 |
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vhmum(at)bigpond.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Don that looks a fantastic job indeed. I would direct the question to engineering department at vans as we only have opinions. Sometimes beefing something up can cause problems in other areas so I would ask the people that designed the kit engineering(at)vansaircraft.com (engineering(at)vansaircraft.com).
Looking forward to the afternoon today as I have completed the test period of 15 hours and the family will be on board the sarvo for there first flight!
regards Chris
VH-ICY
No tunnel heat
No cracks
[quote] ---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ricksked(at)embarqmail.co Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ricksked(at)embarqmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
I was there when Van said he couldn't remember if the windows were affected on the drop test...Now that's scary!! Owner of the company and all. Don't get me wrong I have the utmost respect for him but I was taken back by that answer.
My own cabin top has been stress tested by two eight year old boys (now deceased, just kidding) who thought it would be cool to walk (read jump, run and climb) on it while it sat on the floor....and yes my heart stopped when I opened the door to see what the ruckus was.
The top never budged an inch, never showed any signs of side deflection, oh, and the windows were not installed. I feel very confident in the strength in a flip over...which I never hope to find out, in a bonafide wings torn off, screaming nose first into the ground, flames engulfing crash, the top may not be your biggest concern. FYI, for those that may not have seen the prior post about the doors leaving the aircraft, one door DID hit the HS, and the stab held up pretty well in that case, very well means they landed OK, but the stab was busted up pretty good.
Bottom line fellow builders, never settle for "good enough" Make your parts fit well, act like you never heard of a shortcut, follow the plans and improve on if you like, use the established standards as your "C minus" guide to building it right but don't just build to the point where you are willing to place yourself in your creation but build it where your comfortable putting the nearest and dearest people in your life into your craft.
For those of you that have had the opportunity to walk amongst a sea of RV's at OSH, Sun N Fun or any gathering take note of what you see, the thing that separates the Beauties from the Beasts is craftsmanship, pride in work. I can't tell you the few times I woke up in the middle of the night and said...that isn't good enough and made it a point to make sure it was rectified the very next time I worked on the airplane, actually I could never sleep again until I did so it was usually pretty quick.
And to toss my own little flame onto the subject...Would you have asked the question regarding not complying with the SB if it were an AD or if an RV-10 had lost a HS during flight? Rememeber... Vans lost and aircraft and a member of their own staff IIRC due to an undetermined (that's how I read the NTSB report) breakup in flight several years ago. I think I'll just thank them for letting us in on the cracks that were found and do the SB. I applaude you for generating a very good discussion on the subject. Little voice tells me that was your real intent.
Craftsmanship, Pride and Responsibility will allow all of us to keep building or maybe we should say craft our own aerospace vehicles.
Rick Sked
40185
Soap box vacated
do not archive
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ricksked(at)embarqmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Heh heh...looks great Don but a few of them rivets on the J stingers on the left side seem a little lightly driven...
Rick S.
40185
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.co Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Quote: | >My own cabin top has been stress tested by two eight year old boys<<
|
Drop test, shmop-test...I can just hear your response, Rick--in an even,
thoughtful tone, "Now boys, come on down from there and let's have some
cocoa"...
Dave
Boy 8, Girl (1)5
Do Not Archive
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ricksked(at)embarqmail.co Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
wcurtis(at)nerv10.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
------
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
147.86 KB |
Viewed: |
441 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ricksked(at)embarqmail.co Guest
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
nukeflyboy

Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 162 Location: Granbury, TX
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:10 am Post subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Don,
Sorry buddy, but the added gussets on the longerons won't cut the mustard. The gussets provide stiffening in the yaw axis, but does not help the compression on the bulkhead. I would do the SB as stated.
The discussion has been interesting and sometimes makes me, an engineering director, squirm a little. This thread has raised issues of structural integrity of the 10 based on a lot of speculation and not too many facts. PJ Seipel said it best: "every aircraft is a set of compromises". If you want a completely bullet proof structure, it will never get off the ground. The goal of the designer is to make the stucture strong enough, no more. To the non-engineer, the results sometimes look questionable.
The beauty of experimentals is that we have a lot of license to personalize our aircraft. Use caution, however, when you tinker with the structure. You may be doing more harm than good.
