L.Adamson
Well Known Member
You really can't expect a DAR to do a complete engineering analysis, or run through the plans sheet by sheet.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
What Price A Masterpiece? By Dick VanGrunsven
- Thread starter fehdxl
- Start date
- Status
You really can't expect a DAR to do a complete engineering analysis, or run through the plans sheet by sheet.
L.Adamson --- RV6A
Experimental category aircraft are still subject to the laws of physics
Legalities and physics are two different things. You're commenting on legalities. Van was commenting on physics, and on the wisdom, or lack thereof, in making willy nilly modifications that compromise the utility and safety of the aircraft given the relevant physics.
Legalities and physics are two different things. You're commenting on legalities. Van was commenting on physics, and on the wisdom, or lack thereof, in making willy nilly modifications that compromise the utility and safety of the aircraft given the relevant physics.
OK, Here goes.
The responsibility of the DAR does NOT include confirming design parameters. The DAR's primary job is to see that FARs are adhered to.
Now on the other hand the DAR can reject anything he/she feels is a "safety of flight" issue. If I see something that I feel is unsafe, I will first discuss the issue with the applicant. If he cannot convince me that it is OK and refuses to address the situation, I have the option of denying the airworthiness certificate.
If I do, then he is free to apply to another DAR or the FAA. If he can convince them that the aircraft is safe, then he's good to go. Now keep in mind that once the AW is denied, all FAA offices and DARs are notified immediately, so it's not like he can "sneak it by" another inspector. Also it's good to keep in mind that once a denial has been issued, an inspector may be reluctant to sign off on the mod. If a situation comes up later, he could be called in and asked why he accepted something that another inspector had already rejected.
I've only had this happen once in the last 12 years as a DAR.
The responsibility of the DAR does NOT include confirming design parameters. The DAR's primary job is to see that FARs are adhered to.
Now on the other hand the DAR can reject anything he/she feels is a "safety of flight" issue. If I see something that I feel is unsafe, I will first discuss the issue with the applicant. If he cannot convince me that it is OK and refuses to address the situation, I have the option of denying the airworthiness certificate.
If I do, then he is free to apply to another DAR or the FAA. If he can convince them that the aircraft is safe, then he's good to go. Now keep in mind that once the AW is denied, all FAA offices and DARs are notified immediately, so it's not like he can "sneak it by" another inspector. Also it's good to keep in mind that once a denial has been issued, an inspector may be reluctant to sign off on the mod. If a situation comes up later, he could be called in and asked why he accepted something that another inspector had already rejected.
I've only had this happen once in the last 12 years as a DAR.
Last edited:
Actually the builder/applicant does not have to be a pilot. That's an operational issue and has nothing to do with the aircraft certification. He/she may never fly the aircraft.
So.............you're not aware.......
L.Adamson --- RV6A
That's right. If such engineering or test data does exist, I'm not aware of it. That's what I said.
Larry, you seem to be implying that it does exist. So if that's the case, please point me to it. I'd be curious to examine it.
Otherwise, the only reliable data to go by is what's published by Van's based on their design analysis and testing, which, again, still specifies a max gross weight of 1600 lbs for the RV-6.
I read that too....but the solution (the big-headed nut) is imperfect. Further, it creates two load increases as compared to the original, plus one new load not present in the original, and appears to add one entirely new point of failure.
BTW, FAR 23.397 offers design guidance for control forces. A rudder system should be able to withstand an applied force of 200 lbs. That might be a both-feet panic push, or it could be two pilots acting in opposition as outlined in FAR 23.399.
mv031161
Well Known Member
This is why the feds are looking a lot closer to the exp world. Thank god for experienced DAR,s.
mv031161
Well Known Member
No, but an experienced DAR (most are) will never ever allow an unsafe aicraft he is inspecting to get the pink slip.
mv031161
Well Known Member
No sir. We are assuming the builder have not done his job modifying a closely perfectly design aircraft. Vans have decided to crucify him instead in a public forum intead of asking. Dick is a great designer but he is not God. I have a group of NC State engineers students that improved his RV 8 aerodinamics on a term paper with very simple mods and hughe performance results on return. My point once again is, the certification is Experimental....forget about the legalities please,,,vans is off the hook on this one!
Brantel
Well Known Member
Lets stop guessing and start using some real data to second guess our peers...
I did this examination in about 5 minutes and I made some assumptions so no it is not 100% accurate....
