VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 08-30-2016, 06:08 PM
Jesse's Avatar
Jesse Jesse is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: X35 - Ocala, FL
Posts: 3,679
Default

Some of the door departures were because the rear pin was not engaged. Some had both pins engaged, and fully so. The center cam is a nice feature, but it does not solve the RV-10 door problem.
__________________
Jesse Saint
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-30-2016, 06:22 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
Some of the door departures were because the rear pin was not engaged. Some had both pins engaged, and fully so. The center cam is a nice feature, but it does not solve the RV-10 door problem.
Jesse,

Not trying to parse your words, but are you saying that even with the center cam engaged, the doors are still at risk of departing the aircraft?
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-30-2016, 06:38 PM
Jesse's Avatar
Jesse Jesse is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: X35 - Ocala, FL
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
Jesse,

Not trying to parse your words, but are you saying that even with the center cam engaged, the doors are still at risk of departing the aircraft?
That's what I am saying. I have experienced and seen and know of quite a number of cases where both door pins were fully engaged and the doors came open. The cam helps get he pin engaged, but it releases with the release of the handle as well. In the cases above, the handle rotated, releasing the pins, releasing the door.

Don't get me wrong, and I think I made this point earlier, I am not saying e cam doesn't serve a purpose, but with properly fit doors that are properly closed, they are not needed. On poorly fit doors or doors not closed properly, he cam does definitely help.
__________________
Jesse Saint
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-30-2016, 09:35 PM
Strasnuts Strasnuts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 554
Default Both pins in

I bet the doors you speak of with both pins in had limited travel. I try to get over 1-1/4" of pin extension after the first 30 degrees of cam rotation. I honestly don't believe a properly built door with the 180 cam could come off. I guess you could push the button and rotate the handle to open the door in flight.

The cam's job is to line the pins up with the guides in the fuselage. There is no way to miss them with the cam working. Once the pins are in and they are over an inch there is no way the door will come off. I have heard of one delaminating in flight and there is nothing you can do to keep that from coming off!!

This is also a good time to tell new builders to NOT cut the gear racks per Vans' instructions IF they want more travel. There really is no reason to have 90-110 degrees of travel when you can have 180 by not cutting down the racks. (unless you have a flush handle with mechanical interference. BTW The Aerosport handles work with the 180) The racks come in 10 inch lengths. If you cut them in half (5 inches) you will have 180 degrees of travel. I have had numerous builders buy the 180 retro kit with the racks and half to pay more because they cut their racks too short per Vans' instructions.
__________________
A&P RV-10 Flying 1000+ hours
SuperSTOL Flying 170 hours
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-30-2016, 11:31 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
Some of the door departures were because the rear pin was not engaged. Some had both pins engaged, and fully so. The center cam is a nice feature, but it does not solve the RV-10 door problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
That's what I am saying. I have experienced and seen and know of quite a number of cases where both door pins were fully engaged and the doors came open. The cam helps get he pin engaged, but it releases with the release of the handle as well. In the cases above, the handle rotated, releasing the pins, releasing the door.

Don't get me wrong, and I think I made this point earlier, I am not saying e cam doesn't serve a purpose, but with properly fit doors that are properly closed, they are not needed. On poorly fit doors or doors not closed properly, he cam does definitely help.
Sorry Jesse, but I take exception to these statements.
I realize that it is somewhat personal in nature because at least one occurrence was with an airplane you were involved with to some degree?

It is highly doubtful that an RV-10 door could ever come open if both pins were engaged to the degree designed, and they did not move in flight because of some anomaly.

You say you know that quite a few have opened during flight with both pins fully engaged? It would be very unusual for that to be true and have that information not make its way back to Van's.

Doors that open in flight because the handle was move from the latched position should not be a surprise. Any more than an engine stopping because someone accidentally bumped toggle switches being used to control the ignition.

If there really has been quite a few, then I say there was quite a few airplanes that the latch system wasn't built or maintained properly.

If the doors and related systems are proper installed, and the doors are properly closed before takeoff, the doors will not come open. Period

I actually think the cam system is quite clever, and wish I had thought of it.
I also think it is quite expensive, so it is builder choice (part of being experimental) whether they want to invest in it or not.
I do not consider it an essential upgrade.
If pilots use the same level of care
with the doors, as they should with all other critical preflight items (including having a warning system installed and using it as part of their pre-takeoff check, the doors are safe as is.
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 08-31-2016, 06:26 AM
rleffler's Avatar
rleffler rleffler is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Delaware, OH (KDLZ)
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
I actually think the cam system is quite clever, and wish I had thought of it.
I also think it is quite expensive, so it is builder choice (part of being experimental) whether they want to invest in it or not.
I do not consider it an essential upgrade.
If pilots use the same level of care
with the doors, as they should with all other critical preflight items (including having a warning system installed and using it as part of their pre-takeoff check, the doors are safe as is.
Scott, this is where myself and many other RV-10 builders have a different opinion. The nice things about opinions is that there is no right or wrong opinion.

Too expensive is always a relative term. It's not too expensive if it allows me more confidence that the doors are aligned properly and pins engaged as designed. I also agree that I prefer Sean's approach to have the pins engaged deeper into the cabin than the Van's plans.

Another opinion shared by many that the Van's latch design is way to frugal and poorly designed. Yes it's functional. But who wants a hole in the exterior of the door to collect water and other debris, plus it adds some minute level of drag.

Like I said, these are just opinions and may very well be viewed differently with people having different perspectives on the situation.
__________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - RV10 Flying
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:11 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,189
Default Agree...

