VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-7/7A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-16-2015, 12:52 PM
jrs14855 jrs14855 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
Default Weight

Just a brief cursory search turns up information the ferry pilots routinely get approval for as much as 30% over gross for long distance ferry flights.
The original gross weight of the Commanche 250 was 2700#, Max Conrad flew the airplane at nearly twice that weight, and yes, Piper did some calculations that showed the airplane would not break at that weight.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-16-2015, 01:18 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs14855 View Post
The new ops specs only address aerobatic maneuvers. My airplane is non aerobatic. So the only maneuvers I tested were power on/power off stalls. flaps up and down.
I agree with your normal range of speed statement, I tested the airplane to slightly over Vne, which most people on this forum appear to be adamantly opposed to.
Not sure where you are getting your information, but paragraph (38) contained in the "NEW" op specs in FAA Order 8130-2H are issued in all experimental amateur-built operating limitations, aerobatic or not.
This paragraph includes the statement; "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operations."
How can you possibly make that statement without completely testing the entire envelope?

Paragraph (39) addresses flight testing for aerobatic aircraft and is NOT included in the op lims for non-aerobatic aircraft.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-16-2015, 01:29 PM
jrs14855 jrs14855 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
Default Testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
Not sure where you are getting your information, but paragraph (38) contained in the "NEW" op specs in FAA Order 8130-2H are issued in all experimental amateur-built operating limitations, aerobatic or not.
This paragraph includes the statement; "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operations."
How can you possibly make that statement without completely testing the entire envelope?

Paragraph (39) addresses flight testing for aerobatic aircraft and is NOT included in the op lims for non-aerobatic aircraft.
I tested from stall to over Vne. Based on 60 years plus flight experience including 50 plus in EAB aircraft, it is my belief that in the case of a non aerobatic aircraft that constitutes the normal range of speeds and then some. The ops specs do not ask for a listing of specific maneuvers for non aerobatic aircraft, other than determining Vso, Vx and Vy.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-16-2015, 01:37 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs14855 View Post
The new ops specs only address aerobatic maneuvers. My airplane is non aerobatic. So the only maneuvers I tested were power on/power off stalls. flaps up and down.
I agree with your normal range of speed statement, I tested the airplane to slightly over Vne, which most people on this forum appear to be adamantly opposed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs14855 View Post
I tested from stall to over Vne. Based on 60 years plus flight experience including 50 plus in EAB aircraft, it is my belief that in the case of a non aerobatic aircraft that constitutes the normal range of speeds and then some. The ops specs do not ask for a listing of specific maneuvers for non aerobatic aircraft, other than determining Vso, Vx and Vy.
So your opinion is, If you are not required to list it, you are not required to test it?

I'm afraid the FAA's interpretation disagrees. I understand that I'm a bit of a newcomer having been flying for only 48 years, but I have certificated over 700 experimental and light-sport aircraft and I deal with the FAA on a daily basis.

You may do what you like, but please don't tell others that they don't have to fully test their aircraft.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-16-2015, 01:44 PM
N941WR's Avatar
N941WR N941WR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wirejock View Post
Something else to consider in the decision.
Aerobatic gross is 1,600 lbs.
You may want to do the math specific to your situation.
Yes, but fuel carried in the wings isn't included in that GW number.

(I just HAD to toss some more fuel on the fire. Could someone pass the popcorn?)

One other thing, the -7 and -9 do share the same fuselage, with minor differences for the spar.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-16-2015, 05:58 PM
jrs14855 jrs14855 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
Default Testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
So your opinion is, If you are not required to list it, you are not required to test it?

I'm afraid the FAA's interpretation disagrees. I understand that I'm a bit of a newcomer having been flying for only 48 years, but I have certificated over 700 experimental and light-sport aircraft and I deal with the FAA on a daily basis.

