SB-00128 RV14 & 14A Side Canopy Pins Lengthened, and Rear Canopy‑Latch Pin Engagement Depth Increased

[Mark Dickens]

This is what the SB says:

"The side canopy retention pins have been observed to lift partially out of their sockets during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions. To increase retention margins during these conditions, we are lengthening the side and rear canopy pins. This service bulletin affects RV-14 and RV-14A models whose finish kits were shipped before 3/20/26. Changes include side canopy pins lengthened to increase retention margins during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions, and the rear canopy‑latch pin engagement depth increased."

Well, from the above, I assume the problem is doing "aggressive aerobatic maneuvers" and overspeeding the plane...duh, I can read

Now, I see that the real truth is that "This is **not** due too "overstressed aerobatics""...silly me for believing Vans...but we wouldn't want to create speculation by giving the real reasons for this fix because that would just create speculation. Huh? That is what happens when you DON'T come clean.

This kit has been flying for over a decade with no apparent issues regarding the canopy locking mechanism and all of a sudden, there's this problem that isn't related to the explanation given by the manufacturer? Really? No, we need the details, clearly explained.

For me, I will probably implement the fix at some point, but I'll wait until Van's works out the issues and explains exactly why this is necessary. You might think that Vans might have learned a lesson in customer communications from the LCP and bankruptcy fiascos, but no....

 

[jclark]

This is what the SB says:

"The side canopy retention pins have been observed to lift partially out of their sockets during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions. To increase retention margins during these conditions, we are lengthening the side and rear canopy pins. This service bulletin affects RV-14 and RV-14A models whose finish kits were shipped before 3/20/26. Changes include side canopy pins lengthened to increase retention margins during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions, and the rear canopy‑latch pin engagement depth increased."

Well, from the above, I assume the problem is doing "aggressive aerobatic maneuvers" and overspeeding the plane...duh, I can read

Now, I see that the real truth is that "This is **not** due too "overstressed aerobatics""...silly me for believing Vans...but we wouldn't want to create speculation by giving the real reasons for this fix because that would just create speculation. Huh? That is what happens when you DON'T come clean.

This kit has been flying for over a decade with no apparent issues regarding the canopy locking mechanism and all of a sudden, there's this problem that isn't related to the explanation given by the manufacturer? Really? No, we need the details, clearly explained.

For me, I will probably implement the fix at some point, but I'll wait until Van's works out the issues and explains exactly why this is necessary. You might think that Vans might have learned a lesson in customer communications from the LCP and bankruptcy fiascos, but no....

First, let me sayvthat there may javelin been cases of aggressive aerobatics etc but I know of a situation where this problem exhibited itself without those conditions. Maybe it was construction out of the expected margins or maybe not.

I simply didn't want anyone to say that they do aerobatics or fly too fast, not implement it and have a problem. That would have been with me the rest of my life.

This is NOT to start an argument (you are not doing that in my mind) but to speak out and encourage implementation.

Finally, I ask that this dialog does not devolve into a Vans bashing or a poster bashing.

Mark, I am open to an offline dialog with you, if you wish. Send your number via message.

Thanks.

 

[mc607]

I’ve completed this SB…twice. Once with the SB bell crank angles and the second time reinstalling the original angles. Please see post #90. This job can be done in 5 hours or less.

Side pins, follow the SB Except cleco them in to place first and carefully lower the canopy to see how they engage into the newly installed strike plates. Lower it from the pilots side as it will engage slightly differently depending on which side you lower it from.
I had to drill mine out and heat the pins and tweak them inboard a bit. I heated up the weld from the top side while the plate was clamped in a vice with softeners and tapped the pin slightly. Repeated this Three times to get it perfect. Now when I lower the canopy you can’t hear or feel them rub as they enter the side rails. YMMV

The new pins. Chuck them in a drill press and smooth out the sharp edge where they start to taper to a point. This sharp edge catches on the forward brass bushings when trying to re-engage the pins.

Mark the aft end of the slot then Remove the inboard bell crank angles only. The forward nut is a bit tricky but doable. This can be done without removing the torque tube blocks. Tape off the outboard angle, drill a hole at the aft end of the slot and file the longer slot, both sides. Debur, touch up with primer and reinstall the inboard angles and the new pins.

When using the original bell crank angles you will have to remove a bit of material at the top of the two holes that the push rod goes through. See post #90. Remove pushrod, dremmel with a small sanding drum, check, debur, touch up with primer, reinstall pushrod, done.

I spent 2 f***en days in the shop to get this SB to work properly and I’m convinced of two things that are causing all the problems. The sharp edge on the forward end of the new pins and the new bell crank angles, which are totally unnecessary and the cause of the problem for a lot of us.

I’m also convinced that this SB is a definite improvement over the original design, whatever brought it about. Zero reason not to do it.

 

[bertschb]

My recommendation is to first just follow the SB instructions and use the SB parts. That worked great for me. No problems at all. If it doesn't work, change things up however you want.

 

[Mark Dickens]

First, let me sayvthat there may javelin been cases of aggressive aerobatics etc but I know of a situation where this problem exhibited itself without those conditions. Maybe it was construction out of the expected margins or maybe not.

I simply didn't want anyone to say that they do aerobatics or fly too fast, not implement it and have a problem. That would have been with me the rest of my life.

This is NOT to start an argument (you are not doing that in my mind) but to speak out and encourage implementation.

