RV-6 Wing Screws

[Snowflake]

Not in the plans but I moved my stops for aileron to outboard bracket and used #3 bolts as stops.

I missed this on first read... Putting your stops at the other end of the aileron means that when you hit the stop, you are apply a twisting load to the aileron. Having the stop at the inboard end means that hitting the stop does not stress the aileron itself, just the stop.

 

[JanRV6UK]

I am busy skinning my fuselage and I can confirm that on the 6 the two belly skins are .025 The front side skins are .032

 

[longranger]

I missed this on first read... Putting your stops at the other end of the aileron means that when you hit the stop, you are apply a twisting load to the aileron. Having the stop at the inboard end means that hitting the stop does not stress the aileron itself, just the stop.

I like this idea for aileron stops. I got a 3/4" delrin rod from ACS and am going to try to make stops to fit over the pushrod spacer.

PS: 1000th Post! Sometimes I feel like I spend too much time here...

 

[6 Gun]

stops

Thats what i love about this forum i will remiedy the stops.
Thanks Bob

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I missed this on first read... Putting your stops at the other end of the aileron means that when you hit the stop, you are apply a twisting load to the aileron. Having the stop at the inboard end means that hitting the stop does not stress the aileron itself, just the stop.

I am busy skinning my fuselage and I can confirm that on the 6 the two belly skins are .025 The front side skins are .032

I guess I remembered incorrectly. I new for sure the sides skins are .032, and that the forward bottom is .040.

Doesn't matter... As I have said before, I have seen with my own eyes, these screws carrying load during static tests.

The arm chair engineers would probably be quite surprised to see how much the wings deflect when loaded to 6 G's...

 

[JoeBlank]

Doesn't matter... As I have said before, I have seen with my own eyes, these screws carrying load during static tests.

The arm chair engineers would probably be quite surprised to see how much the wings deflect when loaded to 6 G's...

I concur. They would certainly be surprised!

 

[Snowflake]

Doesn't matter... As I have said before, I have seen with my own eyes, these screws carrying load during static tests.

On a -6, or a -7? Just trying to narrow down what testing has been done on a -6 wing. Previous reports were that the -6 wing was tested to its limits at the factory *without* the belly skin.

I have witnessed some static tests in person, and wouldn't at all be surprised how far the wing deflects at 6G. Heck, watching an Airbus wing curl up like a pretzel on takeoff is disconcerting enough.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

On a -6, or a -7?

I don't see that it really matters

The wings on all the models flex under +G load.

The top skins get slack and the bottom skins get very tight (as expected).

With all of the screws in place, some of the load being carried in the bottom wing skins is transfered to the fuselage belly skins (regardless what model).

 

[6 Gun]

Teting

It does matter which wing was being tested could you be more to the point about which model and under what condition it was tested as testing does matter and how it was carried out havent heard of any RV6 testing other than Vans.
Thanks Bob

 

[rvbuilder2002]

havent heard of any RV6 testing other than Vans.

The many static tests I have witnessed, and been involved in, were at Van's.

There actually has been other testing done though... Years ago, some of the European country's required the first example built there to be static tested to limit load (I don't think that is the case any longer though).

 

[gereed75]

There is no doubt that these screws would carry a load. The question is do they carry some load that is necessary for the structure to meet it's rating? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Snowflake]

I don't see that it really matters

It matters because of the differences in design between the spar and belly skins on the -6 and -7. Thinner belly skin and beefier spar on the -6.

So did you or did you not witness an RV-6 wing being load tested to design limits with the belly skin and screws in place?

The wings on all the models flex under +G load.
The top skins get slack and the bottom skins get very tight (as expected).
With all of the screws in place, some of the load being carried in the bottom wing skins is transfered to the fuselage belly skins (regardless what model).

All of this is true. But it doesn't answer the question of whether the screws are structurally necessary for the RV-6 wing to reach it's design limits.

For all the engineers that say the screws are not needed, why are you flying a Vans and not your own design???

Economics. Do you have any idea what it costs to develop an aircraft design from scratch? It's much easier to reverse-engineer something that's already flying. Say, like a Stits Playboy.