Remember that airplanes are never safe, only relatively safe, and that most accidents are pilot induced and not a result of structural failure. Also remember that you guys out there flying RV-10s are experimenters and still working out the bugs in the aircraft. You are doing a great service for the rest of us.
On a couple other points. The brake cylinder location has not been an issue on my RV-6. I suspect that they are located aft because to relocate them forward would require at least 4 inches more clearance to the FW. This means moving the engine forward 4 inches or the front seats back. Another CG compromise.
The over sized hole while doing the SB - why not use an AN470AD6 (3/16) rivet?
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________ Dave Moore
RV-6 built and sold
RV-10 built and flying |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2881
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Amen to that! The -10 seems to be built very well in general.
Finding a potential crack point as they did, and for free, giving
the parts to fix it, is a great thing of them. Design wise there
is very little that is disappointing on the RV-10. I'm always
flabbergasted that people don't find things like the rudder
pedals acceptable. I get the feeling that people judge the plane
far too soon before they fly it. After 360 hours, there is just
so little that disappoints. The single case I can think of for
new pedals is if you are like me and have both a tall and short
person to satisfy...but even we make do just fine.
Structurally, I don't find much to worry about either. The SB
fixes one potential area, and yeah, it could be fixed even better,
but if the builder really wants it built with a double-bulkhead
they certainly can do that. I'm happy enough with the design and
doubt you'll see much problem in the fleet once the fix is done.
Certainly it's now strong enough that you will see the issues
during inspection rather than instant catastrophic failure.
Even the doors....if you build them well (mine aren't as nicely
fit as many), they will still serve you well and work fine.
Check the latch pins every flight. Doesn't matter what type
of plane and door design you fly....not checking them is
just plain stupid. If you check them, you should not have
any issues (considering you built them right). And for the
record, losing a door does not guarantee a damaged HS, as was
implied.....there have been what, 5 or 7 door departures so far
(proving sloppy pilots are the weak link) and there has only been
ONE instance of a door hitting the HS. No, this doesn't mean
it's a non-issue, but it's no guarantee of damage.
If you want a safe RV-10, you can have it BY following the plans,
or for those who don't like that idea, you can have it EVEN IF
you follow the plans. The catch is, you have to ensure it's
piloted by someone who does that job adequately.
On closing, you should also be happy about one other thing. We have
3 fatals so far in the RV-10. One was ignorance and stupidity.
Another sounds likely medical. The 3rd was piss-poor IFR piloting.
Like William mentioned....it sure doesn't sound like we have something
to be ashamed of for a quality track record when I read about Lancairs
(esp. the 4P it seems) going down almost monthly. I'm constantly
shocked when I log in and check mail and hear that they lost another.
For them, it seems to be a larger variety of issues, as well.
For us, we can be relatively comfortable knowing that our 3 total
fatals were very likely NOT a result of anything structural.
There are improvements that can be made to the kit, I've done some
of them myself, but the raw product just ain't that bad. You just
need to fly it for a while before you judge it.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
nukeflyboy wrote:
Quote: |
Don, Sorry buddy, but the added gussets on the longerons won't cut
the mustard. The gussets provide stiffening in the yaw axis, but
does not help the compression on the bulkhead. I would do the SB as
stated.
The discussion has been interesting and sometimes makes me, an
engineering director, squirm a little. This thread has raised issues
of structural integrity of the 10 based on a lot of speculation and
not too many facts. PJ Seipel said it best: "every aircraft is a set
of compromises". If you want a completely bullet proof structure, it
will never get off the ground. The goal of the designer is to make
the stucture strong enough, no more. To the non-engineer, the
results sometimes look questionable.
The beauty of experimentals is that we have a lot of license to
personalize our aircraft. Use caution, however, when you tinker with
the structure. You may be doing more harm than good.
Remember that airplanes are never safe, only relatively safe, and
that most accidents are pilot induced and not a result of structural
failure. Also remember that you guys out there flying RV-10s are
experimenters and still working out the bugs in the aircraft. You
are doing a great service for the rest of us.
