VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #31  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:47 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 8,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeCee 57 View Post
titanhawk +1

Scott, no disrespect here...

... and no hard facts, but a couple of comments:
Flew a demo flight outta Fond-du-Lac with Dick (Van's) himself in 1987 or 88 in Old Blue. Next year with the -4 proto outta KOSH. Then went to visit Old Plains barn en route to AK in May 96, still of last century. Also avidly read all the RVator (good all times, before face to book bs times), and what I saw was slipstick calculations done for the early RVs. Later in history Van hired additional engineers in, CAD and pre-punching came along and got the ball of to easy build and increased business rolling. And computerised calculations as well.
I have been active in the RV coummunity for a long time and I don’t remember every seeing much in regards to detailed engineering data for the RV-6 ever distributed publically, so I am not sure what you could base that opinion on.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-22-2019, 05:20 AM
plehrke's Avatar
plehrke plehrke is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
Threads like this never go anywhere good, regardless of what I say so I’m choosing to say very little.
I think that is a wise plan. I am sure the majority of the readers understand.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 13 years over 900 hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007

Last edited by plehrke : 09-22-2019 at 05:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:54 PM
titanhank's Avatar
titanhank titanhank is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Friendswood, Tx
Posts: 324
Default

I understand scott and totally agree. This is last time i will comment on this thread. I still personally believe the question of a higher gross weight for the -6 was never revisited because it would have cost sales for the newer models. I respect that decision and would have probably made the same call. The age old line of “it is dangerous” has been dispelled by the majority of owners who have taken the calculated risk on their own. Vans knows full well that the -6 is being operates at 1700-1800 lb gross weights, flown two up aerobatics and flown well past Vne. A quick search of youtube can show many examples. If they really thought it was a matter of impending doom, they would have issued a SB by now detailing said concerns with details similar to the -3 wing spar problems. Regardless of the model or circumstances, they can’t afford the bad PR of Vans branded aircraft falling apart in flight.

I respectfully ask, either provide the information that shows the -6 has a weak area that you claim to have, use your inside contacts to convince Vans to issue a SB addressing the weak area or stop criticizing others for making a choice about their aircraft that has proven so successful.

Still ready to learn if anyone is willing to teach.
__________________
Rv-6
0-320/180+hp
10-1 pistons
Lycon port/polish
Dual pmags
EI Commander
Whirlwind 200rv prop
IFR Glass panel
Trutrak Vizion 385 Autopilot
Flightline Interior
Almost rv14 seat mod/cable locking
Electric seat back adjuster

Last edited by titanhank : 09-22-2019 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-22-2019, 02:23 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by titanhank View Post
I respectfully ask, either provide the information that shows the -6 has a weak area that you claim to have, use your inside contacts to convince Vans to issue a SB addressing the weak area or stop criticizing others for making a choice about their aircraft that has proven so successful.
This is a ridiculous request. If YOU want to validate that the RV-6 in all respects is capable of an 1800 pound GW, YOU do a loads analysis (maneuver, gust, fatigue, and landing), stress analysis, static load verification test, flutter analysis, and flight testing to validate it. Van's has published their limits and don't need to address people who think they know better! Sheesh ...
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 600 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f - No longer owned

Last edited by RV8JD : 09-22-2019 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-22-2019, 04:32 PM
Caveman's Avatar
Caveman Caveman is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 646
Default "who owns the margins?"

The thread linked below helped me understand and respect "who owns the margins?"
It addresses RV modifications as well as gross weight increases...

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...p?t-73492.html

Joe
__________________
Joe Schneider
RV-7, IO-360, BA Hartzell, N847CR
Flying since 2008
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-23-2019, 08:01 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by titanhank View Post
I still personally believe the question of a higher gross weight for the -6 was never revisited because it would have cost sales for the newer models.
Nonsense. That's easily solved by ending sales of the RV-6, which they have done.

Quote:
The age old line of “it is dangerous” has been dispelled by the majority of owners who have taken the calculated risk on their own.
I would argue that you're only seeing what you want to see and are putting your blinders on to anything else.

Quote:
Vans knows full well that the -6 is being operates at 1700-1800 lb gross weights,
... A majority of which are done in cruise flight only, probably down around 2g max loading if my cross-country flights are any indicator.

Quote:
...flown two up aerobatics...
... A majority of which would have been done well under 4G, and likely none of them at 6G.

Quote:
...and flown well past Vne.
... And yet, a well-known -7A accident in Canada occurred while flying an RV-7A at less than (book) gross weight but over Vne. Yes, that was also due to an unbalanced control surface fluttering, but if it was flown within the limits, maybe it would have been fine?

Quote:
Regardless of the model or circumstances, they can’t afford the bad PR of Vans branded aircraft falling apart in flight.
Which is why they don't advertise that you can fly it beyond it's design limits.

Take Scott's words to heart: The spar isn't the only structural part of the aircraft that's affected by gross weight.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)

Last edited by Snowflake : 09-23-2019 at 08:01 AM. Reason: bad quote block
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:15 AM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 116
Default

My opinion. Higher gross good. Fly lean and light. If loaded honor the recalculated speed profile, don’t pull unnecessary g’s, and treat the landing thingy’s with respect.
__________________
19 dues paid member since 2018
RV6A
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:56 AM
DeeCee 57's Avatar
DeeCee 57 DeeCee 57 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Zürich W, Switzerland, Europe, Earth, Milky Way, known Universe...
Posts: 132
Default

Ok, this is also my last posting on this thread...
Long story short, we, a couple of local builders had some snail mail (yes, that long ago, amid litigation golden times...) exchange with Van's (no Mothership yet) regarding the calculation made for the -4... no more on this.

Back to the subject, it is interesting to look at the major differences between the -6 and -7:
- wingspan (length albeit small)
- fuel capacity
- VNE
- MTOM

How come?
As stated above strenght calculations can be done with more or less precision, the means at disposal nowadays being far superior to the ones back when the -6 was designed. Using the pre-punched technique also gives a better handle on the build quality, therefore the building error factor may be lowered somewhat.

Still, a willfull MTOM increase without a complete engineering analysis sure is no good idea.
__________________
Life's short... Enjoy!

DC

http://www.aerofun.ch

RV-4 #2062 HB-YVZ airframe builder
RV-6 #25685, slider, O-360-A3A (carb/dual Lightspeed II), MTV-12-B, HB-YLL owner
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-24-2019, 04:15 PM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 116
Default

Love this site. Chock full of great information and insights
__________________
19 dues paid member since 2018
RV6A
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 09:31 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.