Yes, too expensive is really a relative term when you are building a -10.

I have played with the doors on my -10 (with the center cam) and there is NO possible way that it can open once latched, and with the center cam, there is NO way the door will flex enough to leave a pin outside the door channel.

Now rotating the handle will obviously unlatch the door but you would consciously have to do it...not something that you could "bump' and have come open.

I agree that the plane around latch should be required on every -10...Great design!
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
EFII System 32 - Done
297 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...

Dues+ Paid 2019,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-31-2016, 08:17 AM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleffler View Post
Scott, this is where myself and many other RV-10 builders have a different opinion. The nice things about opinions is that there is no right or wrong opinion.

Too expensive is always a relative term. It's not too expensive if it allows me more confidence that the doors are aligned properly and pins engaged as designed. I also agree that I prefer Sean's approach to have the pins engaged deeper into the cabin than the Van's plans.

Another opinion shared by many that the Van's latch design is way to frugal and poorly designed. Yes it's functional. But who wants a hole in the exterior of the door to collect water and other debris, plus it adds some minute level of drag.

Like I said, these are just opinions and may very well be viewed differently with people having different perspectives on the situation.
I should have clarified a little more and I need to revise my statement. I somehow had the idea that the kit was ~ $650. I found after making the post that it is $400 which is a lot better but still a bit pricey IMO considering what you get (but that might be what it costs to make it worthwhile for the seller... nothing wrong with that).

The standard design expects the pins to be deeply engage through the fiberglass and aluminum structure. The Delrin blocks are just there to act as a low friction guide to lead the pins into the holes in the structure.

I also understand the idea of piece of mind. That is why I said "builders choice" if they think the cost is worth it to them. I never said that I think people are wasting their building dollars buying the kit.

But having said that I will re-emphasize what I already said.....
If people use the level of care they should be while building and then operating the airplane, there wouldn't be any incidents of lost doors for us to talk about. But like you said.... just my opinion.
__________________
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
  #19  
Old 08-31-2016, 02:16 PM
Jackm Jackm is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Prosser,WA
Posts: 272
Default Agreed

Sean product is first class....would not build without. We look at it as cost of loosing door in-flight is potentially a much higher cost ( kinda like cost of failed governor)
The Vans warning indicator system is critical and should be test on occasion to make it is operating correctly...one thing I have thought could happen is one of the pins become disconnect inside the door linkage( pin loss or broken link) and have only one pin inserted... therefore the warning system will alert.
__________________
Jack Maljaars
Rv10
N819DJ flying. 350hrs +
Dues 2015 pd
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-31-2016, 02:26 PM
TimO TimO is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 612
Default I agree with everyone...

I'd have to say I agree with most people and their perspectives on this. As Scott says, if you properly latch the doors there is almost no way for them to come off. I actually bought the planearound latch, but haven't yet installed it on my RV-10...my only excuse is procrastination and being busy building the RV-14 the past few years.

But, I also agree with Bob and Sean and all the others. I have said for a long time even when giving demo flights, that the very worst thing about the RV-10 design from a safety standpoint is the doors. The design is such that if you are the least bit sloppy in your preflight, and your doors have good tight seals, you're highly likely to have the rear pin not seat. At best, you will chip your paint off your door (I did) around the back pins. (I later protected it with a bent sheet of AL so that it doesn't gouge the paint anymore) At worst, you will lose your door.

I also thought I was immune to the issue, and that I'd never forget such a thing...properly latching the doors. There have been numerous reports of departing doors that I've heard of over the years. I'm guessing well into the teens or more. So early on I decided that this wasn't going to be something that happened to me. I vowed to only let me, or my family members, latch the doors...people who had it drilled into them on the issue and consequences. Then one day as I was departing Appleton for Oshkosh during the show, I was in the normal oshkosh hurry to get back to the show and after I was off the ground, found my daughter didn't have the aft pin seated on her door. I had her pull hard on the handle and hold the door in place while we contacted the tower and returned to the field to latch it. All ended up well. But, that was luck. There is a lot of suction pulling the door away from the plane when in flight. Having that extra cam in the middle is good not only for alignment, but for one more latching point to counteract this suction on a somewhat flexible door.

So I've said for years now, I think that latch should be made standard equipment on every RV-10. Don't build one without it. I wouldn't care if it was $750, if you build the plane without one these days, you're just being a nut and probably deserve the consequence...the information is out there.

I feel similarly about the safety trim system from TCW. Once you've felt how fast the trim operates, if left to high speed, when in cruise in an RV-10, you will realize how fast you can be up a creek if you have trim runaway. 1 second of trim is all it takes to get started on a very bad situation....2 seconds or more and you're probably already in trouble. Safety trim makes the entire stick wiring job MUCH much easier, and it solves multiple problems with one piece of hardware for under $400. These 2 items are things I think should be incorporated into every RV10 (and safety trim on the RV-14 also!!) that is out there. Yes, the ultimate in thorough preflight checks can cut the risk very far, but pilots are humans, and these things deserve the attention to take out some of the human factors. When all is said and done, you're out a few hundred bucks and have an airplane that operates better. If you're going to be a scrooge and go for ultimate in low cost, there are plenty of other places you can save money.
__________________
Tim Olson - CFI
RV-10 N104CD - Flying 2/2006 - 1400+ hours http://www.MyRV10.com
RV-14 N14YT - Flying 6/2016 - 350+ hours http://www.MyRV14.com
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 02:18 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.