Carl Froehlich
Well Known Member
I doubt that. Flush rivets don't make much, if any, performance difference at these speeds. SNIP
Fully agree - but round head rivets, either driven or pulled, are just plain ugly!
Carl
I doubt that. Flush rivets don't make much, if any, performance difference at these speeds. SNIP
Fully agree - but round head rivets, either driven or pulled, are just plain ugly!
Carl
Form should follows function and the RV-15 function may require universal head rivets for long term durability. Bush/backcountry planes take a pounding...
That being said, the RV-15 gear being so innovative, may allow for flush rivets.
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other? The an426 rivet doesn’t have the shear strength of the 470, but the interaction of the dimpled sheets help the joint gain strength to surpass the dome rivet joint, no?
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other? The an426 rivet doesn’t have the shear strength of the 470, but the interaction of the dimpled sheets help the joint gain strength to surpass the dome rivet joint, no?
I have watched the videos...which are many and read the articles which are many but haven't seen the cabin width??
Is it a secret?
Same as the RV-14 and RV-10, which I believe is 46"
I have watched the videos...which are many and read the articles which are many but haven't seen the cabin width??
Is it a secret?
Paul Dyes Kitplanes announcement talked about the CABIN and he compared it to the Tundra he built as being similar, etc....but no size.
I understand the FWF is the 390 off the RV14...so the cabin should be wider than my RV6....
I also know the doors are flat plexiglass now and may be modified with armrests etc.
Also understand the cockpit tapers behind the 2 front seats, etc.
But given all the above....does anybody know the width???
Are two big guys going to rub arms??
Thanks
I’m not sure why there would be any difference in the shear strength of the rivets themselves when comparing the same diameter AN426 to AN470 rivet. However you are correct that in some cases flush-riveted structures with nestled dimples can increase shear strength over a non-dimpled riveted structure.
Skylor
I won't argue that your wrong but I can say that it's been my observation that when a certified aircraft want to beef up a structure they get rid of the flush rivets and add universal head rivet..
For instance, the older Cessna 180s has flush head rivets around the firewall but when the factory added a float kit they doubled the number of rivets and went to universal heads.
I thought flush riveted joints have higher shear strength, due to the nestling of the dimpled sheets into each other?
I’m not sure why there would be any difference in the shear strength of the rivets themselves when comparing the same diameter AN426 to AN470 rivet. However you are correct that in some cases flush-riveted structures with nestled dimples can increase shear strength over a non-dimpled riveted structure.
… it's been my observation that when a certified aircraft want to beef up a structure they get rid of the flush rivets and add universal head rivet..
Sorry, Michael, but Tom and Skylor are correct: The shear strength of the rivet itself is the same, but the dimple does some structural load transfer in addition to the rivet, making the dimpled joint stronger.
If the rivets are relatively weak (i.e. rivets and/or bent-sheet components made of metals not often used on airplanes), the flush rivets can be up to ~3x stronger than the protruding-head rivets, due to help from the dimples. I have seen it in the lab (but, again, this is just a quasi-academic extreme, not a difference you’d see in RV-type structure).
The reason that mods use protruding-head dimples is because the parts are easier to fabricate, and/or use material thicknesses that are right in the grey zone where they’re a little too thick to easily dimple but a little too thin to countersink without making a knife-edge. Or they’re on the inside of the airplane, where there is usually no need for flush rivets which take more work.
On the other hand, I have tested both the flush version and the protruding-head version of a particular manufacturer’s blind rivets (not gonna say which one) and the flush ones had similar strength but worse fatigue performance, which was surprising, but I double-checked repeatedly and the effect was real.
All I’m saying is: Sometimes rivet behavior is counter-intuitive. Intuition is good (as are the various factors in structural analysis books) but lab tests are better!
Was thinking the same thing. Wonder if this was done for simplicity in just the prototype? Would feel more comfortable with a handle down on the floor for safety and visibility. Love those flaps!Does that flap handle concern anyone else? That could get ugly in a crash. I love the placement for normal ops- just wouldn’t want it there in a crash situation.
Ease of fabrication would not come into play for my example as they were already flush and the factory went to the trouble of reconfiguring the assembly line to stop countersinking and go with all universal head rivets.
Was thinking the same thing. Wonder if this was done for simplicity in just the prototype? Would feel more comfortable with a handle down on the floor for safety and visibility. Love those flaps!
Really excited about this airplane and looking forward to following its evolution over the next year.
The overhead flap handle is located closest to the flap mechanism, very similar to the high wing Piper, including the CarbonCub, and other SuperCub clones. The bottom mounted manual flap handle on the low wing Cherokee is also located closest to the flap mechanism which is at the bottom of the fuselage.
It would be relatively simple to retrofit an electric flap actuation by grafting the standard flap motor to the RV15 flap mechanism, to reduce the perceived danger of a manual flap. The big downside with the electric flap is the slow flap retraction, not good for STOL or very short field landing when you want to retract the flaps as soon as the airplane touches down. On the Piper, low or high wing, I like the fact I can manually slam the flap to retraction in an instant. This is not possible with an electric flap. Having flown with the manual flap, you always know the exact position of the flap because you manually put it there. On airplane with electric flap like the RV8, you have to wait a bit for the flap to travel its length, and you have to double check either by looking outside or looking at the EFIS that is equipped to display the flap angle.
