VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #51  
Old 05-20-2020, 12:02 PM
titanhank's Avatar
titanhank titanhank is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Friendswood, Tx
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeCee 57 View Post
here’s an official 50lbs increase, thanks Vans

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...=1#post1431892
Well what do you know, vans finally caught up with the reality of how the -6 is being flown. I still fly mine at 1750lbs gross and stand by my assumptions made in previous comments. I am really surprised they revisited this issue.
__________________
Rv-6
0-320/180+hp
10-1 pistons
Lycon port/polish
Dual pmags
EI Commander
Whirlwind 200rv prop
IFR Glass panel
Trutrak Vizion 385 Autopilot
Flightline Interior
Almost rv14 seat mod/cable locking
Electric seat back adjuster
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-20-2020, 01:04 PM
DeeCee 57's Avatar
DeeCee 57 DeeCee 57 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: LSZF
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
vans finally caught up with the reality of how the -6 is being flown
Guess it should say “how the -6 was designed”.
As for revisiting the issue, it demonstrates what a great company Vans is (given some tidbits)

I’d now just wish they would reverse engineer the -6 (alright, the A could be included as well ) with the latest technical means available, and maybe raise some of the restrictive limitations such as Vne and MTOM...

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, thanks Vans!
__________________
Life's short... Enjoy

DC aka Dan

http://www.aerofun.ch

RV-6.9 #25685, slider, O-360-A3A (carb/dual Lightspeed II), MTV-12-B, HB-YLL owner & lover
RV-4 #2062 HB-YVZ airframe builder
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-20-2020, 03:27 PM
plehrke's Avatar
plehrke plehrke is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeCee 57 View Post
I?d now just wish they would reverse engineer the -6 (alright, the A could be included as well ) with the latest technical means available, and maybe raise some of the restrictive limitations such as Vne and MTOM
This is the experimental world so you are free to do this on your own but I would recommend some engineering and/or testing.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 14+ years, 950+ hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-20-2020, 03:42 PM
DeeCee 57's Avatar
DeeCee 57 DeeCee 57 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: LSZF
Posts: 421
Default

Understood and agreed Philip. Unfortunately my NAA (National Aviation Authority) , called the FOCA (Federal Office for Civil Aviation), wants some serious data before committing to any change. Obtaining said data is possible, but alas, outside my financial reach.
I’ll be happy if able to bump the MTOM by 50lbs for now, thanks
__________________
Life's short... Enjoy

DC aka Dan

http://www.aerofun.ch

RV-6.9 #25685, slider, O-360-A3A (carb/dual Lightspeed II), MTV-12-B, HB-YLL owner & lover
RV-4 #2062 HB-YVZ airframe builder

Last edited by DeeCee 57 : 05-20-2020 at 03:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-05-2020, 07:09 PM
UrbanM UrbanM is offline
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 20
Default Where is gross listed?

Quick question especially for Scott at Van's but anyone else please chime in. My 6A has a 1800 gross listed in the POH and the Data plate but it was signed off after phase 1 testing at much less. I think the original builder took the aerobatic gross at 6G and worked backwards to a normal category gross weight of 1800. He's a light guy and never flew the plane this heavy and neither do I so I am not trying to discuss the merits of exceeding factory limits.
My question is what is the legal limit? Is it the POH or what is in the phase one sign off? I have spoken with some very educated people and a DAR and they agree the plane should be tested at the gross weight one plans to use (And I agree). The problem is that I haven't found a reference for this and neither has anyone I have asked. If anyone has the reference please post it for us.
Thanks
Kirk

Last edited by UrbanM : 06-05-2020 at 07:34 PM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-05-2020, 09:06 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanM View Post
Quick question especially for Scott at Van's but anyone else please chime in. My 6A has a 1800 gross listed in the POH and the Data plate but it was signed off after phase 1 testing at much less. I think the original builder took the aerobatic gross at 6G and worked backwards to a normal category gross weight of 1800. He's a light guy and never flew the plane this heavy and neither do I so I am not trying to discuss the merits of exceeding factory limits.
My question is what is the legal limit? Is it the POH or what is in the phase one sign off? I have spoken with some very educated people and a DAR and they agree the plane should be tested at the gross weight one plans to use (And I agree). The problem is that I haven't found a reference for this and neither has anyone I have asked. If anyone has the reference please post it for us.
Thanks
Kirk
One of the items required at initial application for certification is a W & B for the aircraft. This will generally include details on CG range and max. weight.
This document ends up as part of the document file that gets sent to and archived in Oklahoma City.
The assumption (I can't point you to any specific part of the FAA Order that spells it out) is that the Phase 1 testing will be done based on this submitted data and that the phase one completion sign off will be stating testing was done to verify that data in the context of the aircraft being safe and having no unusual characteristics. It is this weight recorded in the log book that is the official (legal if you want to call it that) gross weight. A primary reason for this is that gross weight is not a required data point for the data plate. A POH is not required either. The only thing regarding gross weight that in writing is specifically required is the log book entry (requirement is specified in the Phase 1 Operating Limitations).

If at some point, it is decided to deviate from the original data, testing has to be done to validate the new data. This would be considered a major change so will require re-entering Phase 1 testing, and complying with whatever your operating limitations stipulate be done when incorporating a major change.

This is the understanding I have, but maybe Mel or another DAR will come come by and provide some additional input (or correct this as needed).
__________________
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 ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 06-05-2020 at 09:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-07-2020, 06:12 AM
UrbanM UrbanM is offline
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 20
Default

Scott,
Thanks for the reply. This seems logical but between regs and advisory circulars it isn't spelled out.
Kirk
RV12
RV6A
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 06:39 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.