm actually reconsidering installing it per plans just because I may want to participate in aerobatic competition someday and am not sure if my current installation would pass the safety inspection or not.

Matt
 
MK77 said:
I'm finishing up my -7 and similarly, extended the canopy release down below the sub-panel such that rotating it would release the pins. Not sure if I'd be able to access it in flight in an emergency. I'm actually reconsidering installing it per plans just because I may want to participate in aerobatic competition someday and am not sure if my current installation would pass the safety inspection or not.

Matt
Click to expand...

FYI, any -6/7 jettison mechanism essentially as depicted on Van's plans is suitable for IAC competition. It's OK to relocate the handle as long as you can reach it while strapped in.
 
ChiefPilot said:
On the other hand, if you *ever* want to participate in a sanctioned IAC event you need a quick release canopy. The aircraft won't pass a tech inspection without it and that means it wouldn't be eligible to fly in such an event.

Modifying a slider can be as simple as replacing two bolts with two pip pins or similar. The tip-up is designed to be jettison-able but many builders opt to leave this out for various reasons.

For a slider, I see no downsides to making it jettison-able and mine has been that way from the start. I do wear a chute when doing aerobatics.
Click to expand...

Is there a reference to what is acceptable? i.e where it should be located? The 7 tipper could use either a linkage or a cable if the location has to be specific. If the same style linkage is used (but extended downward) a handle could be located under the throttle/prop/mix locations.
 
BillL said:
Is there a reference to what is acceptable? i.e where it should be located? The 7 tipper could use either a linkage or a cable if the location has to be specific. If the same style linkage is used (but extended downward) a handle could be located under the throttle/prop/mix locations.
Click to expand...

IAC Official Cintest Rules:
2.2(j) If the canopy, or door for cabin-type aircraft, is hinged on the forward (leading) edge, it
must incorporate a quick-release mechanism to facilitate emergency egress.

Van's design is all you need. You may modify to relocate the handle as long as you can reach it while strapped in.
 
Ron RV8 said:
A fair bit of my flying is over water...

I installed pip pins in the forward canopy attach points of the -8, primarily to jettison the canopy should I have to ditch. My feeling is that the aircraft would most likely flip inverted at touchdown, and that the canopy would most likely not be openable inverted in water due to the pressure.
Click to expand...

Hard to say whether the airplane will be controllable after jettison, if the canopy frame hits the fin, which it most likely will on an -8.

The ideal thing for ditching would be to be able to slide it half way back and lock it. I think it might have been Jon Thocker that experimented with sliding the canopy open in flight. He found the stock fuselage construction lacks support for the track between the bulkheads and the flex of the track makes it hard to slide the canopy. Adding a partial bulkhead in the right spot may be a huge help. Search for his posts in the archives.
 
Regs are regs

but you will never get an unmodified -6 tipper (likely true of a -7 but I'm not sure) open enough in flight to egress the plane or to jettison the canopy. Requires slotting the forward skin over the hinges in a manner not to plans, or slowing down to maybe 15 mph.

(... so I guess you could do it in a hammerhead if you timed things perfectly.)

Since parachuting from the plane is a necessary capability for flying in sanctioned acro events, it seems to me a plans-built tipper should be excluded from entering without a demonstrated ability to accomplish this (no matter where your yellow and black handle is located). And I'd love to see how it's done, so I could shed my canopy if facing a water ditching :)
 
Bill Boyd said:
but you will never get an unmodified -6 tipper (likely true of a -7 but I'm not sure) open enough in flight to egress the plane or to jettison the canopy. Requires slotting the forward skin over the hinges in a manner not to plans, or slowing down to maybe 15 mph.

(... so I guess you could do it in a hammerhead if you timed things perfectly.)

Since parachuting from the plane is a necessary capability for flying in sanctioned acro events, it seems to me a plans-built tipper should be excluded from entering without a demonstrated ability to accomplish this (no matter where your yellow and black handle is located). And I'd love to see how it's done, so I could shed my canopy if facing a water ditching :)
Click to expand...

All true. James Clark and I were making plans to demonstrate (on the ground) how far one needed to lift the canopy before the hinges released when we were informed by the IAC that any -6/7 with Van's canopy release mechanism would satisfy the IAC. No one knows how the 6/7 canopy will jettison in an uncontrolled situation and that can also be said for other aerobatic airplanes.
 
Original design of the RV-6 canopy was truly jettisonable.

Bill Boyd said:
but you will never get an unmodified -6 tipper (likely true of a -7 but I'm not sure) open enough in flight to egress the plane or to jettison the canopy. Requires slotting the forward skin over the hinges in a manner not to plans, or slowing down to maybe 15 mph.
Click to expand...

Oh, but this WAS in the original plans. Mine has been this way for almost 24 years. I hope to never need this option in the air, but if I do, I have it!
The slots are covered with white tape, and no one has ever noticed unless I point it out.
 
Ron RV8 said:
A fair bit of my flying is over water...

I installed pip pins in the forward canopy attach points of the -8, primarily to jettison the canopy should I have to ditch. My feeling is that the aircraft would most likely flip inverted at touchdown, and that the canopy would most likely not be openable inverted in water due to the pressure.
Click to expand...

There is a video of an RV slider ditching in shallow water. The pilot slid the canopy back prior to touchdown, but the impact slammed it shut and he ended up inverted. He was rescued by people on the beach. Better to eject the canopy first, but it may take the tail with it.
 
ronschreck said:
All true. James Clark and I were making plans to demonstrate (on the ground) how far one needed to lift the canopy before the hinges released when we were informed by the IAC that any -6/7 with Van's canopy release mechanism would satisfy the IAC. No one knows how the 6/7 canopy will jettison in an uncontrolled situation and that can also be said for other aerobatic airplanes.
Click to expand...