On a couple other points. The brake cylinder location has not been
an issue on my RV-6. I suspect that they are located aft because to
relocate them forward would require at least 4 inches more clearance
to the FW. This means moving the engine forward 4 inches or the
front seats back. Another CG compromise.
The over sized hole while doing the SB - why not use an AN470AD6
(3/16) rivet?
-------- Dave RV-6 flying RV-10 QB building
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194850#194850
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
|
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 1149 Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Your inflexibility to see the enhanced mission of Tim's (James) aircraft product is most unfortunate.
I will reference Epic in the future as I will remain comfortable that when it comes to the canopy mold, material and finish work, there is a lot to be learned from builders who have gone before us. Few RVators are master craftsmen at plastic fab work. They do excell at riveting over the Brand X which caused you so much heartburn Some builders thought that Glenn Curtis' addition of ailerons on a Wright Flyer was blasphemy as well. I even remember when pilots bristled at the mandated use of seat belts.
Yet I will acknowledge that some people will not consider anything other than an RV as blasphemy. I think that is why Oshkosh is often referenced as the Aviation Mecca.
Lets all get to the temple in one piece. Let the inflexible and untolerant follow all those Limbaugh and Savage Islamofascists to there own end.
John from the rugged Pacific NW
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of William Curtis
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:38 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
------
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bbreckenridge(at)gmail.co Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Most of you will never meet Tim James nor witness the slow, unnerving gracefullness of his RV-10 on base and final. Those VG's decreased his stall by nearly 10mph, and it's VERY noticeable when watching. I found myself yelling "get yer speed up!" If I recall correctly, his stall numbers were equal to or slightly less than those of my 1978 Cessna 172n. He got his '10 signed off just months after his Super Cub. He probably sold his Glastar (at least, that's what I believe one of his other planes is) cuz there can't be enough room in his hangar for 3 planes. Well, maybe. I haven't seen him with a Murphy Moose, but something tells me he's probably got a lot of other comparable back-country planes that he's built, sold, and moved on from. He is a very nice and intelligent man, with whom I have a great deal of respect. You'll know it's his plane when you see a bunch of '10's parked together and one of them stands about 4" taller than all the rest.
Bruce
40018 Wings, no VG's yet
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:00 AM, John Cox <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com (johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com)> wrote:
[quote] Your inflexibility to see the enhanced mission of Tim's (James) aircraft product is most unfortunate.
I will reference Epic in the future as I will remain comfortable that when it comes to the canopy mold, material and finish work, there is a lot to be learned from builders who have gone before us. Few RVators are master craftsmen at plastic fab work. They do excell at riveting over the Brand X which caused you so much heartburn Some builders thought that Glenn Curtis' addition of ailerons on a Wright Flyer was blasphemy as well. I even remember when pilots bristled at the mandated use of seat belts.
Yet I will acknowledge that some people will not consider anything other than an RV as blasphemy. I think that is why Oshkosh is often referenced as the Aviation Mecca.
Lets all get to the temple in one piece. Let the inflexible and untolerant follow all those Limbaugh and Savage Islamofascists to there own end.
John from the rugged Pacific NW
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) on behalf of William Curtis
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:38 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: Sb 08-6-1
John,
Sounds ominously like this should be coming from John C. John, who while building an RV-10, really should be building a Lancair since he has soooo many issues with the design decisions that Van's has made for the RV-10. He has found fault with many of Van's design decisions and holds the Lancair up as the model that Van's should emulate. Is this such a good idea when comparable Lancairs are dropping out of the sky at recent rate of ONE a month?
Let me try to put this as delicate as I can; adding a rollbar and bush tires to an RV-10 is just about the dumbest thing I've heard come across this forum. The purpose of a roll cage is to support a structure when inverted if the normal material would otherwise collapse. Take a look at the Second issue 2004 issue of the RVAtor page 7. There you will see a picture of an RV-10 inverted with the aluminum buckling and the cabin top FULLY in tact. I can see all type of unintended consequences with that mod.
As to your list of criticisms, the door design is probably the only valid one. They others are just opinions. And as we all know, opinions without engineering data or facts to support those opinions, is just noise.