I applied 250lbs of force to the aft similar to the loading this cable attachment would see in real use. Is 250lbs enough, too much, just right? I duno but it is somewhere to start.
Areas in RED are where the metal moves with the applied load:
Stress Plots, deformation display
Displacement @ 250lbs
Here is a link to a video of the animation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8U_xmtj7lk
I did this examination in about 5 minutes and I made some assumptions so no it is not 100% accurate....
I applied 250lbs of force to the aft similar to the loading this cable attachment would see in real use. Is 250lbs enough, too much, just right? I duno but it is somewhere to start.
Areas in RED are where the metal moves with the applied load:
Stress Plots, deformation display
Displacement @ 250lbs
Here is a link to a video of the animation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8U_xmtj7lk
Last edited:
I disagree.
I'm not assuming that the original design of the aircraft is perfect. It isn't. And yes, it can be modified and improved by individual builders who are willing and able to apply the necessary engineering diligence to ensure the integrity of their modifications and their effect on the overall design. I've made my share.
But the builder of the aircraft in question, unfortunately, fell short in this regard in significant ways. The comments provided by Van describe in technical detail those specific critical areas where the builder made modifications that are highly detrimental to both the utility and safety of the aircraft. This builder is certainly not the first to make detrimental modifications. But this particular aircraft is an extreme case of this, and worse, it's been given accolades by EAA judges at SnF, and now the magazine. So Van's comments are both appropriate and beneficial to the experimental aircraft community. A voice of reason.
Maybe you don't like his tone. That's fine. But his technical assessment of the mods on this aircraft is right on.
flion
Well Known Member
Gross weight is not necessarily a function of how much load the aircraft can handle in flight. Landing weight may also be a consideration. It was my understanding that the mains were improved for the later models, hence the higher weights.
flion
Well Known Member
someone post pictures of this plane up, some of us are too intelligent to have a facebook account
It's in this month's Sport Aviation.
And yet, a number of years ago, Van's used to issue letters of authority to allow builders to register their 1600lb RV-6 at increased gross weights up to 1800lb. Or so many people have claimed here on VAF and the Matronics lists. I only reply to this as i've tried many times to find someone who actually has one of these mythical letters, and nobody has been able to procure a copy.
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
someone post pictures of this plane up, some of us are too intelligent to have a facebook account
Pretty amazing that I can post these pictures since I'm so unintelligent.
Illustration 1
Illustration 2
Photo 1
Photo 2
someone post pictures of this plane up, some of us are too intelligent to have a facebook account
Again, you don't need a facebook account to view a public facebook page. You only have to be intelligent enough to click on the link.
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Not sure what you are asking for by saying "plane up", but here is a link to the Sport Aviation article in last month's magazine:someone post pictures of this plane up, some of us are too intelligent to have a facebook account
"Mod Masterpiece"
If you wish to see the actual website from the builder in question you can click on this link to see his own comments on his modifications:
http://www.nwacaptain.com/rv10_home.html
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
That long bolt is certainly a problem, but it is not THE problem? If the seatbelts are called upon to be used - if that bolt doesn?t break it will certainly bend significantly. This will also effectively shorten the distance between the seatbelt anchors, drawing them together. I?m not familiar with the RV-10, but if they are like the RV-8 and are simply flat straps riveted to a structural beam under the subfloor, then they have a whole field of rivets working in unison to withstand shear loads only (if the rivets were meant to be loaded in tension, you would not use a flat strap?). As soon as you pull this flat strap sideways (out of plane), it will bend at the first row of rivets much like a piece of masking tape being pulled off the surface of a new paint job. And just like the adhesive adjacent to the bend line, these first few rivets will see nearly 100% of the applied load (primarily in tension), with the remainder contributing nothing. These rivets will quickly overload and fail, as will the next row, and the next? until the seat belt anchor is completely detached from the aircraft structure.
As I said, I?m no expert on the RV-10, but you don?t have to be an expert to understand that Van expected the loads to be applied in plane with the attach straps, and this modification has completely altered the resulting load path. As designed, Van can say with mathematical certainty that the attach points will handle a specific load. With this modification? Who knows? I?m betting that in a crash this attach strap is going to detach from the structure like the top coming off a bag of potato chips.
Brantel
Well Known Member
Again this is a 5 minute analysis of a very rough model of the situation. This is not intended to be even as much as 75% accurate...
