What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Conversion of RV6/7 from tip up to slider.

H

[email protected]

Well Known Member
Patron
Asking for a friend not on this forum. How difficult or is it possible to convert an rv6/7 tip up canopy to a slider canopy. That is his preference, slider.

I built an F1 rocket slider so I can translate the experiences here to him.

Thanks in advance and blessed very happy New Year.

Good luck to all on their RV15 projects and to Vans bringing it to market.

V/R
Howard Rhodes
 
Not Easy

The subpanel bulkhead is in a different location depending upon tip up or slider. And of course you need to buy a new canopy which is far from cheap.
 
I would expect to strip all the forward sheetmetal down to the upper longerons and build back up. I suspect you may be able to salvage the baggage skin but don't know enough about the tip up. Worst case is you replace that upper skin over & aft of the baggage compartment.
 
I think it would be difficult and a lot of work. There are two major skins to replace, i.e. the one between the firewall and the cockpit and the other one aft of the cockpit. That alone would give the motivation to find one that is already a slider.
 
Thanks I tend to agree. The market favors tip ups is why he asked. I could do it if it were mine but for him it might be above his level.

Thanks all!
 
[email protected] said:
Is the subpanel bulkhead replaceable? How deep is the sheet metal surgery? Canopy $ understood.

TIA
Click to expand...

The 2nd photo here http://jasonbeaver.com/rv7/2010/03/31/worked-on-forward-fuselage/ shows the structure for a tip up. For a slider the sub-panel bulkhead is further forward and there are 3 fore-aft ribs instead of 2. The center rib supports the canopy roll over hoop brace.

Now... hypothetically you could add the center rib, then custom make a 2nd sub-panel bulkhead to fit the existing ribs. So the plane would have two sub-panel bulkheads. And of course this riveting and dimpling affects the upper front fuselage skin, so you'll trash the paint job. And may/will (?) have the old hinge slots to fill in that same skin. Avionics will likely be in the way, and you have to do all this work sitting under the panel cutting and fitting over your head. A miserable job.

I'm less sure about the aft side. Yes the aft skins are different... but could it be 'made to work' or add an overlay to make it work? In either case it'll really mess with the paint.

So it seems the candidate airframe --- needs to have poor or no paint, and either glass avionics (so less junk behind the panel), or junk avionics that you want to do a full swap out on.
 
One other thing to add... I'm currently helping two guys finish off RV-6's.
BOTH have had that top forward fuselage skin removed after initial install. In both cases the job of drilling out the rivets was done poorly and enlarged the holes in the upper longerons.

Oops ( 1097 ) rivets are non structural and not the answer. Big problem.

So I really caution against anyone thinking pulling off that skin and putting it back on. Just seen it messed up two many (pun intended) times!
 
blaplante said:
…Oops ( 1097 ) rivets are non structural and not the answer. Big problem….
Click to expand...

Not looking to start a fight but I’ll gladly wager an adult beverage against this comment. Many of the more modern designs utilize these fairly extensively; Lear Jet wings being one example IIRC. Any properly applied rivet should experience very modest tension loads. Nothing wrong with 1097s (which utilize a head shape that strain hardens when bucked for added strength) or 1241s for that matter.
 
Freemasm said:
Not looking to start a fight but I’ll gladly wager an adult beverage against this comment. Many of the more modern designs utilize these fairly extensively; Lear Jet wings being one example IIRC. Any properly applied rivet should experience very modest tension loads. Nothing wrong with 1097s (which utilize a head shape that strain hardens when bucked for added strength) or 1241s for that matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are structural, but not a direct replacement for a 426 unless the assembly was designed for their use or has been determined to be equivalent in that application.
 
blaplante said:
One other thing to add... I'm currently helping two guys finish off RV-6's.
BOTH have had that top forward fuselage skin removed after initial install. In both cases the job of drilling out the rivets was done poorly and enlarged the holes in the upper longerons.
Click to expand...

That's a sign of poor technique for removing rivets. They should have drilled off the factory head, then driven the body of the rivet out of the longeron with a drift. You don't want to drill *through* the whole rivet.
 
PaulvS said:
I think it would be difficult and a lot of work. There are two major skins to replace, i.e. the one between the firewall and the cockpit and the other one aft of the cockpit. That alone would give the motivation to find one that is already a slider.
Click to expand...


I personally did this mod, in addition to the skins above, if you want to address the hole for the canopy latch on the left side that skin must be replaced also. I changed a 2006 era QB RV7A tipper to an RV7 slider.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
That's a sign of poor technique for removing rivets. They should have drilled off the factory head, then driven the body of the rivet out of the longeron with a drift. You don't want to drill *through* the whole rivet.
Click to expand...

Don't I know it!
I was simply saying these aren't the easiest ones to remove and apparently are beyond the skill of at least two builders who gave up on these projects. Hence in new hands and now we are fixing their mistakes.
 
Freemasm said:
Not looking to start a fight but I’ll gladly wager an adult beverage against this comment. Many of the more modern designs utilize these fairly extensively; Lear Jet wings being one example IIRC. Any properly applied rivet should experience very modest tension loads. Nothing wrong with 1097s (which utilize a head shape that strain hardens when bucked for added strength) or 1241s for that matter.
Click to expand...

I think we should accept Mel's answer posted here: https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=20229&highlight=1097

Further, I communicated with Van's support about using a row of 1097's in this application (whole run of oversized longeron holes) and they took a VERY DIM VIEW of the idea.

I oversimplified the say 1097's are not structural.

Thread is starting to drift... :)
 
My only point was; they are structural. Lear Jet, more modern Pipers, others use them quite extensively. Properly applied, it’s easy to get rid of a process step (or more) in a single rivet set with a single CS operation versus CS-dimple, double/triple dimple, etc. multiple that by thousands and the time/cost greatly reduces. There’s also more material in bearing which can lead to wider pitch.

I’ll state flat out. if a design is relying on an assumed rivet head strength (especially flush heads), the there better be some other conservative assumptions to make up for installation variability.

BTW. I did go back and read the link. I respect Mel’s knowledge but I believe his reply was toward a very narrow application
 
Goodness fellas got no rivets here:)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0536.jpg
    IMG_0536.jpg
    300.6 KB · Views: 67
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top