You may do what you like, but please don't tell others that they don't have to fully test their aircraft.
Which of the thousand plus FAA's are you talking about. Do you mean the FSDO Inspector who says that if I change from a Sterba 70 diameter 75 pitch to a Sterba 70 diameter 74 pitch that I have to put the airplane back in Phase I for five hours.
Or do you mean Inspector #2 who says that a change from any fixed pitch prop to any other fixed pitch is a minor change and requires only a log book entry.
I performed all the REQUIRED testing on my airplane. You have no personal knowledge of whether I did or did not do this.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-16-2015, 06:10 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs14855 View Post
Which of the thousand plus FAA's are you talking about. Do you mean the FSDO Inspector who says that if I change from a Sterba 70 diameter 75 pitch to a Sterba 70 diameter 74 pitch that I have to put the airplane back in Phase I for five hours.
Or do you mean Inspector #2 who says that a change from any fixed pitch prop to any other fixed pitch is a minor change and requires only a log book entry.
I performed all the REQUIRED testing on my airplane. You have no personal knowledge of whether I did or did not do this.
No, I'm talking about the DAR instructors in Oklahoma City and the people in Washington DC that interpret the rules.

I'm not concerned with what testing you did on your aircraft. I AM concerned with you telling others on this forum that complete testing is not required.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-16-2015, 07:55 PM
rwtalbot rwtalbot is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 251
Default

I debated if I should post at all on this thread and I got most of the responses I expected. I provided some information to the original poster who wanted to understand RV-7A W&B. In my experience it is practically impossible to push a typical 7A with Hartzell propeller out the aft limit, even with zero fuel.

As pilots we must always be aware of the current CG location. The 7A becomes very sensitive in pitch low and slow near the runway even within Van’s specified aft limit. A number of people have been caught out.

While I understand some people feel very passionately that Van’s MTOW cannot to be altered. I have taken a practical approach to flight testing. In the western world none of us are getting smaller. I have seen lots of RV’s with two big guys getting in or out. I simply applied some science to it and tested it in Phase I. I rarely fly in that configuration, but I know what to expect if I do. To me that seems like the responsible thing to do.

Remember, our aircraft fly because they do, not because a mountain of paperwork says they will.
__________________
Richard Talbot
RV-7A
Sydney, Australia
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-17-2015, 07:36 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR View Post
Yes, but fuel carried in the wings isn't included in that GW number.

(I just HAD to toss some more fuel on the fire. Could someone pass the popcorn?)
You didn't include a link to the recent discussion on this topic, and it's not clear whether you're saying this tongue-in-cheek or not. So for the benefit of people not current on the discussion, who may take your comment as gospel, i'll just add that the latest word from the factory is that fuel carried in the wings *is* included in the aerobatic GW number.

See posts #33 and #34 in this thread: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...=127861&page=4
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)

Last edited by Snowflake : 08-17-2015 at 07:40 AM. Reason: Added reference link.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-17-2015, 01:39 PM
jrs14855 jrs14855 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
Default Testing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
No, I'm talking about the DAR instructors in Oklahoma City and the people in Washington DC that interpret the rules.

I'm not concerned with what testing you did on your aircraft. I AM concerned with you telling others on this forum that complete testing is not required.
Obviously you are stating that I did not test my airplane in accordance with paragraph 38. That is completely untrue.
How many builder/test pilots do you believe tested their aircraft to Vne or above??
Lets use as an example a hypothetical RV7A with Hartzell prop. Most agree that this configuration would be at least slightly nose heavy. I don't know what the baggage limit is for this aircraft, lets use an arbitrary number of 100#. A weight and balance shows that we need 130# in the baggage compartment to reach the aft limit. Are you suggesting that the builder/test pilot exceed the baggage limits in order to test the aircraft at the aft cg limit?? The aft cg limit is something that Vans established long ago and does not need to be tested on each individual airplane. In this case, taken to the extreme, testing could be far more dangerous than not testing. I am not talking about a few pounds. If it took a 30%plus overload of the baggage compartment to reach the aft cg limit, that is potentially dangerous territory.

The OPINION of an instructor at the DAR training is just that, one or more person's opinion(s). That is not regulatory. The Advisory Circular for EAB flight testing is likewise not regulatory.
You have repeatedly accused me of not properly testing my aircraft. You have done this without ANY factual information about how I tested my aircraft. I am not looking for an apology, nor do I want one. I simply want these false accusations to stop.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.