"I believe they saw 140 knots on the way out with no fairings at all"
Also 12" tires is the smallest recommended tire. Not sure you are going to see a front county RV-15 with wheel pants.
maybe already stated, but I can't find it:
1. Is it aerobatic?
2. Where are the fuel tanks located?
maybe already stated, but I can't find it:
1. Is it aerobatic?
2. Where are the fuel tanks located?
maybe already stated, but I can't find it:
1. Is it aerobatic?
2. Where are the fuel tanks located?
This may sound strange, but my #1 interest here is ease of entry and exit, with #2 being seating comfort (legroom, headroom, width). I suspect I'm not alone in this group. We're all getting older, and for those of us who buy 2XL shirts and size 14 shoes, folding into little cockpits gets worse every year.
+1 My wife is not able to get in/out of any existing RV. I am excited for the very reasons above. Being an RV it will be efficient, safe, fun to fly and have all the advantages of an "experimental". We could get places that now take 13-14 hrs of driving (+ an overnight stay) in ~3 hrs.
+1 My wife is not able to get in/out of any existing RV. I am excited for the very reasons above. Being an RV it will be efficient, safe, fun to fly and have all the advantages of an "experimental". We could get places that now take 13-14 hrs of driving (+ an overnight stay) in ~3 hrs.
I get the sense that the tricycle gear model will actually be the quicker one since it’s not going to have shock absorbers for main gear and it wouldn’t shock me if it comes with wheel pants and maybe even less flap travel with smaller flap fairings.
I assumed wheel pants would be a given for the trike. Vans must be aware many people simply want a high wing version of the existing low wing series, including the speed that comes along with the low wing. Many have no intention of landing on anything other than paved, long runways.
If the new RV15 only flies slightly faster than the existing Cessna, it begs a question into why you should build one, unless the Cessna is so expensive compare to a newly built RV15. Given the build configuration of the RV14, it is not an inexpensive build. But what you get in the RV14 is the performance premium. If the RV15 is built at the cost of the RV14 yet it performs at the C170 level, then the value calculation is tough to justify.
If the new RV15 only flies slightly faster than the existing Cessna, it begs a question into why you should build one, unless the Cessna is so expensive compare to a newly built RV15. Given the build configuration of the RV14, it is not an inexpensive build. But what you get in the RV14 is the performance premium. If the RV15 is built at the cost of the RV14 yet it performs at the C170 level, then the value calculation is tough to justify.
Just to pile on the "why RV15 versus Cessna" - "experimental."
Yes it makes no sense to compare cert with exp. I will never own a certified airplane. And there are a lot of pilots ,perhaps most, who would never build or own an experimental - many think they are “dangerous”. It is 2 different tribes.
Someone above speculated that the trike gear version won’t have the shock absorbing gear. I’m sure it will. It will still be intended for back country flying.
Expected G range is stated in the video of the What’s new at Van’s presentation ([URL="https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1622972&postcount=5]at this post[/URL]) I don’t remember the exact numbers but they didn’t strike me as an Aerobatic range.
Yes it makes no sense to compare cert with exp. I will never own a certified airplane. And there are a lot of pilots ,perhaps most, who would never build or own an experimental - many think they are “dangerous”. It is 2 different tribes.
Someone above speculated that the trike gear version won’t have the shock absorbing gear. I’m sure it will. It will still be intended for back country flying.
Where's the 'suggestion box' now?
....I love the stick for flying, but think it's a huge detriment getting in and out!
I've seen another bird with a stick that came out from under the dash, with almost all the same movements that we all desire!
yes, a bit of gears and rods and cables to achieve this, but even my skinny legs get in the way of a hard aileron correction....
not to mention whacking my kneeboards, which have now grown to accommodate 43" flatscreen apple Airpads!
Is anyone aware of whether Van's is even interested in an aerobatic rating? Obviously there's a significant weight and engineering cost penalty, and it would an unusual mission for a backcountry aircraft, but being able to perform gentleman's aerobatics in this plane would meet the "total performance" goal in my mind and would set the RV-15 well apart from its competitors.
I owned a Cessna Aerobat and it was developed from the standard 150/152 design by increasing some structure gages, adding a C182 strut (cut down) and some pins to pull the door hinges. Total weight gain was 18 lbs, I believe.
I think a lot of back-country pilots would love an aerobatic airplane. And they'd also appreciate the extra sturdiness of a +6/-3 g airframe
I owned a Cessna Aerobat and it was developed from the standard 150/152 design by increasing some structure gages, adding a C182 strut (cut down) and some pins to pull the door hinges. Total weight gain was 18 lbs, I believe.
I think a lot of back-country pilots would love an aerobatic airplane. And they'd also appreciate the extra sturdiness of a +6/-3 g airframe
Thanks for the insight, that's not as bad as I expected. And totally agree about the sturdiness factor - I learned in a Super Decathlon and always appreciated knowing how much margin I had when things got a little rough.
Now if we could only get Van's to weigh in...Greg??
Sheesh, I think I understand the total performance concept Vans is going for but dang.
Why not make the 15 aerobatic, float capable, air conditioned with foldable wings so you can drive it like a car too. Heated seats are a must regardless…….
Anyone road race their rock crawling Jeeps? How many people trailer their Jeeps to where the fun is?
The 15 is an off-road vehicle you can actually fly to your destination without trailering it.
Utiliity category: +4.4, -2.2
It should be capable of spins and unusual attitude recovery practice for training purposes and fun.... I do expect the RV15A to become a trainer also.
...how about a IO-540 up front?
It'll be a beast!
Waiting/watching for the 540 to be incorporated.