VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Van's over-engineering compared to certified aircraft (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=174896)

paul330 09-05-2019 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman1988 (Post 1371740)
I wouldn?t knock that slide rule...look through aviation?s past and you will find some really impressive design work that was done...you guessed it...on a slide rule...:D

Most of the space program in the 60s was done on slide rules ......

rocketman1988 09-05-2019 03:58 PM

Yep
 
That?s a fact...

dave4754 09-05-2019 09:39 PM

Well said below

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajunwings (Post 1371356)
Just my $.02 after 40+ years of maintaining and repairing light aircraft. The RV line is well engineered for the intended mission and price point. There?s no magic, they are light and clean with a good power to weight ratio. The lightness comes from using just enough metal and fiberglass to get the job done so I wouldn?t consider the RVs as durable as a similar certified aircraft. A good example of this is the landing gear. If it was built like a Cherokee it would perform like one. We just accept compromises to get the fabulous performance for the dollar that we all love so much.

Don Broussard A&P IA ATP
RV9 Rebuild in Progress
57 Pacer


BJohnson 09-05-2019 10:49 PM

Two biggest concerns with RV designs
 
I have two main concerns over the RV engineering.

First is the location of the fuel tanks which can easily impact a post or tree and rupture during an off field landing. Other designs put the tank behind the main wing spar providing better protection.

Second is the tendency of the fuselage to buckle behind the cabin but in front of the shoulder harness anchor point during a hard landing causing the occupant to be more likely to impact the glairshield.

I love flying my -9a. It is an amazing machine. Those are the only two design details that give me some pause when contemplating an off field landing.

scsmith 09-05-2019 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KatanaPilot (Post 1371430)
Hate to start an off-topic Boeing versus Airbus war, but as a former Boeing engineer and long time Boeing pilot, I'm going to push back a bit.

China Air 006, 747SP, pulled about 5 G's during a recovery from loss of control at 41,000 feet. Aircraft was damaged, some injuries occurred, but the airplane stayed (mostly) intact and landed safely. As you know, transport category design load factor is 2.5G's positive, with ultimate load limit of 3.8G's. I'm not aware of any early Airbus models that have "accomplished" anything similar.

Of course, the FBW Airbus models should never depart controlled flight and can't pull more than 2.5G's in normal law. So I suspect (but have no proof), that Airbus can design their FBW models with a little less margin. Whether they do or not - I really don't know.

Boeing's implementation of Fly By Wire incorporates soft and hard limits, giving pilots the ability to pull 2.6 G's (or more) if needed and aerodynamically available.

I was going to cite exactly this same case. I saw the airplane at the United depot at SFO after it survived that flight. A whole bunch of people lived because of Boeing's conservative design approach.

A second example to cite is the A-300 that shed its vertical tail in a high sideslip overshoot that was arguably pilot-induced, but the politics glossed over the fact that the incident occurred at a speed lower than V_a (maneuver speed) and the fin should have stalled before exceeding any structural limit at that speed. Designed to meet the narrow letter of the regs, but failed to meet the spirit and intent of the regs, and a whole bunch of people died.

KRviator 09-06-2019 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJohnson (Post 1371910)
I have two main concerns over the RV engineering.

First is the location of the fuel tanks which can easily impact a post or tree and rupture during an off field landing. Other designs put the tank behind the main wing spar providing better protection.

Second is the tendency of the fuselage to buckle behind the cabin but in front of the shoulder harness anchor point during a hard landing causing the occupant to be more likely to impact the glairshield.

I love flying my -9a. It is an amazing machine. Those are the only two design details that give me some pause when contemplating an off field landing.

The tendency to buckle the fuselage has been noted in several accidents in Australia...

RV-3 VH-BEM, RV-6 VH-TXF, RV-6 ZK-VBC and likely RV-6 VH-OAJ as well.

mbauer 09-06-2019 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRviator (Post 1371917)

First time I've seen this, quote from the linked accident:

"Examination of the failed propeller blade

A fatigue crack had initiated near the leading edge of the blade 216 mm from the blade tip. Crack growth had occurred as a result of alternating thrust loads, and had propagated along the thrust face (rear surface) of the blade. The characteristics of the crack indicated that it had grown under constant amplitude loading. There was no evidence of flight by flight striations. The propeller material was of the correct type and no damage or other reason for the crack to initiate was found.

