VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 03-03-2016, 01:54 PM
Jamie's Avatar
Jamie Jamie is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,295
Default RV-14 drop test video

I just saw this show up on Van's Facebook page. Lots of interesting detail here from the factory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbFMogBNUa0
__________________
"What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don't believe in taking foolish chances but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all." - Charles A. Lindbergh
Jamie | RV-7A First Flight: 7/27/2007 (Sold)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-03-2016, 02:37 PM
N42AH's Avatar
N42AH N42AH is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: RV-10 based at 9SC - Whiteplains Airpark
Posts: 406
Default Certification Possibility

So I raise this question...

Does this mean they might have the desire to make the 14 a store bought certified aircraft as well as a kit?
__________________
Steve Crimm
Gilbert, SC
Based - SC99
RV-10 N42AH
RV-9A N42AH - SOLD
Europa Monowheel XS N42EU - SOLD
BH-206B3 N42AH- SOLD
BH-206B3 N43AH - SOLD
Track N42AH/N1FLY
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2016, 03:46 PM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by N42AH View Post
So I raise this question...

Does this mean they might have the desire to make the 14 a store bought certified aircraft as well as a kit?
Or, by meeting Part 23 standards, Van's may have just wanted to avoid the RV-12 gear issues that came about from following the deficient SLSA consensus standards, and have a more rugged nose gear than the the other 2 seat "A" models have.

BTW, Great video and explanation of gear design by Van's.
There's been an effort for several years now to make Part 23 an ASTM standard. Van's had a rep on the committee at one point; not sure if they still are (I'm not anymore).

The idea of moving to an industry consensus standard was that it would make certification easier and faster, address inconsistencies and outdated practices, move to "desired result" rather than "prescribed method" rules, and make the rules more able to adapt to new technology. Unfortunately, it seems that all the government and industry committee members were actually willing to do was port over existing Part 23 language, change the terminology a bit, and require verbal stall warnings (a speaker saying "STALL STALL!") or "stall-resistant" airplanes.

I also questioned how much good it was going to do to make Part 23 easier and simpler if we didn't make Part 21 the same way, and allow production like we do for S-LSAs. "Showing compliance" the FAA way is still a massive paperwork exercise, and maintaining a production process like the FAA wants is what brings meaning to the joke about the weight of paperwork exceeding the weight of the airplane.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2016, 04:06 PM
TThurston TThurston is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Orem, UT
Posts: 213
Default Very informative, but...

It makes me wonder to what extent the other Van's models have been tested, and how well they tolerate or would tolerate this testing.
__________________
Finishing -12 tail cone
-9A Empennage done, in storage
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2016, 05:17 PM
InlineTwin InlineTwin is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oak Ridge NC
Posts: 24
Default

They kinda skipped over 23.481(b) which requires consideration for spin up and spring back loads. (so does 23.479(b) or (c) depending on the path chosen) Usually the spring back load is the critical load case. And it did not look like they were compliant with 2.25 times the drop height in accordance with 23.726(a)(1) (between 20.7 and 42.075 inches drop height!) for demonstration of compliance to 23.481 dynamically. But maybe that was at least 20 inches high, or develops 1.5 times the limit load at a lower height, IDK. It is difficult to get from the video that was a complete part 23 demonstration but good for them on trying. I'm still going to fly the heck out of my RV-10.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2016, 05:25 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,565
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by TThurston View Post
It makes me wonder to what extent the other Van's models have been tested, and how well they tolerate or would tolerate this testing.
Watching some of the arrivals at Oshkosh, I'd say most of the models have been tested pretty well...
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2016, 07:05 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InlineTwin View Post
It is difficult to get from the video that was a complete part 23 demonstration but good for them on trying.
I don't think the video ever said that it contained examples of all tests
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-03-2016, 07:12 PM
diamond diamond is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 710
Default

This test obviously places the focus on gear performance, but are drop tests also done with wings on?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-03-2016, 07:19 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
This test obviously places the focus on gear performance, but are drop tests also done with wings on?
There would be nothing beneficial in doing so.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2016, 09:56 PM
terrye terrye is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 860
Default RV-14 Drop Test Video Airfoil at 1:54

Hmmmm.
Interesting video but...at 1:54 it states the airfoil for the RV-14 is a NACA 23012. Now I know all the models up to the RV-9(A) were based on this series, in fact a bit thicker at 23013.5 (or 13.5% maximum thickness). The RV-9(A) airfoil is a custom John Roncz airfoil, and the RV-10 is another custom airfoil designed by one of the members of this forum (whose initials are SS). And I further understood that the RV-14(A) airfoil was the same as the RV-10, in fact the wing is the same only a few bays shorter.

Did I miss something, or did Vans return to the 23000 series after the RV-10?
__________________
Terry Edwards
RV-9A (Fuselage)
2020/2021 VAF Contribution Sent
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 01:57 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.