It might not be good to try and release a tip-up without the slot in flight. It can not go straight back. With the glare shield at head level, it would seem safer if it pivoted on the back (at the upper latch) so the front lifts and goes away leaving my head intact. I don't know any of this for a fact, but I did sit and stare at that sharp edged glare shield on day.

Is there a release procedure- like release the pins - then release the latch, then release the belts?
 
scsmith said:
Hard to say whether the airplane will be controllable after jettison, if the canopy frame hits the fin, which it most likely will on an -8.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too concerned about the canopy taking out the fin. That part of the structure is pretty stout and remember, when the canopy is jettisoned it is going the same speed as the fin. How much can it decelerate relative to the fin in that short distance? At worse, I think it would be a glancing blow.
 
rmarshall234 said:
I wouldn't be too concerned about the canopy taking out the fin. That part of the structure is pretty stout and remember, when the canopy is jettisoned it is going the same speed as the fin. How much can it decelerate relative to the fin in that short distance? At worse, I think it would be a glancing blow.
Click to expand...

That canopy is like a light weight sail. Once it leaves the aircraft, it will "stop" forward motion almost immediately. The tail is secured to the airframe. It will NOT decelerate quickly. I would expect substantial damage.
 
Mel said:
That canopy is like a light weight sail. Once it leaves the aircraft, it will "stop" forward motion almost immediately. The tail is secured to the airframe. It will NOT decelerate quickly. I would expect substantial damage.
Click to expand...

I would think that the impact with the ground would cause more damage to the tail and I will be worried about that while floating down under my parachute camopy.:rolleyes:
 
You may have me there, Mel.

Mel said:
Oh, but this WAS in the original plans. Mine has been this way for almost 24 years. I hope to never need this option in the air, but if I do, I have it!
The slots are covered with white tape, and no one has ever noticed unless I point it out.
Click to expand...

My original plans are ashes, and I ended up by whatever means leaving the skin intact over the hinges - probably a Matronics suggestion for keeping at least some water off the avionics. It's been 20 years and I cannot recall the actual thought process.

As one who has neglected the checklist and had the canopy pop on takeoff once, and elected to fly to my destination that way, I can tell you that at green arc speeds you can neither open nor close the unlatched canopy more than maybe an inch from its assumed trail position in the slipstream. That much is hard data.
 
FWIW, for -8 builders who really want a canopy guaranteed to depart on command, I'm pretty sure the Showplanes fastback kit will get 'er done. There's a good bit of lift when unlatched in a runup pad slipstream, and side tipping -3 and -4 canopies seem to depart just fine in flight.
 
ronschreck said:
I would think that the impact with the ground would cause more damage to the tail and I will be worried about that while floating down under my parachute camopy.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My post was relating to the tail being damaged substantially in flight before a ditching. You still need a certain amount of control until you get to the surface.
 
Mel said:
My post was relating to the tail being damaged substantially in flight before a ditching. You still need a certain amount of control until you get to the surface.
Click to expand...

Good point. I missed that. But, if I'm wearing my chute I would jump before ditching.
 
A wingsuiter makes a pretty good sail when they inflate their wings too soon and jump _up_ when leaving the jump plane. They usually don't fair too well when making this mistake but the horizontal manages ok. Never heard of a jump pilot loosing control of the airplane as a result and we're usually dealing with a much longer lever arm. When a parachute opens prematurely and goes over the tail and the jumper goes underneath, now that's a different story. I've seen tails ripped away from the fuselage when that happens.

I'm with Ron Shreck when it comes to jumping however. Any opportunity to save myself at the expense of the airplane and I'm switching roles like "right now". No longer a pilot, now I'm a skydiver.
 
Last bump - Thanks for all who have answered. The stats are pretty stable now so after this bump for the holiday, I will summarize and close in a few days. 109 respondents now.

My decision - for early phase 1 - my mechanism will be fixed under the panel with the option of installing an inflight pull release later. The skin slots will be cut at the later time. So, for now, it will be available only on the ground.
 
BillL said:
My decision - for early phase 1 - my mechanism will be fixed under the panel with the option of installing an inflight pull release later. The skin slots will be cut at the later time. So, for now, it will be available only on the ground.
Click to expand...

This sounds a little backwards to me. During phase I when you are exploring the limits of the envelope is the time you are more likely to need to get out. This assumes, of course, that you will be wearing a parachute.
 
I have some experience in having had the canopy depart from a Giles 202, it happens very quickly, the canopy will most likely hit the tail and horizontal stabilizer with a glancing blow, the damage is typically dents or holes to the leading edges but it was perfectly flyable and was repaired easily.
The canopy departed so quickly that I did not see it happening or notice that it hit my face and forehead on the way past until on the ground.
So regarding a Rv7 tipper, I think the canopy will connect with your head on the way past and hence I am looking for a lightweight helmet. If you are knocked out then other options may be irrelevant.
The VANS design for release handle is good but the placement is poor if you want an normal stack of radios on the centerline, on my RV7, I simply moved the handle and mechanism 3 inches to the right and adapted the pushrods to suit. I have a full stack of radios and the jettison handle is perfectly within reach plus the ability to remove the canopy for maintenance or construction is awesome.
 
Chris Frisella at Bonehead Composites makes a _really good_ helmet for pilots. He's an RV guy too.

Had a guy at our field take off in his One Design and the Tilt Over canopy opened up on the climb out. It stayed hinged but smacked the right wing shattering the glass and then came back and smacked him in the head. Fortunately, he was wearing a helmet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top