Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

10 SB
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: 10 SB

I for one am disappointed with this design. When I first saw the

description I was hoping the hook was operated by the door handle, and

had motion 90 degrees from what the pictures show. That would have

been a major improvement. Unfortunately, this isn't any better than

the solution I saw at Copperstate of installing a second handle inside

and out, that operated a bottom of door latch.

I'm not clear from the pictures, is the tab on the outside always

straight out, recessed when latched? or what? I sure hope one of our

fine CNC parts suppliers can engineer a better solution. Most of the

ideas that put another arm on the door handle to operate some sort of

bottom latch seem promising, perhaps difficult to make work cleanly.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:26 AM, orchidman <gary(at)wingscc.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 sean(at)stephensville.com wrote:

> Mailing list only members enjoy the quoted portion.  Each his own.

>

 But not 10 million copies of the SB from Vans. [Laughing]

 --------

 Gary Blankenbiller

 RV10 - # 40674

 (N2GB Flying)

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 81793#281793

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Jim Berry

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 237
Location: Denver

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:24 am Post subject: Re: 10 SB

Kelly,



The tab on the outside moves up and down in the slot, but does not retract at any time. The slot can be made smaller in both dimensions than as shown in Van's pictures. Mine is just big enough to get the job done.



If you want a prettier safety latch, look at the rear door latch on the new Diamond DA40.



Guys, the SB threads have been great. I have not seen such rancor since primer wars. 



Jim Berry

40482

N15JB

luis(at)cristabelle.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:47 am Post subject: 10 SB

How about VANS redesigning the door too make the doorsafer tobegin  

with.  If more doors fall off with this added latch (hypotheticaly),  

what's next more SBs andmore "add-on" hardware?  Anyone should be able  

to lock a door! Time to redesign it!



Sent from my iPod



On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Kelly,



 The tab on the outside moves up and down in the slot, but does not  

 retract at any time. The slot can be made smaller in both dimensions  

 than as shown in Van's pictures. Mine is just big enough to get the  

 job done.



 If you want a prettier safety latch, look at the rear door latch on  

 the new Diamond DA40.



 Guys, the SB threads have been great. I have not seen such rancor  

 since primer wars.



 Jim Berry

 40482

 N15JB





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 81813#281813

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: 10 SB

Luis;

No offense but the doors are built by the builder themselves. Many have 

already made their own mods to hinges, the doors themselves, etc to the 

doors and with proper planning (confirm passengers know how to close the 

door) there really isn't an issue with the doors. The problem is the plastic 

that Vans gives as hinges are simply not the right solution, the doors 

naturally have an issue with the rear not closing correctly as the door is 

pulled from the front more than the rear.

When you get to this point you'll know that the hinges are the first thing 

that Vans should have modified.

Pascal



--------------------------------------------------

From: "Luis Rodriguez" <luis(at)cristabelle.net>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:47 AM

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 How about VANS redesigning the door too make the doorsafer tobegin  with. 

 If more doors fall off with this added latch (hypotheticaly),  what's next 

 more SBs andmore "add-on" hardware?  Anyone should be able  to lock a 

 door! Time to redesign it!



 Sent from my iPod



 On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> wrote:



> 

>

> Kelly,

>

> The tab on the outside moves up and down in the slot, but does not 

> retract at any time. The slot can be made smaller in both dimensions 

> than as shown in Van's pictures. Mine is just big enough to get the  job 

> done.

>

> If you want a prettier safety latch, look at the rear door latch on  the 

> new Diamond DA40.

>

> Guys, the SB threads have been great. I have not seen such rancor  since 

> primer wars.

>

> Jim Berry

> 40482

> N15JB

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 81813#281813

>

>

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:32 am Post subject: 10 SB

I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com

I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered. 



I want to summarize what I have heard here.  

Issues with the door will arise if:

-Poor door construction causing a bow during flight (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)

-Pins are not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)

-Door handle interlock is not engaged (Construction error and/or pilot error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked before flight, possible rebuild of interlock)

-Door pins were  locked outside of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door check to checklist)



I am fine with Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they say on the service bulletin that it is mandatory, I have a problem.  

This is 100% different from the previous SB where we added stiffeners to the vertical stabilizer and empenage.  



I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as low as possible, I don't see this as the solution though.

We need to take personal responsibility to build to the highest quality and use our checklists thoroughly.  

Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists) is never fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved through training and discipline.  



This solution is like adding a fixed gear to the bottom of a retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be there just in case you don't put the gear down. 



The warnings lights and center latch  should be optional as 100% safe flight can be accomplished with the stock system.  I do feel there are may pilots flying safely without even the lights because of their training and checklist discipline.  The experimental category will always have construction issues and must accept personal responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the quality shortcomings of the few.  



I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and explore this world with their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system that solves a problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a total replacement of the door is very expensive.  



Again, please write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make it optional.  

 



Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com



From: Jim Berry <jimberry(at)qwest.net>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 11:24:03 AM

Subject: Re: 10 SB



  

 [quote][b]

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:39 am Post subject: 10 SB

You mean you don't want a belt, suspenders, elasticized waist and special

Velcro adhesive? I measured my pins this morning and the OD of the pins

range from .436 to .438; theoretically they should be .4375. In 225 hours

they may have worn 15/10000 of an inch; I probably will replace them at

engine overhaul. Otherwise after door closure, I just touch each of them

twice before each departure.  



--

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: 10 SB

once again Scott I agree with your suggestion. Thinking  through the letter and it will go out today, this isn't a solution it’s a  bandaid. With the negative feedback seen it is obvious most of us have no  intention of doing this mod so why force me as a builder to "have  to".

  



  From: Scott Schmidt (scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com) 

 Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:31 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB

 



 I  suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com (info(at)vansaircraft.com)

I have done the  same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as  an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered.  



I want to summarize what I have heard here.  

Issues with the  door will arise if:

-Poor door construction causing a bow during flight  (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)

-Pins are  not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame (Construction error) (Fix:  Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)

-Door handle interlock is not  engaged (Construction error and/or pilot error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked  before flight, possible rebuild of interlock)

-Door pins were locked outside  of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door check to checklist)



I am fine with  Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they say on the service bulletin  that it is mandatory, I have a problem.  

This is 100% different from  the previous SB where we added stiffeners to the vertical stabilizer and  empenage.  



I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as  low as possible, I don't see this as the solution though.

We need to take  personal responsibility to build to the highest quality and use our checklists  thoroughly.  

Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists)  is never fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved  through training and discipline.  



This solution is like adding a  fixed gear to the bottom of a retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be  there just in case you don't put the gear down. 



The warnings lights and  center latch should be optional as 100% safe flight can be accomplished with the  stock system.  I do feel there are may pilots flying safely without even  the lights because of their training and checklist discipline.  The  experimental category will always have construction issues and must accept  personal responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the quality  shortcomings of the few.  