The pilot fitted a new engine and propeller to the aircraft during construction. The engine was modified to improve and balance the airflow through the valves of each cylinder to enhance engine performance. In an apparent further attempt to improve engine performance, the pilot replaced one magneto with an electronic ignition system that was capable of varying the ignition timing in response to changes in engine RPM and manifold pressure. That variation contrasted with the fixed timing ignition provided by the other "standard" magneto fitted to the engine."


"All propellers are subject to alternating thrust loads during normal operation. Propellers are designed so that those loads will not exceed the design value, thus preventing the development of fatigue cracks during operation. The firing of each cylinder in a reciprocating engine produces torsional vibrations. That means that the crankshaft momentarily speeds up at each firing stroke, and then slows down again prior to the next firing stroke. The vibration leads to alternating thrust loads in the propeller.

Examination of the engine connecting rod big-end bearings revealed distress on the bearing surfaces. That distress was indicative of firing loads exceeding the designed capacity of the bearing lubrication. For optimum operation of spark ignition engines, the peak pressure developed by the combustion of the fuel air mixture should occur approximately 15 degrees after the crank has located past top centre.

Ignition timing was a critical factor, influencing engine power, fuel economy, and the operating condition of the engine. Timing depended on the rate of propagation of the flame front through the fuel-air mixture. Increased or advanced ignition timing resulted in increased combustion chamber pressures. Magneto timing was fixed and was optimised for the operating range of the engine. If the response of the electronic ignition system to reductions in manifold pressure created by part throttle opening was to advance the timing of ignition, that could increase cylinder head pressures and increase the magnitude of torsional vibration."


Did they just say that the prop and engine bearing damage was because he was using an electronic Mag with a standard one?

Will start looking closer at my Catto prop during pre-flights. Have an EMAG and a Slick.

Best regards,
Mike Bauer

airguy 09-06-2019 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbauer (Post 1371937)
Did they just say that the prop and engine bearing damage was because he was using an electronic Mag with a standard one?

No, that's not what they said. Look at the factual statements, versus the leading statements, and one critical factual statement that was left out. There was a fatigue crack on the prop blade, which CAN be caused by torsional vibrations, that's true. There was an electronic ignition fitted on the engine, that's true. The timing of an electronic ignition (some models anyway) can vary depending on the manifold pressure and rpm, that's true. Bearing distress was found on the engine indicative of exceeding the stresses of the bearing lubrication - that's a fact.

Now the leading statement that is NOT necessarily true - that advancing the ignition point causes increased chamber pressures - that statement is only partially true. If the advancement occurs at full manifold pressure, then yes it is true. Most EI's will not go to full advance at full manifold pressure - because doing so puts you into the detonation "red box" where you can damage the engine. If the manifold pressure is lower, such as at altitude in cruise, then you can advance more on the timing and you are still outside the detonation area, so you are fine. At lower manifold pressures, advanced timing does NOT produce a peak cylinder pressure greater than the standard full manifold pressure levels with standard timing - so the logical leap that advanced timing automatically means exceeding cylinder pressure limits is faulty. The finding is worded to point at torsional vibrations from the EI firing as a suspect cause.

Now the critical factual statement that is not mentioned - that bearing distress evidence indicating excessive cylinder head pressures is commonly caused by detonation, rather than torsional vibration. Torsional vibration can easily cause the propeller blade fractures, if it's bad enough for long enough - but it likely did not cause the bearing damage on the engine connecting rod - that was almost certainly caused by detonation.

Now the key part of this is taking the anectodal apart from the factual - we know the electronic ignition was installed, but we don't know what model/manufacturer it was, and we don't know what the timing map looked like versus the manifold/RPM on that unit. If the user had played with the factory maps and gotten the engine into a detonation area, that would explain bearing damage and MAY explain the torsional vibration producing the propeller blade crack. Without knowing what the installed ignition map looked like, and the operating conditions at the time, there is no reason to assume the EI is at fault (no matter what brand it was) - and it may very well be a case of the operator taking the EI outside its normal parameters in a hunt for more power, and finding the limits of doing so.