Yep, I assumed this rod was 3/8" and it was 8" between the attach points for the rod. 2" between the buckle attachments.
First test was with only 350lbs. The rod yields even at this low force.
The second test was with the 6000lbs mentioned earlier in this thread.
Yep, I assumed this rod was 3/8" and it was 8" between the attach points for the rod. 2" between the buckle attachments.
First test was with only 350lbs. The rod yields even at this low force.
The second test was with the 6000lbs mentioned earlier in this thread.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Completely agree. If the builder thinks that the round nut, acting as a "doorstop" against a thinwall round tube, is an acceptable resolution to bending loads on that tab, then he needs to do some reading.
So now we have tremendous point loads against the tube in addition to the bending moment and significant (in plane) force mutiplication at the weld...
Good that he knew enough to realize he had created a problem, just poor execution.
Last edited:
Interesting if true.
I'm not sure why or how Van's would do this on an individual basis. If they have determined that the RV-6 design can be "up-rated" to 1800 lb MGW, then one would think it would apply to all RV-6's already in the field, or at the very least to all those built after that point. Looking at Van's currently published specs, it doesn't appear that that's occurred.
Also, a bit fishy is that a "letter of authority" sounds like legal mechanism. But legally, no such thing is required for a builder to specify a higher MGW than the kit maker's recommendation. At least not in the U.S. Maybe it's something that would have been done to appease the FAA-equivalent agencies in Canada or other countries that do require the kit maker's blessing?
Anyway, if this letter is/was real, I'd be curious to see it. And more so, I'd be curious to see the data behind it, how it was determined, and whether there are any other restrictions associated with that higher gross weight.
if the 200 pound man at 30gs equals the source of the 6000 pounds, it would never be reached at that particular bolt- there are other attachments that are bearing part of the load, and the angle of the seat backs would bear some of the load as well, at least until they failed.
but then again, there is always the possibility of a second person being anchored there, so the initial force would be 12000 (if that is our theoretical worse case).... divided amongst the three (?) attachment points (per person), and divided by the angles the seat back produces.
ps, on his web page he says the bolt is 5/16 for the REAR seats, which is the photo everyone seems to be keying on (long bolt holding the two receptacles belt 2052). I mean the rear seats are the only ones configured with this long bolt holding two latch receptacles
Last edited:
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
Per the Van's website Van gave a one time approval for Jon Johanson to take off at 137% of the normal recommended maximum gross weight of his RV-4. That works out to over 2,000 pounds.
http://vansaircraft.com/public/jj-plane.htm
mv031161
Well Known Member
http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201106#pg34 and if you read carefully...Greg is not a "Chump" in the industry nor he is inexperieced in aircraft design, repair, mod, etc....My hat's off to him for thinking outside the box!
Last edited:
just to clarify, it seems that the "one time" approval was good for the life of the plane for the australian authorities, since Mr. Johanson flew several trips where legs required the extended fuel...
Brantel
Well Known Member
I used 3/8" because I had no idea what it actually was. I also assumed 4130 but I doubt that is what he used. Anyone know for sure?
apkp777
Well Known Member
The problem with the seat belt is that your spine will be crushed in a forward collision even at low speed and otherwise survivable. I doubt there would be an issue with the bolt failing. You'd likely be dead before that happened (and paralyzed).
Brantel, any chance you could model the downward forces of the seat belt in a forward collision?
Brantel, any chance you could model the downward forces of the seat belt in a forward collision?
if you read the section of the Vans RV facebook page, they are much more concerned with the seat bearing some of the load, but then failing and allowing a person to impact the panel or otherwise move around. It almost sounds like they think the seat back will fail before much force would impact on your spine. That makes sense because the over the shoulder portion is not bearing straight down but to the rear to go over the seat. It would be much worse for a tall person than a short person, depending on the height of the seat
apkp777
Well Known Member
Yep, now that I re-read the article, I see he only has a 3-point harness. It probably won't do much anyway. Still even newer Cessna's with 3-point restraints put the attachment in the ceiling.
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
Major disclaimer! I am not an engineer, medical doctor or airplane designer. However, I am an intelligent person with some level of common sense that I use every day to make decisions. When I look at the drawings of the seatbelt wrapping from the lap area, up to and over the shoulder and then down, almost vertically, to the attach points of the bolt in question behind the seat I get sick to my stomach!