I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and  explore this world with their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system  that solves a problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a  total replacement of the door is very expensive.  



Again, please  write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make it optional.  

 

 

Scott  Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com

 



 

   From: Jim Berry  <jimberry(at)qwest.net>

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent:  Sat, January 16, 2010 11:24:03 AM

Subject: Re: 10  SB

[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/c

[b]

bcondrey

Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 580

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Scott,  

   

I’m just now catching up on this but agree with all points below and have already sent an email to Van’s.  I would also add (and did in my email) that many builders have also added door pin guides (IFLYRV10.com) which have conical receivers for the pins to address the potential issue of misalignment when the door is initially closed.  Further, these increase the surface area that the pins contact which prevents the wallowing out of the hole in the door frame that some have experienced.  Even with these guides installed though, the pins should extend through the actual door frame.  

   

My point was also that the SB is fine, just don’t make it mandatory.  

   

Bob  

N442PM (flying with no door latching issues)  

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt

 Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:31 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB  

  

  

     

I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com

 I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered. 

 

 I want to summarize what I have heard here.  

 Issues with the door will arise if:

 -Poor door construction causing a bow during flight (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)

 -Pins are not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)

 -Door handle interlock is not engaged (Construction error and/or pilot error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked before flight, possible rebuild of interlock)

 -Door pins were locked outside of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door check to checklist)

 

 I am fine with Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they say on the service bulletin that it is mandatory, I have a problem.  

 This is 100% different from the previous SB where we added stiffeners to the vertical stabilizer and empenage.  

 

 I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as low as possible, I don't see this as the solution though.

 We need to take personal responsibility to build to the highest quality and use our checklists thoroughly.  

 Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists) is never fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved through training and discipline.  

 

 This solution is like adding a fixed gear to the bottom of a retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be there just in case you don't put the gear down. 

 

 The warnings lights and center latch should be optional as 100% safe flight can be accomplished with the stock system.  I do feel there are may pilots flying safely without even the lights because of their training and checklist discipline.  The experimental category will always have construction issues and must accept personal responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the quality shortcomings of the few.  

 

 I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and explore this world with their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system that solves a problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a total replacement of the door is very expensive.  

 

 Again, please write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make it optional.      

   

  

Scott Schmidt

 scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com    

   

    

   

  

  

      [quote][b]

luis(at)cristabelle.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Pascal,



If vans plastic hinges are crappy, vans should upgrade the part.  If  

this is a concern from the factory, then why not fix it so new  

assemblies (finish kits) reflect a safer door.  Maybe they need to  

consult with cesna on securing the doors.  Ranting here....  I don't  

know how much the builder has to create while constructing the doors.   

I'm just gathering tools right now.  But really, why not fix it from  

the getgo.



Do not archive



Sent from my iPod



On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:09 PM, "Pascal" <rv10builder(at)verizon.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Luis;

 No offense but the doors are built by the builder themselves. Many  

 have already made their own mods to hinges, the doors themselves,  

 etc to the doors and with proper planning (confirm passengers know  

 how to close the door) there really isn't an issue with the doors.  

 The problem is the plastic that Vans gives as hinges are simply not  

 the right solution, the doors naturally have an issue with the rear  

 not closing correctly as the door is pulled from the front more than  

 the rear.

 When you get to this point you'll know that the hinges are the first  

 thing that Vans should have modified.

 Pascal



 --------------------------------------------------

 From: "Luis Rodriguez" <luis(at)cristabelle.net>

 Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 10:47 AM

 To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

 Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB



> 

> <luis(at)cristabelle.net>

>

> How about VANS redesigning the door too make the doorsafer tobegin   

> with. If more doors fall off with this added latch  

> (hypotheticaly),  what's next more SBs andmore "add-on" hardware?   

> Anyone should be able  to lock a door! Time to redesign it!

>

> Sent from my iPod

>

> On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, "Jim Berry" <jimberry(at)qwest.net> wrote:

>

>> 

>>

>> Kelly,

>>

>> The tab on the outside moves up and down in the slot, but does not  

>> retract at any time. The slot can be made smaller in both  

>> dimensions than as shown in Van's pictures. Mine is just big  

>> enough to get the  job done.

>>

>> If you want a prettier safety latch, look at the rear door latch  

>> on  the new Diamond DA40.

>>

>> Guys, the SB threads have been great. I have not seen such rancor   

>> since primer wars.

>>

>> Jim Berry

>> 40482

>> N15JB

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Read this topic online here:

>>

>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 81813#281813

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

ricksked(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Man do you have a lot coming!!

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



--

bcondrey

Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 580

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:01 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Plastic hinges?  Parts WD-1018 & WD-1019 are steel - only part that is "plastic" are the blocks in the door for guiding the pins (C-1009 and C-1017) and the thin parts (C-1010 Cabin Pin Blocks) that cover the holes in the door frames.  FWIW, the C-1010 parts are best replaced with the aluminum guide blocks supplied by IFLYRV10.com and others.  These are supplied with bullet shaped pins that thread into the stock door pins (and the sensor magnet is built in instead of having to epoxy into the stock pin).  The opening on the guide blocks have conical openings to guide the pins into place.  This is the single best safety mod for the doors that exists.



There's a lot of hype about the doors and while they certainly could have been designed better, they are functional as long as the builder takes the time to get the doors built properly and the latching mechanism aligned properly.  Finally, checking for doors properly latched is a standard preflight check for even most certified planes!  Granted, a Cherokee or Piper door probably won't fly off if unlatched, but that's missing my point.



Besides, if you install the SB latch you'll have matching "fugly" with the interior door handle!



Bob

RV-10 N442PM (flying)

--

luis(at)cristabelle.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:41 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Yea, don't remind me.  But can't wait at the same time.  It's nice to  

see trials and tribulations.  By the time I get to the doors, it will  

be a non issue.



Sent from my iPod



On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:42 PM, ricksked(at)cox.net wrote:



[quote] 



 Man do you have a lot coming!!

 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T



 --

kearney

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 563

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: 10 SB

Bob



I can say with absolute certainty that a Piper door won't fly off if

unlatched. In fact, the off field landing checklist has the door being

unlatched and opened so it doesn't jam in case of an accident. 



There are also aftermarket interior handles that remove the "fugly" from the

inside. After spending all this time getting Steve Deniri's billet handles

mounted, I now am being asked to install something that looks like it was

made by the Orcs of Mordor!



I would prefer to pay some $$$ to get better hinges (ala Cirrus) if they

could be made to work on a -10. Then door openings become the non event they

should be.



