Chard 6

I know that Art Chard built the first RV like side by side seating aircraft and called it a Chard 6. It looked very much Van's RV-6 like and I have been told that it used RV-4 wings.

How many Chard 6's were built? I know Art built one but think there may have been others that built versions of it.

Doing a little research on the web, the Homewing Newletter July 1996 had this:
"Carl Battjes hosted the May meeting in his garage, where he’s currently working to get the “Chard 6” back into flying condition. I knew the Chard 6 was the prede-cessor to the RV-6, but what I didn’t realize was that it also actually preceded the RV-4! Carl has been involved in RVs since way back when, and it was interesting hearing some of the stories about back in the “old days” of RVs."

As a DAR, I have access to FAA Oklahoma City Aircraft Registry files by paying a small fee for each aircraft that I am interested in. I found Airworthiness records on one aircraft that lists it as being changed from a Chard 6 to a RV-6-CH.

How many other aircraft do we have out there that are called RVs or Vans and not made from Van's kits?

Interesting find Gary.
I know of only one other, but I am sure there are more. It is before kits where being produced so perhaps it does not matter, but it is the "other" RV-1, the one that Van did not build, but is claimed to have been built per his plans.
It is registered as an RV-1

Chard-built aircraft

Gary,

If you go into FAA Aircraft Registry records online, you will see Serial #AC-1 is a Chard-built aircraft licensed in 1977 currently registered to Carl Battjes, Chard-built Serial #AC-2 is a flying aircraft still on the Registry and, Serial #AC-3 is a McDaniels-built RV-6- type licensed in 1996, registered as an RV-6CH, with a IO-346 Continental engine. That aircraft went down near Lebanon, OR on November 26/12 with 2 fatalities. It is reported that a wing came off in flight with the aircraft ending up in a field.

RV6_flyer said:

I know that Art Chard built the first RV like side by side seating aircraft and called it a Chard 6. It looked very much Van's RV-6 like and I have been told that it used RV-4 wings.

How many Chard 6's were built? I know Art built one but think there may have been others that built versions of it.

Doing a little research on the web, the Homewing Newletter July 1996 had this:
"Carl Battjes hosted the May meeting in his garage, where he?s currently working to get the ?Chard 6? back into flying condition. I knew the Chard 6 was the prede-cessor to the RV-6, but what I didn?t realize was that it also actually preceded the RV-4! Carl has been involved in RVs since way back when, and it was interesting hearing some of the stories about back in the ?old days? of RVs."

As a DAR, I have access to FAA Oklahoma City Aircraft Registry files by paying a small fee for each aircraft that I am interested in. I found Airworthiness records on one aircraft that lists it as being changed from a Chard 6 to a RV-6-CH.

How many other aircraft do we have out there that are called RVs or Vans and not made from Van's kits?

Click to expand...

JonJay said:

Interesting find Gary.
I know of only one other, but I am sure there are more. It is before kits where being produced so perhaps it does not matter, but it is the "other" RV-1, the one that Van did not build, but is claimed to have been built per his plans.
It is registered as an RV-1

Click to expand...

I am mistaken, it is still registered as a Stitz Playboy

X marks the spot

RV6_flyer said:

How many other aircraft do we have out there that are called RVs or Vans and not made from Van's kits?

Click to expand...

Gary,
Ten years ago my master RV builder friend Arvil and I combined three projects to build my RVX. We adhered closely to the RV6 plans utilizing RV6 fuselage parts and modified RV4 wings and tail. I kept it very light and simple (940lbs) with a 0-320ND and Catto 2 blade. During construction we rebuilt the wings using the HR2 spar attach drawings center section and duplicated the match for the RV6 spar box without sacrificing any structural integrity. End result is a delightfully handling, very well balanced sport-plane. By your definition, every Harmon or F-1 Rocket also applies.

V/R
Smokey
Dues gladly paid in Iraq...
Gladly paid to DR anyway...

The RVX

PS: Sad to hear of the structural failure and the losses. Prayers for the families.

In the Temp section post on the aircraft crash, at least one person from that area stated that the plane was NOT an RV-6. The aircraft serial number is not that of a Vans aircraft. Thus I am not going to worry one bit about my 6A.

Slightly off topic, but related to another concurrent thread....

If you go into FAA Aircraft Registry records online, you will see Serial #AC-1 is a Chard-built aircraft licensed in 1977 currently registered to Carl Battjes,

If it looks like a RV-6, then a current RV-6 can be a replica and qualify for 2 inch N-numbers and a NX registration marking...

I see that AC-1 is listed as a Van RV6. Built in 1977 yet the RV was introduced in 1986.

smokyray,

I would love to know what your design goals were when you started that project. was it a set of goals, and if so, did the final result meet your initial goals. or was it more of an engineering exercise? I find the motivations, reasons, and results of taking on such a project very interesting.

bob burns

RV-4 N82RB

az_gila said:

Slightly off topic, but related to another concurrent thread....

If you go into FAA Aircraft Registry records online, you will see Serial #AC-1 is a Chard-built aircraft licensed in 1977 currently registered to Carl Battjes,

If it looks like a RV-6, then a current RV-6 can be a replica and qualify for 2 inch N-numbers and a NX registration marking...

Click to expand...

All I can say is be careful.