RVDan 09-06-2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJohnson (Post 1371910)
I have two main concerns over the RV engineering.

First is the location of the fuel tanks which can easily impact a post or tree and rupture during an off field landing. Other designs put the tank behind the main wing spar providing better protection.

The location of pretty much all newer Cessna and Pipers as an example, have the fuel tanks forward of the spar, typically for weight and balance reasons. Back in the 90?s Vans modified the forward tank attachment point to allow the fitting to pull away from the fuselage as the wings bent in a crash. This reduced the possibility of the root rib being torn out introducing a large leak. Aft of the spar is typically a weight and balance problem with moving CG during full burn. Bigger a airplanes can sometimes put the tank behind the spar because the CG range allows it.

rvbuilder2002 09-06-2019 08:42 AM

Propeller testing done in conjunction with Van's, by Hartzell has produced empirical data that shows that advanced ign. timing can have a detrimental effect on fatigue life of propellers in certain operating modes.
There is info on Hartzels web site.
Detonation could definitely have an impact as well (consider it to be an order of magnitude worse than just highly advanced ign timing).

The issue with this case is that there appears to be no evidence to indicate what amount of timing advance the engine may have been operated at. Only that there was evidence of engine damage that could have been caused by extreme combustion pressures, and the non standard ign system is the only thing to point a finger at as a possible cause (though they don't seem to do that directly).

Captain Avgas 09-06-2019 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJohnson (Post 1371910)
I have two main concerns over the RV engineering.

First is the location of the fuel tanks which can easily impact a post or tree and rupture during an off field landing. Other designs put the tank behind the main wing spar providing better protection.

Second is the tendency of the fuselage to buckle behind the cabin but in front of the shoulder harness anchor point during a hard landing causing the occupant to be more likely to impact the glairshield.

I love flying my -9a. It is an amazing machine. Those are the only two design details that give me some pause when contemplating an off field landing.

My biggest concern (by far) when contemplating an off field landing in my RV7A is the very high probability of the nose gear collapsing leading to the aircraft tipping over and me being trapped inside, possibly injured, and with fuel leaking. To be honest I think that the chances of not ending up inverted in an off field emergency landing are not good. As I?ve said before, I love flying my RV7A...but I?d much rather crash a Cessna. ;)

RV6_flyer 09-06-2019 08:00 PM

Over Engineered (definition)
 
RV's are NOT over engineered according to the Collins English Dictionary.

Copy / Paste:
over-engineered
unnecessarily complicated

End Copy / Paste

The FREE Dictionary by FARLEX has the same definition.

plehrke 09-06-2019 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Paule (Post 1371486)
"Over-engineering" is a rather vague term. To some it means over-strength and to others, it approaches the infamous "paralysis by analysis," excessive use of engineering time.

Are the RVs over-strength? Apparently not, from all I've read. They seem to be adequately designed for their mission, without a whole lot of margin. Remember, their mission includes being built by amateurs.

Has Van's wasted excessive engineering on them? Probably not, because they are still in business.

Dave

Concur.

“Over engineered” means doing too much engineering. Definitely not a description on a Vans aircraft as prices are so reasonable there probably was not an excess of analysis or testing. In my day job we do lots more engineering to maximize performance and reduce risk. It is a cost vs performance trade.

“Over designed” is the correct terminology for making it stronger than it needs to be. Also not a trait of a Vans aircraft as performance shows low weight was high on the trade priority. Over designing is a weight vs performance trade.

Over engineered and over designed are related. If you want to do more engineering you are able to minimize material to meet the strength requirements. If you do not want to do the detailed analysis and over engineer, you tend to add some material to make up for the lack of analysis. Usually called conservative design and not over designed in the aero biz.

Over engineered and over designed are sliding scales that need to be judged for each airplane not compared across different designs. More analysis maybe required for very similar aircraft missions just based on construction material and methods.