We can put all kinds of systems / proceduers etc in place but the reality is

that the VAN's door design is sub par. Even the most disciplined military

pilots make mistakes so why would we expect recreational GA pilots to

achieve perfection.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From an esthetic point of view, I am disappointed. Surely Van's knows how

much effort builders are putting into their planes to make them look every
	


bit as polished and then some as "manufactured" a/c. Today I walked by an

SR22 and admired how nice its doors looked. Then I winched when I realized

that the SB has me cutting an unfinished hole into my door and then having a

stub of aluminium poking out. This seems like a Rube Goldberg answer to a

poor door design. At the very least they could have made a kit that gives a

more "finished" look.



I wish VAN's would bite the bullet and come up with a more "professional"

looking solution that deals with the real problem - a poor locking design.

The fact that every -10 builder (at least the ones I know of) are tossing

the delrin door blocks in favour solid AL door guides speaks volumes.



Just my $0.02 



Les

Do not archive



--

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: 10 SB

My mistake I did mean the Cabin pin blocks. Thanks for the correction. We 

agree on every point  I replaced the pins and blocks with Steve's Aluminum 

as well.

My point is Vans should upgrade that piece and modify the plans with some 

mods- easy ones before forcing a mandatory SB on some boat anchor concept, I 

think there are other better ways.  Write the letter Scott encourages us to 

do. Scott at Vans obviously listened to one (1) builder ask to have the SB 

plans put on the web, I think if many wrote with a request to change the SB 

Vans might very well do so. Just offer a solution- like remove mandatory as 

many have already made safety changes that do not need this SB..  replace 

cheap parts with better parts, find ways to assure the rear closes 

better..etc..

Pascal



--------------------------------------------------

From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:00 PM

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Re: 10 SB



[quote] 

 <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>



 Plastic hinges?  Parts WD-1018 & WD-1019 are steel - only part that is 

 "plastic" are the blocks in the door for guiding the pins (C-1009 and 

 C-1017) and the thin parts (C-1010 Cabin Pin Blocks) that cover the holes 

 in the door frames.  FWIW, the C-1010 parts are best replaced with the 

 aluminum guide blocks supplied by IFLYRV10.com and others.  These are 

 supplied with bullet shaped pins that thread into the stock door pins (and 

 the sensor magnet is built in instead of having to epoxy into the stock 

 pin).  The opening on the guide blocks have conical openings to guide the 

 pins into place.  This is the single best safety mod for the doors that 

 exists.



 There's a lot of hype about the doors and while they certainly could have 

 been designed better, they are functional as long as the builder takes the 

 time to get the doors built properly and the latching mechanism aligned 

 properly.  Finally, checking for doors properly latched is a standard 

 preflight check for even most certified planes!  Granted, a Cherokee or 

 Piper door probably won't fly off if unlatched, but that's missing my 

 point.



 Besides, if you install the SB latch you'll have matching "fugly" with the 

 interior door handle!



 Bob

 RV-10 N442PM (flying)

 --

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: 10 SB

much of what you see here will be a non issue as most have better solutions 

for parts, just make sure you take notes to not buy the landing gear parts- 

specifically the front nose axles, rims.. all from Matco directly.. there's 

more but I leave that to you to discover what they are as much is being 

improved by Vans, FWF hoses being a start..

Take your time and enjoy the journey I spent months accumulating tools 

before I ever started, took a Sportair class too.

Pascal

--------------------------------------------------

From: "Luis Rodriguez" <luis(at)cristabelle.net>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:40 PM

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB

[quote] 

 Yea, don't remind me.  But can't wait at the same time.  It's nice to  see 

 trials and tribulations.  By the time I get to the doors, it will  be a 

 non issue.

 Sent from my iPod

 On Jan 16, 2010, at 4:42 PM, ricksked(at)cox.net wrote:

> 

>

> Man do you have a lot coming!!

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

>

> --

dmaib(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: 10 SB

AD's for certified airplanes almost always contain language allowing  

for "alternate means of compliance" and that is just how I am  

treating this SB. I installed the iflyrv10 aluminum door pin blocks,  

increased the travel of the rods, installed the door warning system,  

and it plays beautifully through Vertical Power and gives me a master  

warning, a separate pilot or co-pilot door message, and a warning  

tone in the headsets. I consider that a robust alternate means of  

compliance and will keep the kit, and perhaps install it if I ever  

decide to sell the airplane. That's the end of the story as far as I  

am concerned.



David Maib

40559

Flying





On Jan 16, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Pascal wrote:






My mistake I did mean the Cabin pin blocks. Thanks for the  

correction. We agree on every point  I replaced the pins and blocks  

with Steve's Aluminum as well.

My point is Vans should upgrade that piece and modify the plans with  

some mods- easy ones before forcing a mandatory SB on some boat  

anchor concept, I think there are other better ways.  Write the  

letter Scott encourages us to do. Scott at Vans obviously listened to  

one (1) builder ask to have the SB plans put on the web, I think if  

many wrote with a request to change the SB Vans might very well do  

so. Just offer a solution- like remove mandatory as many have already  

made safety changes that do not need this SB..  replace cheap parts  

with better parts, find ways to assure the rear closes better..etc..

Pascal



--------------------------------------------------

From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>

Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:00 PM

To: <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: RE: Re: 10 SB



[quote] 

 <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com>



 Plastic hinges?  Parts WD-1018 & WD-1019 are steel - only part that  

 is "plastic" are the blocks in the door for guiding the pins  

 (C-1009 and C-1017) and the thin parts (C-1010 Cabin Pin Blocks)  

 that cover the holes in the door frames.  FWIW, the C-1010 parts  

 are best replaced with the aluminum guide blocks supplied by  

 IFLYRV10.com and others.  These are supplied with bullet shaped  

 pins that thread into the stock door pins (and the sensor magnet is  

 built in instead of having to epoxy into the stock pin).  The  

 opening on the guide blocks have conical openings to guide the pins  

 into place.  This is the single best safety mod for the doors that  

 exists.



 There's a lot of hype about the doors and while they certainly  

 could have been designed better, they are functional as long as the  

 builder takes the time to get the doors built properly and the  

 latching mechanism aligned properly.  Finally, checking for doors  

 properly latched is a standard preflight check for even most  

 certified planes!  Granted, a Cherokee or Piper door probably won't  

 fly off if unlatched, but that's missing my point.



 Besides, if you install the SB latch you'll have matching "fugly"  

 with the interior door handle!



 Bob

 RV-10 N442PM (flying)

 --

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:41 am Post subject: 10 SB

I've been following the SB thread since it started, deciding not

to get into it right away.  It seems that usually people start

going off on tangents about how crappy the door design is, or

how various door designs would be superior...never mind that

without some major work/time/expense there's no real way any

builder will have an improved door design.  The kit "is what it

is", and if you really want the pains of major door redesign,

then hey, I'm all for it, but I believe that when it comes right

down to reality, most of you would rather just finally have a

nice flying RV-10 to fly, for a reasonable price, in a minimal

amount of years of built time.  Any departure from the plans

usually adds time and expense, and a door redesign would involve

both, and only lots of testing and time would end up proving

if it were even a successful modification.



