VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-03-2022, 10:08 PM
wawrzynskivp wawrzynskivp is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Incline Village Nv
Posts: 334
Default Utility and Aerobatic Categories IRT RVs

Rather than splintering another post I am asking this rather pedantic question here.

Some of our discussions and performance numbers for our RVs follow definitions of 'Utility' and 'Aerobatic.' I remember when those were defined terms but in a recent review of our regulations, I believe I found those terms are now replaced by other definitions.

Older Airworthiness certificates using those terms still obviously have meaning.

But more precisely to that point: did those terms ever apply to our experimental certificates? Or for example when looking at CG position and weight were we using the terms informally?

I am ready to discover I am out to lunch on this question.
__________________
Vincent 'Duck' Wawrzynski
LtCol USMC (Ret)
F-18/F-5/F-16, AH-1/UH-1/CH-53/CH-46, C-130/AN-2
RV-7 complete with all the gadgets
Aviation Safety/Accident Inspector/Investigator
San Jose State University Av Faculty, CFI/GFI S/M (I)

Last edited by wawrzynskivp : 03-03-2022 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-03-2022, 10:45 PM
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 462
Default

This what Van's uses:

Ref: "Flying an RV" - https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/

"The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-7/7A, RV-8/8A and RV-14/14A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G). The RV-9/9A, RV-10 and RV-12 are not designed for aerobatic flight.

The design operational stress limit for the RV-9/9A is utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G) at less than 1600 pound gross weight and is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G) between 1600 pounds and the aircraft’s design gross weight. The design operational stress limit for the RV-10 is standard category (+3.8/-1.5 G).

No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit."
__________________
Carl N.
RV-8
KAWO

Last edited by RV8JD : 03-03-2022 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-04-2022, 02:38 AM
spatsch spatsch is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Denison, TX
Posts: 364
Default

Simple answer is no. Formally experimental amateur build airplanes have no such distinction. Only thing that matters are your operating limitations.

Now RV8JD posted Van’s informal statement.

Oliver
__________________
Oliver Spatscheck
RV-8 N-2EQ -- flying 500+ hours
Fokker DR-1 N-22EQ -- under construction
http://www.spatscheck.com/oliver
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-04-2022, 07:20 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 13,085
Default

I agree with Oliver - legally, the categories don’t apply, but it is an easy shorthand for engineers and pilots to use the categories because most pilots understand what they mean, and you don’t have to throw the actual numbers around.

Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-04-2022, 07:43 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,298
Default

I find it an odd way of phrasing it that "the categories don't apply". The categories are but shorthand for talking about designed limits of the airframe. You can ignore them on a certified aircraft, too.

But you can't change the laws of physics. The limits apply whether the FAR's say they do or not.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-04-2022, 08:23 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 13,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
I find it an odd way of phrasing it that "the categories don't apply". The categories are but shorthand for talking about designed limits of the airframe. You can ignore them on a certified aircraft, too.

But you can't change the laws of physics. The limits apply whether the FAR's say they do or not.
Of course the physics apply - but nowhere in the E-AB certification paperwork will you find the “categories” that you will in a certified airplane’s paperwork. In the certified world, the categories are not “shorthand” - they are legal definitions and requirements. Not so in our experimental world.

Of course, its all semantics.
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-04-2022, 09:11 AM
jneves's Avatar
jneves jneves is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 202
Default

Agreed and confirmed this with a few folks, local FSDO as well. I'm working on adjusting my gross weight (Please dont flame me I've read all the threads and know how people view this topic). I reached out to my contact at the FSDO and he stated that the categories (Utility, Standard and Acro) mean nothing in EAB and they should be references because most pilots know what they mean, but the G limits should be spelled out in the plane's manual (POH, also not applicable to EAB)
__________________
Johnny

N455DM - RV-6A - Bought Flying - 2021
Tip Up Canopy
IO-360-A2B
FP 66" Catta 3 blade Carbon
IFR - 2 Garmin G5s - 430W - GFC500
JPI EMS-350 to monitor the temps
N89WD - Flight Design CTSW - Sold 2021
Donation Happily Made!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-04-2022, 09:27 AM
wawrzynskivp wawrzynskivp is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Incline Village Nv
Posts: 334
Default Pedantic, not practical

Totally agree with providing guidelines and using familiar terms. Maybe if the term 'utility category' in our EAB discussion was phrased 'utility range' or something like that it wouldn't raise flags for the nit-pickers....like me.

Did you know our classic FAR 23.3 on 'Airplane Categories' is gone?
__________________
Vincent 'Duck' Wawrzynski
LtCol USMC (Ret)
F-18/F-5/F-16, AH-1/UH-1/CH-53/CH-46, C-130/AN-2
RV-7 complete with all the gadgets
Aviation Safety/Accident Inspector/Investigator
San Jose State University Av Faculty, CFI/GFI S/M (I)
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 05:24 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.