The only place to really compare is in a cost vs performance vs risk trade. That is what the market does and based on sales, Vans must not be over engineered or over designed.

Capt 09-07-2019 06:17 AM

Vans has good basic designs, simple, strong enough where they need to be and fairly efficient. I wouldn't say over engineered etc just adequate for the task at hand.
Remember AC revolved around one main criteria, weight which can be looked as ......more doesn't necessarily mean better:)

rongawer 09-07-2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfleming (Post 1371323)
I've heard people exclaim about Van's being overbuilt :eek:...but it's just not true IMHO.

My -7 is NOT over engineered, far from it. It's a great aircraft but the total performance comes from the light weight design. Some Beechcraft's may be considered over designed...they're built like a tank.

Now that's a very true statement. I had a midair collision with a helicopter years ago in my Debonair; it smacked my right wing and ripped it open, but I was still able to make it back to the airport and make a "good landing" (The FAA's term for we walked away, but the airplane wasn't reusable).

The NTSB investigator's comment was, "that would have ripped through a Piper's spar, but Beechcraft, they're built like a bank vault." The Debonair, hence Bonanza and Baron's, the spar is a box design, so pretty stout.

Having built a couple RV's, currently a -10, and having owned several Beech's that I personally maintained, the RV's are pretty stout, but not the same structure as a Beech - if we're comparing wings and spars. They have thicker skin too on a Beech; mostly 0.032.

Now, comparing to the Zenith 601XL, my first build, there is no comparison to the RV in structural strength, IMHO.

Overall, I'd say RV's are a very well designed and engineered aircraft. Not overly engineered - just right.

506DC 09-07-2019 03:25 PM

I think airplanes have to be broken down into flyability, reliability, durability and crashabilty.

No question in my mind the Vans aircraft are the best flying aircraft ever made for the general aviation public. They are faster, more fun to fly and less expensive than just about any aircraft produced today. They are truly a total performance airplane. I never worry about density altitude period. I hope to never sell my RV but one day?

Designed both using approved aircraft engines and construction procedures; they are simpler than most GA aircraft and very reliable. I do not hesitate to take a long cross country trip in my RV-4

Durability not so much. They are designed light for the above reasons. I have a Cessna 170 that has 7000 hours on the airframe and it still looks good. I give tail dragger instruction on a fairy rough grass strip and have dropped it in many times with no side effects. I would not give instruction in my RV-4 because it?s not durable enough. The gear is weak compared to a Cessna. I owned a Bonanza. I would run and jump on the wing flap. Try that in an RV. I never once worried about damaging any part of the Bonanza. It was built like a tank. RV-4, not so much, I have replaced cracked control surfaces after only a few hundred hours. I always land like a feather because firewall damage can and will result otherwise. Cracks on the firewall are ?normal. ?Compared to Cessna or a Beechcraft, I can?t imagine what it would look like if not handled gently after 7000 hours.

Crashabilty not so much. Thin metal bends easily. Not much steal or reinforcements surrounding a RV driver. As the above contributor stated, I much rather be in a Cessna than an RV in case of a crash. A friend of mine crashed landed his Cessna 210 in a field and slid through a fence. They hauled it out of the field and he was flying it a year later. Another friend of mine landed his Bonanza on a sandy beach. The gear sunk in the sand and he traveled less than 50 feet with no damage to the gear or airframe. Try that in an RV.

In summary, if you want a pickup truck get a Cessna, if you want a super fast fun to drive vehicle get a sports car, motorcycle or RV.

Capt 09-07-2019 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 506DC (Post 1372255)
I think airplanes have to be broken down into flyability, reliability, durability and crashabilty.

No question in my mind the Vans aircraft are the best flying aircraft ever made for the general aviation public. They are faster, more fun to fly and less expensive than just about any aircraft produced today. They are truly a total performance airplane. I never worry about density altitude period. I hope to never sell my RV but one day?