Then it comes to handles, latches, locks, and all that stuff.

Sure, there are some nice flush latches.  No, Van's didn't

design in door locks.  Yeah, you can buy add-on internal

handles.  In reality, I don't really view ANY of these things

as significant items.  They're almost entirely cosmetic,

and many of those cosmetics may mean something to various

individuals, but others may not care a bit.  For me, I'm

perfectly happy with the looks of the internal door handle.

I don't mind the external handle, although I've seen nicer

than mine.  And, I don't mind the door not locking.  I maintain

that I'd much prefer a door ALARM system to a door LOCK system,

because I just want to scare them away BEFORE they rip

my fiberglass apart on the door, or break the plexi on

my window.  But that again is just a personal perspective.

None of these add-ons are really significant.



The exception to these insignificant add-ons is the addition

of the rivethead/iflyrv10.com door pin receivers made out

of aluminum.  I really wish that during my build, I would

have had the opportunity to have these, and know all the things

we know today.  I think a new builder is crazy not to build

those out of aluminum.  I'm not necessarily convinced that

for someone like me, with completed doors, it's an easy

upgrade to try to cut my pin ends and thread in the magnetic

ones, so I haven't gone that route.  I'm also not a huge

fan of permanent or electro magnets in the doors, as I know

that I've heard enough about how sensitive good magnetometers

are to know that I'd rather avoid magnets if possible.  My

doors have glassed over screws on the outside, and I just

haven't wanted to tackle any pin modifications right now.

I really HAVE been meaning to order the aluminum guides

though.  I'd love to have those, and I've lost enough to

chipped paint and fiberglass from that rear pin.  My

original idea was an embedded stainless striker plate to

protect the paint, and some day I'd love to be motivated

enough to fix that.



 From a functional standpoint I think the doors are fine.

They work, and I've flown now over 585 hours with them and

am not disappointed at all, other than the rear pins that

have chipped my paint.  From a safety standpoint, I know

my pins go THROUGH the metal door frame, and I know that

when I latch the door all the way, it's a definite lock,

and I can't rotate my lever at all. So once I button my

family into the plane and inspect the door gaps, I know

that we're not going to lose the door.



My plane was doing it's first flight just before Van's

came out with the door warning lights. I still have the

bag of hardware on the bench, awaiting my installation.

I've read Scott's comments about how EVERYONE should

have warning lights.  I can't disagree.  I think warning

lights are a great idea.  I also like Vic's idea of

adding a throttle position sensor to them so that they

don't light up when you're at low power for ground taxi...

because you don't want to become complacent.  Personally

though, I feel that my extra-diligent operation of the

doors is REINFORCED by my lack of lights.  I know a lot

about a lot of incidents that happen.  People tend to

tell me when they hear things.  I hadn't heard about the

recent one a couple weeks ago though.  Anyway, there have

been enough departed doors that I share the concern deeply

that other builders have.  But, I feel that the concern

is not for the doors....it's for the PILOTS.  If you build

a door per original plans, and inspect it properly before

flight, and have pins that extend properly, you will NOT

lose a door.  If I had lights, and started to look for

the lights every time in lieu of a door gap inspection,

I would become complacent and reliant on that circuitry.

Yes, you can make those light systems pretty bulletproof,

and perfectly aligned and activated...but you can't take

a sloppy pilot checklist who's rushing through his preflight

while trying to race against...well, any of the pressures

that push us, and force him to look at the lights.  That

is NOT to say the lights aren't a good idea.  But they

are NOT an acceptable substitute for a good door gap

inspection either.  We know what happens to these doors if

they're not latched, so nothing short of a perfect

inspection is acceptable.  If you give a perfect inspection,

then any and all hardware additions really, truly,

aren't necessary.  They're all band-aids against poor

pilot awareness.  But, for the record, I do think

the lights are a good idea. I actually have a to-do item

on my calendar that I look at weekly, to order a door

alarm system and once I find the right system, I plan

to install it with the door pin sensors and lights to

provide a loud horn alarm that I can engage with a key

FOB, as a theft deterrent, with the side benefit of having

door latch indicator lights.



Now on to the new SB.  I agree, it shouldn't be mandatory.

It would have been nice to have them engage the RV-10

ownership for an acceptable fix,  but they didn't.  I agree

that the latch is ugly, especially from the outside.

I'm pretty confident that I won't be putting it in, at least

as-delivered.  I don't want that rectangular tab outside

and the open slot for water entry any more than many people

do.  I don't think it's a bad idea though, either.  I think

it's not truly a NECESSARY addition, but it is a safety

device, and therefore it may prevent some operational issues

that are pilot induced, so I actually support those who feel

that it's necessary. I say GO FOR IT.  If you like that

"feel good" addition to the door latching, great.  I agree

that it should NOT be a mandatory SB...especially since

there are alternate methods to accomplish the same thing that

may actually look/work better and be far more visually

acceptable at the same time.  Regardless, I don't think

I plan to install that particular design as delivered.  I

would be more inclined to perhaps leave the slot on the

door, but NOT put the tab on the outside.  Think about this

for a second, for all you people who want door locks....



Envision the same mechanism, but with just the slot.

through the slot you stick a long allen-key type key

rod.  Inside the latch is a hole that this key fits

in.  So, when you come up to the plane and want to

open the door, you insert the key and tip the latch.

What is the downside? Well, if you're unconscious

in the plane after a crash, rescuers can't open that

latch.  But, if they can open the door handle, do you

REALLY think that one single latch is going to prevent

them from getting to you, considering how weak the

door attachment is anyway?  I highly doubt it.  A screwdriver

jammed in the door gap so they could open it enough to

rip the door off is about all it would take.  Yeah, maybe

not perfect.  You don't like the idea?  I don't blame

you....I'd rather have no center latch at all.



Or how about this....you make the latch not just spring

loaded, but lock-openable from the inside.  So now you

can have the "key" function as described above, but as

part of an emergency checklist you take the opportunity

to disengage that lock.  Why worry about disengaging it...

the door pins will hold the door anyway.  So you disengage

the lock, then do your emergency landing.



Or, take it another step further....leave an external

operating latch mechanism, but change it to a button of

some sort that has added mechanics to operate the latch.

I would be much more likely to leave a button on the outside

of my door than that square tab.



Still, none of those ideas really turn me on.  I still

think that a properly latched door that is diligently

inspected, is not a worry.  My final idea is one that

I've been bouncing around in my own head.  I picture

attacking it from the other side...the bottom.  How about

a door latch pin, L-shaped rod, that is built in to the

sidewall of the airframe by your seat.  This pin can be

manually lifted, inserting the pin through the bottom

of the door.  To reinforce the door, you drill a hole and

make a fiberglass hard point in the door at that spot.