Finally, I ask that this dialog does not devolve into a Vans bashing or a poster bashing.

Mark, I am open to an offline dialog with you, if you wish. Send your number via message.

Thanks

James, thank you for the offer, but not necessary. I have always respected your posts and views, and so it was a little alarming to me that it seemed that there was more to the story than was told by Vans. In my opinion, Vans does a C- job of communicating with its customers so it wasn't surprising that there seemed to be more to the explanation than met the eye. I am assuming at this point that the danger is losing the canopy during the so-called aggressive aerobatics (undefined by Vans) or by lifting pressure on the canopy while "overspeeding" the plane (again, what that means is a guess). I will implement this fix at some point and thanks for the response!

 

[jclark]

Thanks!!!!
It was just that I knew of a scenario where if the forces were right AND the construction was maybe not exactly right, something bad COULD happen. I didn't want that on my conscience.

Also, someone implied that the delay was profit or money motivated and definitely do NOT believe that to have been the case.

This somewhat like the LCP matter with Vans. They are a conservative, engineering wise company and are hesitant to speak or a t before they have fact based, engineering supported answers.

This leads to a MESSAGING (or basic communications) issue causing the original technical matter to take on an unnecessary life of its own.

Again, thank you for your grace.

 

[Mark Dickens]

Also, someone implied that the delay was profit or money motivated and definitely do NOT believe that to have been the case.

I may not have been the only one to imply that, but I definitely was one of them! I do wonder why they are charging for the fix kit. Nuff said

 

[jclark]

This is what the SB says:

"The side canopy retention pins have been observed to lift partially out of their sockets during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions. To increase retention margins during these conditions, we are lengthening the side and rear canopy pins. This service bulletin affects RV-14 and RV-14A models whose finish kits were shipped before 3/20/26. Changes include side canopy pins lengthened to increase retention margins during aggressive aerobatic maneuvers and overspeed conditions, and the rear canopy‑latch pin engagement depth increased."

Well, from the above, I assume the problem is doing "aggressive aerobatic maneuvers" and overspeeding the plane...duh, I can read

Now, I see that the real truth is that "This is **not** due too "overstressed aerobatics""...silly me for believing Vans...but we wouldn't want to create speculation by giving the real reasons for this fix because that would just create speculation. Huh? That is what happens when you DON'T come clean.

This kit has been flying for over a decade with no apparent issues regarding the canopy locking mechanism and all of a sudden, there's this problem that isn't related to the explanation given by the manufacturer? Really? No, we need the details, clearly explained.

For me, I will probably implement the fix at some point, but I'll wait until Van's works out the issues and explains exactly why this is necessary. You might think that Vans might have learned a lesson in customer communications from the LCP and bankruptcy fiascos, but no....

First, let me sayvthat there may javelin been cases of aggressive aerobatics etc but I know of a situation where this problem exhibited itself without those conditions. Maybe it was construction out of the expected margins or maybe not.

I simply didn't want anyone to say that they do aerobatics or fly too fast, not implement it and have a problem. That would have been with me the rest of my life.

This is NOT to start an argument (you are not doing that in my mind) but to speak out and encourage implementation.

Finally, I ask that this dialog does not devolve into a Vans bashing or a poster bashing.

Mark, I am open to an offline dialog with you, if you wish. Send your number via message.

Thanks.

MORE CORRECTION (to my post) ....
I should have that overspeed and aggressive aerobatics were not the ONLY POSSIBLE ways to create a "situation".

Some times when you are so focused on getting a certain point across, you can end up stating things that imply NEGATING of OTHER TRUTHS.

I needed to express the error in my way to attempt to get across what I felt to be an important point.

Apologies to all.

 

[Clrd4apprch]

I’ve completed this SB…twice. Once with the SB bell crank angles and the second time reinstalling the original angles. Please see post #90. This job can be done in 5 hours or less.

Side pins, follow the SB Except cleco them in to place first and carefully lower the canopy to see how they engage into the newly installed strike plates. Lower it from the pilots side as it will engage slightly differently depending on which side you lower it from.
I had to drill mine out and heat the pins and tweak them inboard a bit. I heated up the weld from the top side while the plate was clamped in a vice with softeners and tapped the pin slightly. Repeated this Three times to get it perfect. Now when I lower the canopy you can’t hear or feel them rub as they enter the side rails. YMMV

The new pins. Chuck them in a drill press and smooth out the sharp edge where they start to taper to a point. This sharp edge catches on the forward brass bushings when trying to re-engage the pins.

Mark the aft end of the slot then Remove the inboard bell crank angles only. The forward nut is a bit tricky but doable. This can be done without removing the torque tube blocks. Tape off the outboard angle, drill a hole at the aft end of the slot and file the longer slot, both sides. Debur, touch up with primer and reinstall the inboard angles and the new pins.

When using the original bell crank angles you will have to remove a bit of material at the top of the two holes that the push rod goes through. See post #90. Remove pushrod, dremmel with a small sanding drum, check, debur, touch up with primer, reinstall pushrod, done.

I spent 2 f***en days in the shop to get this SB to work properly and I’m convinced of two things that are causing all the problems. The sharp edge on the forward end of the new pins and the new bell crank angles, which are totally unnecessary and the cause of the problem for a lot of us.

I’m also convinced that this SB is a definite improvement over the original design, whatever brought it about. Zero reason not to do it.

It is frustrating to have a 'fix' create more problems!