From my running tally, the following is just some of the things he has issues with; Glue used on windows, Rudder pedals, Door handles, Plastic Brake lines, Matco Brakes, 1100 tubing for fuel and brake lines, etc. As he should be building a Lancair, I think maybe Tim James should be building a Murphy Moose.
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
------
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
n212pj(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
William,
No need for delicacy. Yes, some of the observations are from discussions
with John C, but not all and certainly not ominously. John's perspective is
widespread and quite well informed. What he does so often is point to
something that needs more thought and thus more input and research by us
all. His observations are something that you can accept or discount, as you
will, but at least they are there.
The point of the original post by Dave was to start a thread of enquiry,
mine was to expand it a little. There are others out there who know vastly
more than I do about such things and who might even have some data, but none
of this is noise. These are questions and points of observation which worry
me. If you have evidence that can allay my worries, as you presented below,
I thank you, otherwise your response lacks as much substantives data as my
questions.
Tim James, did not add bush tires to an RV-10, period, nor did I say such.
His use of the C206 gear and larger tires, as well as GlaStar type winglets,
VG's, etc. was to purposefully enhance the -10 for short, rough field use.
Those mods are for Tim something that makes the already good plane more
useful for his needs. Not dumb at all; in fact, just the opposite. The
roll cage goes along with his needs, and, according to Dave Saylor and you,
probably not that necessary. An interesting addition, however, and one
worth some consideration. What unintended consequences did you have in your
mind's eye?
Improvements to a good design are what makes the experimental community so
valuable. Dialog, that which raises a question and the subsequent answers,
negative and positive, are what's needed to hash out good or not so good
ideas, to move forward, to innovate. Many, besides John C, have taken issue
with the window install and tried different alternatives. The innovative
new rudder pedals from Paul are the type of product that makes the plane
that much more refined. The original door design must have come about due
to some compromise or another, otherwise why would any aeronautical engineer
purposefully put a flexing door on a flexing cabin top, all conducive to
unwanted opening, without the addition of a double security point and the
ability of the relative wind to hold the door closed? I do not reject the
RV-10 because of this, it is just a flag for me to watch and pay attention
for other compromises. There should be no need to worry about a door coming
open in flight, no need to have to double check if the passenger door pin is
engaged. We can certainly do so and move on, but the original design will
continue to remain unsound until others come along with better door latches
and other mods to help alleviate the potential and very real problem.
But enough. No wonder there is a tendency towards the center.
Anyway, all those at OSH, have fun! Keep the pictures coming!
William, thanks for your input.
John J
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
75.36 KB |
Viewed: |
466 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
n212pj(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Tim,
It's a good airplane. I even said that in my post, I even acknowledged that
it was great that Van's responded with the fix to the problem, but I guess
that was ignored by all those who have responded. And, yes, I'm not yet
flying an RV-10. So, I should not judge?
Do you really think that having 5 or 7 door departures for 150 planes is an
acceptable statistic? There is a problem with the door design. Can it be
lived with? Sure. But, as a retired airline pilot who flies aerobatics in
his T-34 said to me just yesterday, "I do the dumbest things (when flying),
even after all these years." So, one can and will be "stupid." We will
have more doors depart until this problem is adequately addressed.
My post was a call for discussion, not a call for squashing discussion. We
certainly do not need to fly it before we judge it. In fact, as a builder
community, we need to be asking questions, getting one's concerns out, and
engaging in constructive dialog.
Enjoy OSH. Keep those pictures coming.
John J
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
wcurtis(at)nerv10.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
John,
Thanks for your response and I agree with you that these things should be discussed. But there is a difference between a question by an outside observer about a system in an inquiring way, and a question in a criticizing way with no facts or data to support that criticism. There is a non pilot who hangs out at our airport that does this all the time, speaking and criticizing authoritatively on piloting issues, and it infuriates me to no end. Just as I would not put much stock on this guy's opinion on crosswind landing techniques, I would also have to consider the source of any modification.
Your list of issues came across as criticizing the design decisions that Van's made without fully taking into consideration the engineering and economic dynamics of the kit. Sure Van's could have added a more "refined" rudder pedal system to the kit, but this would have increased the kit cost by another $1,500, increased parts count, increased complexity-all only for additional refinement. Addition of such refinements here and there would quickly raise the kit cost from $40,000 to $60-80K for no gain in safety. This is just one example but this is the "noise" to which I referred. Maybe all did not follow it but I though Van's did a very good job of explaining many of the design decision in the RVAtor during the development of the RV-10. A review of this would have answered many of these "questions."