So you lift the pin, it goes into the door bottom, and

then you fold the "L" tab of the pin to the side so it

isn't sticking out at you....maybe even add a machined

block into that sidewall that has 2 L-shaped recesses,

where it can recess slightly in the locked and unlocked

position.  Again, this latch is only activated from inside

the cockpit, preventing rescuers from unlocking that

lock....but again, I'm SURE you could kick that door out

if that were the only pin, and I'm SURE that they could

rip it off from the outside if they needed to....and

that's in the much smaller chance that you have an

actual survivable crash....the chances are higher that

you'll be a sloppy pilot and lose the door.  But, during

any portion of flight where you worry about off-airport

landings... (for instance, as I'm flying over water,

enroute to the Bahamas), you just pull that pin to the

un-latched position. You don't NEED that latch to be

secured, if the rest of the door is secured.  In fact,

if you just TESTED that latch before flight, it would

PROVE your pins are secured on the door sides, and you

probably don't even need to leave the door center latch

in place.  But, if you can JUST remember that this latch

is something you need to open before an emergency landing,

then it would be a fine method of compliance, and I

bet you could hide it visually better than most other

method.



I've also liked Seano's mechanical methods of adding a

3rd pin, operated by the latch.  For people just starting

the build, I would actually think that if this issue

is one you're passionate about, then THAT is probably your

BEST way to deal with it. I'd LOVE to have that option

be one that an already built-and-painted door could have

added, but I doubt that's possible.  I'm not obviously

passionate enough about it to rip open my door and build

such a thing, but for a new builder, hey, get him to

give you the drawings and spend some time on it...you

can avoid this ugly-a$$ latch that the SB calls for if you

do.



So the door stuff is an argument I really don't care to dive

in too deeply to.  I think it all comes down to the pilot.

I think there are many good ways to prevent the problem

even with a stupid pilot.  But to date, I'm not finding

any good ways to really fix the issue mechanically, in an

ideal way, on an already painted RV-10....so, I maintain

my added diligence.  I have no big worries. I have 585

happy hours with the design as it is now.  Can it be done

better? Sure.  If I were building my doors today, would

I do it better? SURE!  Is the difference in comfort level

worth me tearing it all apart now?  Nope.  I just want

to end up with those aluminum guides, and an alarm

system some day, and I'll be plenty satisfied.  If I

add a 3rd pin now, it'll probably be through the bottom,

as I described.



Oh, and don't worry too much about me selling my plane

and having to implement the SB per plans...I don't plan

on selling. 

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD

do not archive

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:51 am Post subject: 10 SB

Tim, I have been thinking the exact same thing about a latch in the center that can only be engaged from inside the cockpit.

It would still require a high level of checklist discipline.  I agree with you on the lock, if they want in, they will get in.  

I find that a cover is plenty good (out of sight out of mind) and if I ever go to Mexico or the Baja my plan is to just take off the outside door handles.  



I am getting the sense that this SB is a CYA for Van's more than anything from some of the comments here, VAF and personal e-mails.

Again, that is disappointing to me.  From a great solution standpoint on a scale from 1-10 I give this solution a 1 or 2. 

Oh well, I think a 10 can be achieved for the same cost as the proposed.  



All I would hope  for is the verbiage on the SB to change from:

Required Action: Install Door Safety Latch   to   Required Action: Optional Door Safety Latch

Time of Compliance: Before Further Flight     to   Time of Compliance:  Optional



I do believe some great ideas and great solutions will and are coming out of this so this probably I won't take up any more of my time and I will start coming up with some ideas that we all can share.  There are a ton of super smart and talented people on this list.  

I just can't wait to see what comes out of Goeff's camp.  I am expecting a voice activited with a thumb print sensor.  And from Tim I am looking for an iPhone app that both opens and closes the doors and has a built in "Door Ajar" alarm that is displayed on the iPhone screen.  

 

Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com

N104XP 

675 Safe Hours

From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:39:47 AM

Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB



 --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>



I've been following the SB thread since it started, deciding not

to get into it right away.  It seems that usually people start

going off on tangents about how crappy the door design is, or

how various door designs would be superior...never mind that

without some major work/time/expense there's no real way any

builder will have an improved door design.  The kit "is what it

is", and if you really want the pains of major door redesign,

then hey, I'm all for it, but I believe that when it comes right

down to reality, most of you would rather just finally have a

nice flying RV-10 to fly, for a reasonable price, in a minimal

amount of years of built time.  Any departure from the plans

usually adds time and expense, and a door redesign would involve

both, and only lots  of testing and time would end up proving

if it were even a successful modification.



Then it comes to handles, latches, locks, and all that stuff.

Sure, there are some nice flush latches.  No, Van's didn't

design in door locks.  Yeah, you can buy add-on internal

handles.  In reality, I don't really view ANY of these things

as significant items.  They're almost entirely cosmetic,

and many of those cosmetics may mean something to various

individuals, but others may not care a bit.  For me, I'm

perfectly happy with the looks of the internal door handle.

I don't mind the external handle, although I've seen nicer

than mine.  And, I don't mind the door not locking.  I maintain

that I'd much prefer a door ALARM system to a door LOCK system,

because I just want to scare them away BEFORE they rip

my fiberglass apart on the door, or break the plexi on

my window.  But that  again is just a personal perspective.

None of these add-ons are really significant.



The exception to these insignificant add-ons is the addition

of the rivethead/iflyrv10.com door pin receivers made out

of aluminum.  I really wish that during my build, I would

have had the opportunity to have these, and know all the things

we know today.  I think a new builder is crazy not to build

those out of aluminum.  I'm not necessarily convinced that

for someone like me, with completed doors, it's an easy

upgrade to try to cut my pin ends and thread in the magnetic

ones, so I haven't gone that route.  I'm also not a huge

fan of permanent or electro magnets in the doors, as I know

that I've heard enough about how sensitive good magnetometers

are to know that I'd rather avoid magnets if possible.  My

doors have glassed over screws on the outside, and I just

haven't wanted to tackle any pin  modifications right now.

I really HAVE been meaning to order the aluminum guides

though.  I'd love to have those, and I've lost enough to

chipped paint and fiberglass from that rear pin.  My

original idea was an embedded stainless striker plate to

protect the paint, and some day I'd love to be motivated

enough to fix that.



From a functional standpoint I think the doors are fine.

They work, and I've flown now over 585 hours with them and

am not disappointed at all, other than the rear pins that

have chipped my paint.  From a safety standpoint, I know

my pins go THROUGH the metal door frame, and I know that

when I latch the door all the way, it's a definite lock,

and I can't rotate my lever at all. So once I button my

family into the plane and inspect the door gaps, I know

that we're not going to lose the door.



My plane was doing it's first flight just before Van's

came out with the  door warning lights. I still have the

bag of hardware on the bench, awaiting my installation.