If I were strapped down in such a manner I would be so lucky to have the attach bolt fail. That would be much more favorable than having it withstand the forces and restrict my movement as this designer had intended. In a sudden instantaneous stoppage of forward movement such as a head on impact with an immovable object, with no mechanical failure of any of the attach points, the only thing that would be left to fail would be my spine. The compression forces that would be imposed upon my back would not be survivable by any measure of the imagination.
This is what Mr. V. was referring to when he mentioned the person "moving forward" in the restraint. The idea of "moving forward" and striking one's head or knees or any other part of one's body against the instrument panel, windshield or any other structure in the cabin would be the least of anyone's concerns. The forward movement of the body while restrained in this manner would impose tremendous compression forces on the spine and spinal cord. Something would have to give or break completely in this scenario.
If in that position, I would be wishing with all my might the bolt would be the first thing to break and I wold be very willing to take my chances with bouncing around on the instrument panel. However, I am afraid if the restraints held, it would be my back that would be compressed like bending a stick at both ends until. . . SNAP!!!
rapid_ascent
Well Known Member
So I read the article and I wouldn't try to disagree with the facts. I haven't read all of the 14 pages here either. While I think that probably all of the facts from Van are true, I'm not going to debate that. I think the tone was probably not correct. I suspect that this builder was just trying to build a very nice plane. I have to admit it looks very nice. I think it was probably more of a matter of not realizing the implication of these extensive changes. Yes the article educates all of us to the limits that we have to live within, but it really goes after the builder. Again,yes all of these comments maybe correct, but I'm sure the builder will feel like the target of a very aggressive attack. I felt sorry for the builder as I read this article. He has built what he thought was the most impressive plane he could envision. Only to be the subject of ridicule. Some might say that he deserves such comments. That too may be true, but again it was the tone of the article. Maybe Van didn't even mean it to be taken in that context. I don't know either party. I am just someone who read the article and has come to my view as an outsider. I did come to the realization that all modifications to my plane need to be viewed closely when they are made to the original design. I already knew that. I am an engineer and I understand the work that goes into the original design. I think we all need to be careful when we write articles for a wide audience that they are percieved in the manner that they were intended.
mv031161
Well Known Member
Well said! Bravo!
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
This thread has progressed (regressed?) to the point where some of the original points are being lost in the noise, especially for a reader who hasn't read all 14 pages. In the manner in which we VAFer's are especially skilled, creep has occurred toward topics that should be in a separate thread.
I understand why Van wrote his article and published for everyone to see. The aircraft in question is impressive visually, far beyond what the "average" builder will achieve. But Van knows that many builders will see some of the mods, especially when highlighted in a glossy magazine by uniformed editors, and will say "That is SO cool!" and proceed to incorporate them into their project without knowing the engineering ramifications. Van's article was an effort to nip these mods in the bud before they take on the role of default installations with many uniformed builders.
Van did good. The article was balanced and great care was taken to explain the purpose of the article without being harsh toward the builder of a beautiful aircraft. The harshest comments I've seen in this regard were not in Van's article but in this thread. None of these comments have reached the point of needing moderation, but some have gone places that Van did not go in his article.
I don't know Greg Hale but hopefully he will take Van's article in the way it was intended, carefully review his mods, and ignore some of the comments that have appeared in this thread. His plane is a testament to the experimental aviation mindset, and we all must be educated in order to make good decisions about mods we make in pursuit of experimental fun.
Richard VanGrunsven is a great educator, and I am very thankful for his efforts over the past thirty years, and the past few days in particular.
Last edited:
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
I have a question about the seatbelt shoulder strap. Someone (Steve in post #133) suggested that the mounting method in the subject RV-10 might result in serious spinal injury in a certain crash scenario.
How is the difference from the factory method any more likely to cause a spinal injury?
How is the difference from the factory method any more likely to cause a spinal injury?
Last edited:
Wayne Hadath
Active Member
Maybe it is no longer an RV 10
If a builder feels the need to modify a kit where it no longer fits the mission of the original design maybe a name change is in order. For example, if a gross weight increase is wanted/needed or.....(you fill in the blanks)
Would this discussion have been avoided if the aircraft had been registered as say a "Heavy Hale"?
In the future this aircraft may be sold to a non builder as an RV 10 with the assumption that it has all of the strengths and weaknesses of an RV 10 when clearly it does not.