Some of the FSDO guys could squawk you if the model does not match EXACTLY. S/N AC-1 is a VAN RV-6 model. If your 8050-3 registration says the model is RV-6 or VANS RV-6, you could find yourself in trouble.

RV6_flyer said:

All I can say is be careful.

Some of the FSDO guys could squawk you if the model does not match EXACTLY. S/N AC-1 is a VAN RV-6 model. If your 8050-3 registration says the model is RV-6 or VANS RV-6, you could find yourself in trouble.

Click to expand...

Well all I can say is that is a very interesting, and specific, interpretation of the actual wording in the FAR 45-22 --

(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-
registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued
under Sec. 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or
as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as
an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying
marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:

Absolutely no mention of model or registration in the FAR....

RV6_flyer said:

Some of the FSDO guys could squawk you if the model does not match EXACTLY. S/N AC-1 is a VAN RV-6 model. If your 8050-3 registration says the model is RV-6 or VANS RV-6, you could find yourself in trouble.

Click to expand...

Gary, I am missing something that actually may not be a concern. S/N AC-1 was built in 1977. How can it be a Vans RV-6 if the RV-6 was not introduced until 1986?

If your point is that calling it a Van RV-6 is lying and a bad thing to the FAA, OK. Not my concern since I am not lying to them.

My concern is that one or more places called S/N AC-3 a Van RV-6 when from the best info I have, along with comments in another thread from at least one reliable RV pilot, is that the aircraft that crashed last week is neither a RV-6 nor a Vans product.

Ron Lee said:

Gary, I am missing something that actually may not be a concern. S/N AC-1 was built in 1977. How can it be a Vans RV-6 if the RV-6 was not introduced until 1986?

If your point is that calling it a Van RV-6 is lying and a bad thing to the FAA, OK. Not my concern since I am not lying to them.

My concern is that one or more places called S/N AC-3 a Van RV-6 when from the best info I have, along with comments from at least one reliable RV pilot, is that the aircraft that crashed last week is neither a RV-6 nor a Vans product.

Click to expand...

Check this out..... http://www.kitspeed.com/2010/03/02/vans-aircraft-rv-story-history/ at the five minute mark.

Gasman, it might take hours to see that video. What happens at the five minute mark?

Ron Lee said:

Gasman, it might take hours to see that video. What happens at the five minute mark?

Click to expand...

It answers your question.

az_gila said:

Well all I can say is that is a very interesting, and specific, interpretation of the actual wording in the FAR 45-22 --

(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-
registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued
under Sec. 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or
as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as
an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying
marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:

Absolutely no mention of model or registration in the FAR....

Click to expand...

Gil:

Just about everywhere you go in this country (USA), you are suppose to be innocent till proven guilty. When it comes to the FAA, the training branch teaches the inspectors and DARs that the Applicant must SHOW compliance with the requirements and the FAA must find that it meets the requirements.

All I am trying to say, you better have a very good case that the airplane is a copy of an aircraft with the same external configuration as an aircraft built 30-years ago or more. They will not take your word for it. As a DAR, I am NOT going to take your word for it. Yes someone could LIE about it and name it anything they want that comes close to something that is over 30-years old. From experience, the FAA relies on a paper trail and will HANG anyone or shop they can if the paperwork is not in order. From experience, if the official paperwork matches, most times the FAA will accept it.

Pilots and mechanics can only CHEAT so much before it catches up with them and it will catch up.

I for one am not going to waste my time debating the issue. As a DAR, someone that brings your RV-6 argument to me will not be getting Operating Limitations and a Special Airworthiness Certificate until the FAA comes out in writing that your argument holds for the RV-6. They will be getting a Denial Letter placed in their file. I know when the original VANS RV-6 flew and am not going to accept something put out by someone else as the original article. Yes you may find someone else who will and you could also get ramp checked and get into problems with the FSDO. Is it worth taking the risk?

This thread has completely gotten off subject. An airplane crashed that was NOT a Van's RV-6 but it was reported to be one. Others are now afraid that there may be something wrong with their RV-6 structure. I pulled the files from the FAA Aircraft Registry on the accident aircraft and the files prove that it is NOT a Van's RV-6. There is a letter in the Airworthiness file that asked to change the 8130-6 model From: Chard-6 To: RV-6-CH. In the Registration file, there is an Affidavit of Ownership for Amateur Built Aircraft that is notarized that says aircraft was fabricated from Plans and also says it was built from parts. There is another letter in the Registration file that says Make: RV-6 Model: Chard-6 requesting to reserve an N number.

Putting 2" NX number on an RV-6 and leaving out the 2" EXPERIMENTAL is not going to be accepted unless one can PROVE that it matches something that is 30 or more years old. The Chard-6 may have been the forerunner to the RV-6 but it is NOT a VANS RV-6. If you want to make a case that the Chard-6 is the same as an RV-6, start another thread.

I would like the moderators to CLOSE this thread before it gets farther off track.
[ed. Closed per request of O.P. dr]

RV-6 Wing Comes Off in Flight

Has anybody heard details on this crash? http://www.kval.com/news/local/Plane-crash-debris-blocks-Oregon-highway-180916231.html

Lots of discussion here when it happened. Tragic. Not an RV-6.