I've read Scott's comments about how EVERYONE should

have warning lights.  I can't disagree.  I think warning

lights are a great idea.  I also like Vic's idea of

adding a throttle position sensor to them so that they

don't light up when you're at low power for ground taxi...

because you don't want to become complacent.  Personally

though, I feel that my extra-diligent operation of the

doors is REINFORCED by my lack of lights.  I know a lot

about a lot of incidents that happen.  People tend to

tell me when they hear things.  I hadn't heard about the

recent one a couple weeks ago though.  Anyway, there have

been enough departed doors that I share the concern deeply

that other builders have.  But, I feel that the concern

is not for the doors....it's for the PILOTS.  If  you build

a door per original plans, and inspect it properly before

flight, and have pins that extend properly, you will NOT

lose a door.  If I had lights, and started to look for

the lights every time in lieu of a door gap inspection,

I would become complacent and reliant on that circuitry.

Yes, you can make those light systems pretty bulletproof,

and perfectly aligned and activated...but you can't take

a sloppy pilot checklist who's rushing through his preflight

while trying to race against...well, any of the pressures

that push us, and force him to look at the lights.  That

is NOT to say the lights aren't a good idea.  But they

are NOT an acceptable substitute for a good door gap

inspection either.  We know what happens to these doors if

they're not latched, so nothing short of a perfect

inspection is acceptable.  If you give a perfect inspection,

then any and all hardware  additions really, truly,

aren't necessary.  They're all band-aids against poor

pilot awareness.  But, for the record, I do think

the lights are a good idea. I actually have a to-do item

on my calendar that I look at weekly, to order a door

alarm system and once I find the right system, I plan

to install it with the door pin sensors and lights to

provide a loud horn alarm that I can engage with a key

FOB, as a theft deterrent, with the side benefit of having

door latch indicator lights.



Now on to the new SB.  I agree, it shouldn't be mandatory.

It would have been nice to have them engage the RV-10

ownership for an acceptable fix,  but they didn't.  I agree

that the latch is ugly, especially from the outside.

I'm pretty confident that I won't be putting it in, at least

as-delivered.  I don't want that rectangular tab outside

and the open slot for water entry any more than  many people

do.  I don't think it's a bad idea though, either.  I think

it's not truly a NECESSARY addition, but it is a safety

device, and therefore it may prevent some operational issues

that are pilot induced, so I actually support those who feel

that it's necessary. I say GO FOR IT.  If you like that

"feel good" addition to the door latching, great.  I agree

that it should NOT be a mandatory SB...especially since

there are alternate methods to accomplish the same thing that

may actually look/work better and be far more visually

acceptable at the same time.  Regardless, I don't think

I plan to install that particular design as delivered.  I

would be more inclined to perhaps leave the slot on the

door, but NOT put the tab on the outside.  Think about this

for a second, for all you people who want door locks....



Envision the same mechanism, but with just the  slot.

through the slot you stick a long allen-key type key

rod.  Inside the latch is a hole that this key fits

in.  So, when you come up to the plane and want to

open the door, you insert the key and tip the latch.

What is the downside? Well, if you're unconscious

in the plane after a crash, rescuers can't open that

latch.  But, if they can open the door handle, do you

REALLY think that one single latch is going to prevent

them from getting to you, considering how weak the

door attachment is anyway?  I highly doubt it.  A screwdriver

jammed in the door gap so they could open it enough to

rip the door off is about all it would take.  Yeah, maybe

not perfect.  You don't like the idea?  I don't blame

you....I'd rather have no center latch at all.



Or how about this....you make the latch not just spring

loaded, but lock-openable from the inside.  So now  you

can have the "key" function as described above, but as

part of an emergency checklist you take the opportunity

to disengage that lock.  Why worry about disengaging it...

the door pins will hold the door anyway.  So you disengage

the lock, then do your emergency landing.



Or, take it another step further....leave an external

operating latch mechanism, but change it to a button of

some sort that has added mechanics to operate the latch.

I would be much more likely to leave a button on the outside

of my door than that square tab.



Still, none of those ideas really turn me on.  I still

think that a properly latched door that is diligently

inspected, is not a worry.  My final idea is one that

I've been bouncing around in my own head.  I picture

attacking it from the other side...the bottom.  How about

a door latch pin, L-shaped rod, that is built in to the

sidewall of  the airframe by your seat.  This pin can be

manually lifted, inserting the pin through the bottom

of the door.  To reinforce the door, you drill a hole and

make a fiberglass hard point in the door at that spot.

So you lift the pin, it goes into the door bottom, and

then you fold the "L" tab of the pin to the side so it

isn't sticking out at you....maybe even add a machined

block into that sidewall that has 2 L-shaped recesses,

where it can recess slightly in the locked and unlocked

position.  Again, this latch is only activated from inside

the cockpit, preventing rescuers from unlocking that

lock....but again, I'm SURE you could kick that door out

if that were the only pin, and I'm SURE that they could

rip it off from the outside if they needed to....and

that's in the much smaller chance that you have an

actual survivable crash....the chances are higher that

you'll be a sloppy pilot and lose  the door.  But, during

any portion of flight where you worry about off-airport

landings... (for instance, as I'm flying over water,

enroute to the Bahamas), you just pull that pin to the

un-latched position. You don't NEED that latch to be

secured, if the rest of the door is secured.  In fact,

if you just TESTED that latch before flight, it would

PROVE your pins are secured on the door sides, and you

probably don't even need to leave the door center latch

in place.  But, if you can JUST remember that this latch

is something you need to open before an emergency landing,

then it would be a fine method of compliance, and I

bet you could hide it visually better than most other

method.



I've also liked Seano's mechanical methods of adding a

3rd pin, operated by the latch.  For people just starting

the build, I would actually think that if this issue

is one you're passionate about, then  THAT is probably your

BEST way to deal with it. I'd LOVE to have that option

be one that an already built-and-painted door could have

added, but I doubt that's possible.  I'm not obviously

passionate enough about it to rip open my door and build

such a thing, but for a new builder, hey, get him to

give you the drawings and spend some time on it...you

can avoid this ugly-a$$ latch that the SB calls for if you

do.



So the door stuff is an argument I really don't care to dive

in too deeply to.  I think it all comes down to the pilot.

I think there are many good ways to prevent the problem

even with a stupid pilot.  But to date, I'm not finding

any good ways to really fix the issue mechanically, in an

ideal way, on an already painted RV-10....so, I maintain

my added diligence.  I have no big worries. I have 585

happy hours with the design as it is now.  Can it be done

better?  

 [quote][b]

scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:03 pm Post subject: 10 SB

I just realized that Van's has a "Letters and Notices" section which is where the RV-10 door indicator lights are.  