Wayne
F1 Rocket 500 hrs
RV 10 100 hrs
If a builder feels the need to modify a kit where it no longer fits the mission of the original design maybe a name change is in order. For example, if a gross weight increase is wanted/needed or.....(you fill in the blanks)
Would this discussion have been avoided if the aircraft had been registered as say a "Heavy Hale"?
In the future this aircraft may be sold to a non builder as an RV 10 with the assumption that it has all of the strengths and weaknesses of an RV 10 when clearly it does not.
Wayne
F1 Rocket 500 hrs
RV 10 100 hrs
Jamie
Well Known Member
After reading Van's article I have to say that I wish I could get him to do an inspection of my RV. I appreciate input from people who aren't afraid of hurting my feelings.
We're all adults here and this is a deadly serious business. If you can't stand a little public ridicule, don't be so public and it naturally takes care of the ridicule part.
I wish I would have been more vocal with my hangar partner a few months back when he decided to launch in an Ercoupe that had no business taxiing, much less flying.
We're all adults here and this is a deadly serious business. If you can't stand a little public ridicule, don't be so public and it naturally takes care of the ridicule part.
I wish I would have been more vocal with my hangar partner a few months back when he decided to launch in an Ercoupe that had no business taxiing, much less flying.
Ron, I'll attempt to answer this question.
In the original design the seat belts are the "standard" 4 point shoulder harness style. The hard point to which the shoulder harness is anchored is above and behind the occupant of the seat. In a crash, when inertia throws your body forward into the harness, the load path is a straight line up to the hard point. There are no compressive forces imparted to either the seat or your body. If you draw a diagram (or look at the pictures earlier in this thread) I think it will make sense.
In the modified design the seat belt is an automotive over the shoulder type, with the harness anchored to a hard point in the fuselage behind and below the front seat occupants. In a crash, when the body is thrown into the harness, the load path goes over the top of the seat and down to the floor. As your body pulls against the harness it will cause the harness to bear down on the top of your seat, and if that fails, your shoulder, putting a massive compressive stress into your spine. Again, if you think about this as you look at the pictures and imagine the load path it should make sense.
Last edited:
apkp777
Well Known Member
Take a look at Figure #2 on Post #6. It shows the down arrow (crash force) on the top of the shoulder of the stick figure.
jetjok
Well Known Member
Well Said!! Bravo!
I feel for the builder
being the focus of so much scrutiny however it was a reminder that we all need to build/maintain our aircraft to a safe standard. It is easy to focus on an outcome (in this case a great finish) and not realize that achieving that great outcome can create something that is not safe. Sometimes it needs someone to point that out to you.
Van's explanation and dissection was educational if a little blunt and following his detailed look at this I look forward to his review of the A model spaghetti front leg .............
being the focus of so much scrutiny however it was a reminder that we all need to build/maintain our aircraft to a safe standard. It is easy to focus on an outcome (in this case a great finish) and not realize that achieving that great outcome can create something that is not safe. Sometimes it needs someone to point that out to you.
Van's explanation and dissection was educational if a little blunt and following his detailed look at this I look forward to his review of the A model spaghetti front leg .............
n5lp
fugio ergo sum
LOE2
All this reminded of some stuff I wrote about an airplane at LOE2.
At the banquet the winners were announced. I didn't write it all down, so I won't report it. I do remember that the Grand Champion is Laird Owens. I agree with this award heartily. It is refreshing to see an airplane like Laird's win. This airplane was not built by a "hired gun," but by Laird and his father. This airplane does not have a flashy, custom paintjob. It has a very beautiful and tasteful paintjob. This airplane was not built for the purpose of winning building awards, it was built for flying and fun. This airplane is not so heavy it is a bad RV. This airplane does not have avionics all out of proportion to its mission. This airplane is not such that the pilot is afraid to fly it for fear of a chip. This is just a very well built and well thought out RV that is flown a lot and still looks good. Prior to the judging I was telling people that Laird's is the best RV-6 I have seen. I agree with the judges.
All this reminded of some stuff I wrote about an airplane at LOE2.