There is a reason Van's kits and flying planes outnumber other kit manufacturers easily by at least factor of 10. They design a good, efficient kit at a reasonable cost. As a builder you can choose to "upgrade" those items that are important to you, however changing the basic design criteria, modifying structure without having the engineering expertise or fully understanding the original designers intent may do more harm than good. The roll bar idea is what initially raised my eyebrow because without having an idea of what crumple zones (if any) were designed in the lower structure for drop testing, adding a roll bar to "shore up" cabin top when it is not needed, may be undoing what the designer intended in other areas of the cabin structure. This to me is the "dumb" part. Dumb in thinking additional reinforcement is needed when Van's published the roll over testing and dumb in doing it without understand the cabin structure dynamics.
Improvements to a good design is one thing, outright design modifications on "gut feel" is quite another. There is NO WAY that roll bar mod is more than "gut feel" engineering. Keep the discussion going and forgive my "delicacies."
William
http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/
------
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
n212pj(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Tim is a very conservative engineer, very thoughtful, knows what he is
doing. I do not know if he discussed the roll bar with Van; they have
certainly had opportunities, given Tim hangers at Aurora. Both Van and Tim
were building their -10's at the same time, each plane shown above parked
next to one another at the last NW RV-10 Builders and Flyers Dinner. I
would not characterize his mod as "gut feel." Maybe overbuild, but a mod
that satisfies his engineering acumen, and one some might consider worth
knowing about.
I agree that the Van model of engineering and manufacturing is highly
successful, and with good reason. Never, however, do I consider that an
argument against questioning and innovation relative to their products. The
only criticism I really have about the -10 are the doors. The rest are
questions and "worries." Too bad they were written in such a way to be
interpreted as critical.
John J
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
54.57 KB |
Viewed: |
468 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
msausen
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 559 Location: Appleton, WI USA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
I'm with Bill, all these modifications are crazy talk. This is as crazy as talking about modifying a Stits Playboy. Wait...........
Do not archive
--
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth. Guest
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
Dave Leikam wrote: Quote: | What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?
| You MAY develop cracks in that bulkhead.
My question is ..... why NOT do the SB???
If my plane was flying (it's far from it) I might think twice about doing the SB ..... but I'd look at that bulkhead every conditional inspection. Since it was easy for me to do it at this point, I did the SB and now don't have to worry about it.
Linn
do not archive
[quote]
Fire away!
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
Quote: |
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
| [b]
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
cjay
Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 53
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: Tim James mods |
|
|
n212pj(at)gmail.com wrote: |
Tim James, did not add bush tires to an RV-10, period, nor did I say such.
His use of the C206 gear and larger tires, as well as GlaStar type winglets,
VG's, etc. was to purposefully enhance the -10 for short, rough field use.
Those mods are for Tim something that makes the already good plane more
useful for his needs.
John J
-- |
John,
Does Tim James have a log site or do you know how to get in touch? His mod's are ones I would be interested in (minus the roll cage). My favorite 4 place designs are the the rv10 and the Bearhawk. I think he found a way to make the 10 more utilitarian. Would love to find out more about the 206 gear and VG mods. I always thought the 10 could support some rugged bush flying with some gear reinforcement.
cjay
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jim(at)CombsFive.Com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1 |
|
|
the hardest part of this SB is just picking up the wrenches and knowing you are going to spend several hours removing parts that you THOUGHT were on for the long haul.
The actual installation of the doubler is not difficult or that time consuming.
But in the end I know I have a stronger airframe than I had. Very comforting. Now I won't worry about my passengers safety.
Jim C
============================================================
From: "Dave Leikam" <daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com>
Date: 2008/07/23 Wed PM 11:59:21 EDT
To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1
With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if the empennage is that inclined to come off this airplane without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after they were installed!
Dave Leikam
RV-10 #40496
N89DA (Reserved)
Muskego, WI
do not archive
---
| - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|