This is where this center latch belongs. That would move it completely out of the SB section. 



http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/notices.htm

 

Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com



From: Scott Schmidt <scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 12:49:41 PM

Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB



 Tim, I have been thinking the exact same thing about a latch in the center that can only be engaged from inside the cockpit.

It would still require a high level of checklist discipline.  I agree with you on the lock, if they want in, they will get in.  

I find that a cover is plenty good (out of sight out of mind) and if I ever go to Mexico or the Baja my plan is to just take off the outside door handles.  



I am getting the sense that this SB is a CYA for Van's more than anything from some of the comments here, VAF and personal e-mails.

Again, that is disappointing to me.  From a great solution standpoint on a scale from 1-10 I give this solution a 1 or 2. 

Oh well, I think a 10 can be achieved for the same cost as the proposed.  



All I would hope  for is the verbiage on the SB to change from:

Required Action: Install Door Safety Latch   to   Required Action: Optional Door Safety Latch

Time of Compliance: Before Further Flight     to   Time of Compliance:  Optional



I do believe some great ideas and great solutions will and are coming out of this so this probably I won't take up any more of my time and I will start coming up with some ideas that we all can share.  There are a ton of super smart and talented people on this list.  

I just can't wait to see what comes out of Goeff's camp.  I am expecting a voice activited with a thumb print sensor.  And from Tim I am looking for an iPhone app that both opens and closes the doors and has a built in "Door Ajar" alarm that is displayed on the iPhone screen.  

 

Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com

N104XP 

675 Safe Hours

From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 10:39:47 AM

Subject: Re: Re: 10 SB



 --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>



I've been following the SB thread since it started, deciding not

to get into it right away.  It seems that usually people start

going off on tangents about how crappy the door design is, or

how various door designs would be superior...never mind that

without some major work/time/expense there's no real way any

builder will have an improved door design.  The kit "is what it

is", and if you really want the pains of major door redesign,

then hey, I'm all for it, but I believe that when it comes right

down to reality, most of you would rather just finally have a

nice flying RV-10 to fly, for a reasonable price, in a minimal

amount of years of built time.  Any departure from the plans

usually adds time and expense, and a door redesign would  involve

both, and only lots  of testing and time would end up proving

if it were even a successful modification.



Then it comes to handles, latches, locks, and all that stuff.

Sure, there are some nice flush latches.  No, Van's didn't

design in door locks.  Yeah, you can buy add-on internal

handles.  In reality, I don't really view ANY of these things

as significant items.  They're almost entirely cosmetic,

and many of those cosmetics may mean something to various

individuals, but others may not care a bit.  For me, I'm

perfectly happy with the looks of the internal door handle.

I don't mind the external handle, although I've seen nicer

than mine.  And, I don't mind the door not locking.  I maintain

that I'd much prefer a door ALARM system to a door LOCK system,

because I just want to scare them away BEFORE they rip

my fiberglass apart on the door, or break the plexi on

my window.  But that  again is just a personal perspective.

None of these add-ons are really significant.



The exception to these insignificant add-ons is the addition

of the rivethead/iflyrv10.com door pin receivers made out

of aluminum.  I really wish that during my build, I would

have had the opportunity to have these, and know all the things

we know today.  I think a new builder is crazy not to build

those out of aluminum.  I'm not necessarily convinced that

for someone like me, with completed doors, it's an easy

upgrade to try to cut my pin ends and thread in the magnetic

ones, so I haven't gone that route.  I'm also not a huge

fan of permanent or electro magnets in the doors, as I know

that I've heard enough about how sensitive good magnetometers

are to know that I'd rather avoid magnets if possible.  My

doors have glassed over screws on the outside, and I just

haven't wanted to tackle any pin  modifications right now.

I really HAVE been meaning to order the aluminum guides

though.  I'd love to have those, and I've lost enough to

chipped paint and fiberglass from that rear pin.  My

original idea was an embedded stainless striker plate to

protect the paint, and some day I'd love to be motivated

enough to fix that.



From a functional standpoint I think the doors are fine.

They work, and I've flown now over 585 hours with them and

am not disappointed at all, other than the rear pins that

have chipped my paint.  From a safety standpoint, I know

my pins go THROUGH the metal door frame, and I know that

when I latch the door all the way, it's a definite lock,

and I can't rotate my lever at all. So once I button my

family into the plane and inspect the door gaps, I know

that we're not going to lose the door.



My plane was doing it's first flight just before Van's

came out with the  door warning lights. I still have the

bag of hardware on the bench, awaiting my installation.

I've read Scott's comments about how EVERYONE should

have warning lights.  I can't disagree.  I think warning

lights are a great idea.  I also like Vic's idea of

adding a throttle position sensor to them so that they

don't light up when you're at low power for ground taxi...

because you don't want to become complacent.  Personally

though, I feel that my extra-diligent operation of the

doors is REINFORCED by my lack of lights.  I know a lot

about a lot of incidents that happen.  People tend to

tell me when they hear things.  I hadn't heard about the

recent one a couple weeks ago though.  Anyway, there have

been enough departed doors that I share the concern deeply

that other builders have.  But, I feel that the concern

is not for the doors....it's for the PILOTS.  If  you build

a door per original plans, and inspect it properly before

flight, and have pins that extend properly, you will NOT

lose a door.  If I had lights, and started to look for

the lights every time in lieu of a door gap inspection,

I would become complacent and reliant on that circuitry.

Yes, you can make those light systems pretty bulletproof,

and perfectly aligned and activated...but you can't take

a sloppy pilot checklist who's rushing through his preflight

while trying to race against...well, any of the pressures

that push us, and force him to look at the lights.  That

is NOT to say the lights aren't a good idea.  But they

are NOT an acceptable substitute for a good door gap

inspection either.  We know what happens to these doors if

they're not latched, so nothing short of a perfect

inspection is acceptable.  If you give a perfect inspection,

then any and all hardware  additions really, truly,

aren't necessary.  They're all band-aids against poor

pilot awareness.  But, for the record, I do think

the lights are a good idea. I actually have a to-do item

on my calendar that I look at weekly, to order a door

alarm system and once I find the right system, I plan

to install it with the door pin sensors and lights to

provide a loud horn alarm that I can engage with a key

FOB, as a theft deterrent, with the side benefit of having

door latch indicator lights.



Now on to the new SB.  I agree, it shouldn't be mandatory.

It would have been nice to have them engage the RV-10

ownership for an acceptable fix,  but they didn't.  I agree

that the latch is ugly, especially from the outside.

I'm pretty confident that I won't be putting it in, at least

as-delivered.  I don't want that rectangular tab outside

and the open slot for water entry any more than  many people

do.  I don't think it's a bad idea though, either.  I think

it's not truly a NECESSARY addition, but it is a safety

device, and therefore it may prevent some operational issues

that are pilot induced, so I actually support those who feel

that it's necessary. I say GO FOR IT.  If you like that

"feel good" addition to the door latching, great.  I agree

that it should NOT be a mandatory SB...especially since

there are alternate methods to accomplish the same thing that

may actually look/work better and be far more visually

acceptable at the same time.  Regardless, I don't think

I plan to install that particular design as delivered.  I

would be more inclined to perhaps leave the slot on the

door, but NOT put the tab on the outside.  Think about this

for a second, for all you people who want door locks....