At the banquet the winners were announced. I didn't write it all down, so I won't report it. I do remember that the Grand Champion is Laird Owens. I agree with this award heartily. It is refreshing to see an airplane like Laird's win. This airplane was not built by a "hired gun," but by Laird and his father. This airplane does not have a flashy, custom paintjob. It has a very beautiful and tasteful paintjob. This airplane was not built for the purpose of winning building awards, it was built for flying and fun. This airplane is not so heavy it is a bad RV. This airplane does not have avionics all out of proportion to its mission. This airplane is not such that the pilot is afraid to fly it for fear of a chip. This is just a very well built and well thought out RV that is flown a lot and still looks good. Prior to the judging I was telling people that Laird's is the best RV-6 I have seen. I agree with the judges.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
And if I remember correctly..................the RV6 wing, is much like the 4's.
L.Adamson ---- RV6A
lostpilot28
Well Known Member
Man, I know I'm stepping in it, here...but I'm going to open my mouth anyway (since everyone else is, too!). This is only in relation to operating outside the design gross weight of the aircraft.
This is not meant to offend, but to get people to think. From my observation, it appears that most of the guys that have increased their gross weight are the ones who get defensive when this is pointed out. Look, Van's IS an engineer. He clearly sets design limits based on that knowledge and experience. For ANYONE to deviate from those plans (even if it's their right), they would be wise to analyze and evaluate their modifications. I completely agree with Roee...I'm not going to repeat anything he said because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to say (but I don't have the education to back me up). I'm pretty sure that most pilots know that their airplanes will lift off the ground when over gross, unless you're in an underpowered airplane, and/or on a hot day, etc.
What people tend to do is believe that because they can safely perform most maneuvers as a lightly loaded aircraft of similar design, that they can perform ALL of the same maneuvers with the same expected outcome. This is the "wishful thinking" part.
I know I'm stating the obvious, here, but I just had to say something. I went for a ride with a fellow Pulsar XP pilot who had his airplane loaded over gross by about 100 lbs. I questioned him on it and got the "it's no problem" response. The next day he found a large crack in one of his landing gear. I'm so thankful that's all that it was...had we decided to perform a roll or loop and it went wrong, our margin of safety for the aircraft to handle G's was severely diminished.
I'm not pointing fingers...I just hope that people that deviate from the plans are fully aware of the consequences of their modifications. I truly don't believe most builders who deviate do any kind of "real" testing to prove their modifications are sound.
Thanks, again to Roee and Van's for saying what needed to be said.
This is only in relation to operating outside the design gross weight of the aircraft.This is not meant to offend, but to get people to think. From my observation, it appears that most of the guys that have increased their gross weight are the ones who get defensive when this is pointed out. Look, Van's IS an engineer. He clearly sets design limits based on that knowledge and experience. For ANYONE to deviate from those plans (even if it's their right), they would be wise to analyze and evaluate their modifications. I completely agree with Roee...I'm not going to repeat anything he said because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to say (but I don't have the education to back me up). I'm pretty sure that most pilots know that their airplanes will lift off the ground when over gross, unless you're in an underpowered airplane, and/or on a hot day, etc.
What people tend to do is believe that because they can safely perform most maneuvers as a lightly loaded aircraft of similar design, that they can perform ALL of the same maneuvers with the same expected outcome. This is the "wishful thinking" part.
I know I'm stating the obvious, here, but I just had to say something. I went for a ride with a fellow Pulsar XP pilot who had his airplane loaded over gross by about 100 lbs. I questioned him on it and got the "it's no problem" response. The next day he found a large crack in one of his landing gear. I'm so thankful that's all that it was...had we decided to perform a roll or loop and it went wrong, our margin of safety for the aircraft to handle G's was severely diminished.
I'm not pointing fingers...I just hope that people that deviate from the plans are fully aware of the consequences of their modifications. I truly don't believe most builders who deviate do any kind of "real" testing to prove their modifications are sound.
Thanks, again to Roee and Van's for saying what needed to be said.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
Man, I know I'm stepping in it, here...but I'm going to open my mouth anyway (since everyone else is, too!).
This is not meant to offend, but to get people to think. From my observation, it appears that most of the guys that have increased their gross weight are the ones who get defensive when this is pointed out.
To be honest, I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned, all the talk of 6's and sticking with the listed gross weight.........is about what I expect from "newbies". I know what I know, from being involved with these airplanes for 17years. So, as you can see, when a newbie comes along with their thoughts.............I won't be taking it to heart. BTW --- when is the last time a 6 came apart in the air?
L.Adamson --- RV6A
dedgemon
Well Known Member
And you will obviously be ignoring Van too I suppose.
- Status