Designed both using approved aircraft engines and construction procedures; they are simpler than most GA aircraft and very reliable. I do not hesitate to take a long cross country trip in my RV-4

Durability not so much. They are designed light for the above reasons. I have a Cessna 170 that has 7000 hours on the airframe and it still looks good. I give tail dragger instruction on a fairy rough grass strip and have dropped it in many times with no side effects. I would not give instruction in my RV-4 because it’s not durable enough. The gear is weak compared to a Cessna. I owned a Bonanza. I would run and jump on the wing flap. Try that in an RV. I never once worried about damaging any part of the Bonanza. It was built like a tank. RV-4, not so much, I have replaced cracked control surfaces after only a few hundred hours. I always land like a feather because firewall damage can and will result otherwise. Cracks on the firewall are “normal. ”Compared to Cessna or a Beechcraft, I can’t imagine what it would look like if not handled gently after 7000 hours.

Crashabilty not so much. Thin metal bends easily. Not much steal or reinforcements surrounding a RV driver. As the above contributor stated, I much rather be in a Cessna than an RV in case of a crash. A friend of mine crashed landed his Cessna 210 in a field and slid through a fence. They hauled it out of the field and he was flying it a year later. Another friend of mine landed his Bonanza on a sandy beach. The gear sunk in the sand and he traveled less than 50 feet with no damage to the gear or airframe. Try that in an RV.

In summary, if you want a pickup truck get a Cessna, if you want a super fast fun to drive vehicle get a sports car, motorcycle or RV.


I like that, sums it all up nicely:-):)

jrs14855 09-07-2019 05:02 PM

RV Bonanza etc
 
The round spring gear as designed by Steve Wittman is one of the strongest landing gears ever installed on a light airplane. The problem on the RV's is the fuselage area where the gear mounts. Having said that Rosie is approaching 5000 hours on the RV6 with no apparent problems.

jrs14855 09-07-2019 05:28 PM

Bonanza etc
 
If I were try to correct all the nonsense that has been posted here about Bonanza, Cessna etc, it would take a week. The Bonanza, Commanche, Lance and non strut braced 210's all have box spar wing center sections. The rest of the spars are channel sections or I section, NOT BOX SPARS.
The Bonanza main gear is very strong, the nose gear relatively fragile. Most single Cessna nose gears are fragile with the 182 having the worst record because of the weight on the nose. Piper is probably the best. If you do break a Piper nose gear it is by far the easiest repair of the three.
Of the first 1000 Bonanzas 100 crashed due to structural failures. Typically loss of control in IMC. Commanche is the safest in that regard.
The basic design of the Bonanza wing evolved to the outer wing panels of the Twin Bonanza, Queen Air and King Air. The basic Commanche wing evolved to the outer wing panels of the entire Cheyenne series.
I don't trust the structure of the Cessna 210. I don't like the wing attach design on the Beechcraft's except for the later model King Airs which are different.
To say that any of the above are built like a tank is absurd. Each has its own unique design features. Each has its own unique weaknesses.

Waiex-guy 09-07-2019 05:40 PM

Most, I?m probably not qualified to say all, tanks, they don?t seem to fly so good.

Captain Avgas 09-07-2019 08:19 PM

In life we all tend to be much more influenced by what we see and experience rather than by what we read or are told. Let me tell you about my experience. Many years ago I was driving directly past Moorabbin Airport in Australia and I observed two aircraft crash on short final. It was a typical case of a low wing aircraft (a Piper Warrior) descending on top of a high wing aircraft (a Cessna 172). It was a violent impact at about 100 feet agl and the Piper immediately plummeted to the ground instantly killing the sole occupant. The Cessna however continued to fly (sort of) and pancaked onto the runway shearing off all of the landing gear. It then skidded on its belly on the asphalt for about a hundred metres before it came to a stop. The amazing thing was that the Cessna fuel tanks ruptured on first impact with the runway and the fuel caught fire. And the fuel continued to spew from the plane as it skidded along the runway. This created a wall of fire about 10 feet high that followed the skidding Cessna. But that wall of fire took about about 5 seconds to catch up to the aircraft after it came to a stop. And in those 5 seconds the pilot and his passenger were able to open their respective doors and bolt from the plane. And miraculously neither was burnt or badly injured. And then I saw the wall of flames catch up with the empty Cessna and it literally exploded in a ball of fire that went about 50 feet into the air. After it finished burning it was absolutely amazing how little of the plane remained....it was just a burnt engine and the rest of the fuselage and wings were just a completely melted mess of metal a couple of inches high. The whole plane just melted to the ground and was unrecognisable.
I saw this episode in its entirety with my own eyes and I was the sole witness of the entire event and ultimately gave a report to the Coroner?s Inquest. In my opinion the 2 occupants of that Cessna survived that crash because the aircraft exhibited amazing robustness, because the aircraft protected the occupants from impact injuries, because the aircraft did not flip inverted, and because the occupants were able to exit the aircraft through dual doors within seconds of the plane skidding to a halt.
So I always say that I love flying my RV7A....but I?d much rather crash a Cessna. And that is why I say it.