Envision the same mechanism, but with just the  slot.

through the slot you stick a long allen-key type key

rod.  Inside the latch is a hole that this key fits

in.  So, when you come up to the plane and want to

open the door, you insert the key and tip the latch.

What is the downside? Well, if you're unconscious

in the plane after a crash, rescuers can't open that

latch.  But, if they can open the door handle, do you

REALLY think that one single latch is going to prevent

them from getting to you, considering how weak the

door attachment is anyway?  I highly doubt it.  A screwdriver

jammed in the door gap so they could open it enough to

rip the door off is about all it would take.  Yeah, maybe

not perfect.  You don't like the idea?  I don't blame

you....I'd rather have no center latch at all.



Or how about this....you make the latch not just spring

loaded, but lock-openable from the inside.  So now  you

can have the "key" function as described above, but as

part of an emergency checklist you take the opportunity

to disengage that lock.  Why worry about disengaging it...

the door pins will hold the door anyway.  So you disengage

the lock, then do your emergency landing.



Or, take it another step further....leave an external

operating latch mechanism, but change it to a button of

some sort that has added mechanics to operate the latch.

I would be much more likely to leave a button on the outside

of my door than that square tab.



Still, none of those ideas really turn me on.  I still

think that a properly latched door that is diligently

inspected, is not a worry.  My final idea is one that

I've been bouncing around in my own head.  I picture

attacking it from the other side...the bottom.  How about

a door latch pin, L-shaped rod, that is built in to the

sidewall of  the airframe by your seat.  This pin can be

manually lifted, inserting the pin through the bottom

of the door.  To reinforce the door, you drill a hole and

make a fiberglass hard point in the door at that spot.

So you lift the pin, it goes into the door bottom, and

then you fold the "L" tab of the pin to the side so it

isn't sticking out at you....maybe even add a machined

block into that sidewall that has 2 L-shaped recesses,

where it can recess slightly in the locked and unlocked

position.  Again, this latch is only activated from inside

the cockpit, preventing rescuers from unlocking that

lock....but again, I'm SURE you could kick that door out

if that were the only pin, and I'm SURE that they could

rip it off from the outside if they needed to....and

that's in the much smaller chance that you have an

actual survivable crash....the chances are higher that

you'll be a sloppy pilot and lose  the door.  But, during

any portion of flight where you worry about off-airport

landings... (for instance, as I'm flying over water,

enroute to the Bahamas), you just pull that pin to the

un-latched position. You don't NEED that latch to be

secured, if the rest of the door is secured.  In fact,

if you just TESTED that latch before flight, it would

PROVE your pins are secured on the door sides, and you

probably don't even need to leave the door center latch

in place.  But, if you can JUST remember that this latch

is something you need to open before an emergency landing,

then it would be a fine method of compliance, and I

bet you could hide it visually better than most other

method.



I've also liked Seano's mechanical methods of adding a

3rd pin, operated by the latch.  For people just starting

the build, I would actually think that if this issue

is one you're passionate about, then  THAT is probably your

BEST way to deal with it. I'd LOVE to have that option

be one that an already built-and-painted door could have

added, but I doubt that's possible.  I'm not obviously

passionate enough about it to rip open my door and build

such a thing, but for a new builder, hey, get him to

give you the drawings and spend some time on it...you

can avoid this ugly-a$$ latch that the SB calls for if you

do.



So the door stuff is an argument I really don't care to dive

in too deeply to.  I think it all comes down to the pilot.

I think there are many good ways to prevent the problem

even with a stupid pilot.  But to date, I'm not finding

any good ways to really fix the issue mechanically, in an

ideal way, on an already painted RV-10....so, I maintain

my added diligence.  I have no big worries. I have 585

happy hours with the design as it is now.  Can it be done

better?  

  	  Quote: 	
		  

	




  

 [quote][b]

gengrumpy(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:30 pm Post subject: 10 SB

I have just written Van's to support Scott's suggestion.



Remember that SBs are optional in the FAA's eyes, not mandatory.

And a previous post on keeping this in our hands rather than letting some insurance adjuster get their hand in the mix is good advice.

I'm waiting for a more elegant solution for retrofit from some of our excellent CNC engineers!!

grumpy

do not archive



On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Scott Schmidt wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  I suggest that all RV-10 builders and flyers with serial numbers write Van's at info(at)vansaircraft.com (info(at)vansaircraft.com)

I have done the same and have asked Van's to retract the Service Bulletin and offer the latch as an additional and optional latch just as the indicator lights were offered. 



I want to summarize what I have heard here.  

Issues with the door will arise if:

-Poor door construction causing a bow during flight (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build door or add Van's center latch)

-Pins are not inserted far enough into the aluminum frame (Construction error) (Fix: Re-build pins to extend into aluminum frame)

-Door handle interlock is not engaged (Construction error and/or pilot error) (Fix: Ensure handles are locked before flight, possible rebuild of interlock)

-Door pins were locked outside of cabin (Pilot error)(Fix: Add door check to checklist)



I am fine with Van's offering this as an optional kit but when they say on the service bulletin that it is mandatory, I have a problem.  

This is 100% different from the previous SB where we added stiffeners to the vertical stabilizer and empenage.  



I want everyone to fly safe and keep our insurance as low as possible, I don't see this as the solution though.

We need to take personal responsibility to build to the highest quality and use our checklists thoroughly.  

Any system that is put into place (such as our checklists) is never fixed with more protection devices, system only work and are improved through training and discipline.  



This solution is like adding a fixed gear to the bottom of a retractable landing gear aircraft. It will be there just in case you don't put the gear down. 



The warnings lights and center latch should be optional as 100% safe flight can be accomplished with the stock system.  I do feel there are may pilots flying safely without even the lights because of their training and checklist discipline.  The experimental category will always have construction issues and must accept personal responsibility for that and not burden the whole fleet with the quality shortcomings of the few.  



I want everyone to fly safe, have fun and explore this world with their planes and I appreciate Van's offering a system that solves a problem that a few of RV-10's have with the doors bowing as a total replacement of the door is very expensive.  



Again, please write Van's and ask for the removal of this SB and make it optional.  

 



Scott Schmidtscottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com (scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com)



From: Jim Berry <jimberry(at)qwest.net (jimberry(at)qwest.net)>

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)

Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 11:24:03 AM

Subject: Re: 10 SB

 	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

====================================

nics.com

====================================

w.matronics.com/contribution

====================================



	


	


=  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

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