Dbro172 09-07-2019 08:41 PM

I dont dare throw my Super Viking into the debate:D. With it?s chrome moly steel tube frame and wings made from Sitka Spruce and Mahogany, I feel very safe in that airplane. The plane handles like an RV but is solid as an OX, smooth and quiet. I love that plane and a lot less delicate than an RV. Cruises fast, carry?s a load, only at the cost of fuel. Most notably much more solid landing and taxi feel than an RV.

jpowell13 09-07-2019 10:47 PM

Vikings
 
My cousin's husband landed in trees in a Viking near Clearwater, FL. They were forced to land due to an in-flight fire. He had some burns on his hand but he and the pilot got out with no other injuries. They credited that steel cage as having protected them.

I was having lunch with my cousin when she got word of the accident. Her husband called from the burning plane to say he loved her and that they were about to "crash land". All turned out well thanks to a well engineered airframe. John

gmcjetpilot 09-08-2019 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer (Post 1371523)
Wait, what? From Van's:

TYPO corrected. Thanks

Quote:

The Vans aircraft (edit) ARE certified and designed for aerobatic category load factors. Cessna's are certified and designed to normal and utility category load factors (which are lower than aerobatic).
http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...1&postcount=24

Hartstoc 09-09-2019 09:43 AM

I?m seeing some confusion here between ?overengineering? and ?overbuilding?.
I generally associate overbuilding with under-engineering(or sloppy engineering). Van?s aircraft are all very elegantly engineered, taking into account ease of construction, practicality, amateur builder tolerance, and many other factors. They are neither overbuilt nor underbuilt.

This elegance of engineering should be respected and adhered to by builders. All of the essential structures are so well engineered that you are not likely to improve upon them with backyard modifications. Most particularly, resist the temptation to increase gross weight with a fountain pen, a truly egregious insult to Van?s brilliant work, and take CG and operating limitations very seriously. -Otis

sblack 09-09-2019 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 1371677)


On the other hand, the -7 was designed with a computer, and as such could be optimized at every point on the aiframe to meet the mission, with safety factors, and no more. .


I doubt Van considered any more load cases than the basic ones on the 7. It's not because you use CAD that all of a sudden you can easily analyse every part of the structure for every load case. You would need a squad of people working for years. I suspect that CAD was used to aid in the manufacturing. He might have used it as the basis for some FEM (finite element analysis) or he might have just done all the same hand calcs that he did on the other airplanes. You would have to ask him. But don't assume that because there was a computer involved that they could do magic.

Also, on the Boeing vs Airbus front, there was a NOVA special on the 777 development. They should the static test to failure of the wing. There was a big clock showing the %limit load. They were shooting for 150% plus the tiniest little bit more. It failed at 152% of limit load, so they passed. If they failed at 160%, or more, like the people who think that Boeings are stronger claim, then the airplane would be too heavy and it wouldn't be competitive. Every lb you add is a lb less of fuel or payload. So no, they are designed to the same strength spec as airbus. The one that pulled 5g on recovery was no doubt lighter than Max TO weight or it would have failed. In fact it did deform the structure and it was scrap. The design specs are very conservative. You design to them and no more or you haven't done your job right.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16 AM.