|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

03-19-2010, 07:20 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
FWIW, I've also witnessed an RV6 started without wings, no problem at all, shake or otherwise. Of course the owner was smart enough to tie it to a truck......
That said, I don't recommend it for the reason John mentioned; you don't want to unpickle until time to start flying.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|

03-19-2010, 09:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Big Sandy, WY
Posts: 2,567
|
|
Guys around here do it all the time. We call them snowplanes. My buddy has the one Sparky Imeson's dad built with a C-85. Real fast, real spooky.
|

03-27-2010, 09:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 133
|
|
Proof of an -8 started without wings
No big deal. Like Dan said, no shake. Probably didn't need the side tie downs but it was easy to do. Good chalks under the wheels and you'll notice we tied the tail to a tractor! As you can see, the airplane was done. So it didn't have a chance to sit around long before it was flying.

|

03-27-2010, 04:31 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 189
|
|
No problem if you take precautions
When I was overseas with MAF, we had a Cessna 180 that had it's wings off for extended maintenance that we did not want to have corrosion start in the engine. So we ran it every week.
We took a spare/used oil external oil sump from another 180 (which held about two gallons if I remember) and mounted it securely to the right wing root, ran the proper hose and with fittings into the header.
We then pulled it out to an adjacent field next to our main hangar, tied the tail wheel to two in ground heavy duty tie-downs, set the yoke to full up elevator, set brakes and chocked the wheels with oversized, metal chocks.
Next had a man stand buy with a large halon extinguisher.
We ran it this way each week for about 5 months until it was back in service. The engine went to TBO and no surprises.
Just use common sense. That video with the Lancair is indeed sad but that one leg look tweaked when the video started. I believe there's more to that story than the 10 seconds of shakey footage show.
__________________
Sandy Toomer
Commercial, Instrument, A&P
EAA: 1023750
Based Lanett, AL (7A3)
Auburn, AL
WAR EAGLE!
Last edited by Junglepilot : 03-27-2010 at 04:34 PM.
|

03-27-2010, 08:22 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
The other problem...
...may be blowing your neighbors roses away....
One S. Cal builder showed how this could be done... and another started his engine in a small enclosed back yard, and didn't warn his wife, who was p***d off that all of the back yard dirt blew into her kitchen....
Those large propellers do create a lot of "wind"....
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
|

01-04-2011, 03:29 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 976
|
|
Whilst building the RV-3 fuselage, it suddenly struck me there was a discontinuity in major longerons in the lower fuselage between the main and rear wing spars...
It made me go back to the plans and check I had not omitted something... and then realised, no I had not, the "load" path is provided by the wing structure itself.
If you do choose to run the engine without the wings bolted on, think through how the "box" rigidity of the fuselage (in twist) is compromised by no wing box, and also the straight line path from engne to tail (i.e. tying the tailwheel down does not really help since there is a structure "gap" between the wing spars). Trying to quantify these elements is nigh on impossible - the only people qualifed to answer are Vans, and we know their opinion on the matter
Andy
|

01-04-2011, 05:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 522
|
|
An RV10 no wing engine startup. No problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LgG6J8UyPE&NR=1
That being said, I will still wait for my wing attachment before running mine the 1st time. A couple years ago I wanted to start it sitting on an modified engine stand w/o prop. But, back then I was considerably more ignorant than now..... Now, I'm only slightly ignorant... big improvement thanks to VAF... 
__________________
Wendell VAF#1832
RV-6A 3/4 done...N48JE Reserved 
Build site: www.mykitlog.com/weneng
Donated to VAF in 2020
|

01-04-2011, 06:12 AM
|
 |
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Hill
Whilst building the RV-3 fuselage, it suddenly struck me there was a discontinuity in major longerons in the lower fuselage between the main and rear wing spars...
It made me go back to the plans and check I had not omitted something... and then realised, no I had not, the "load" path is provided by the wing structure itself.
If you do choose to run the engine without the wings bolted on, think through how the "box" rigidity of the fuselage (in twist) is compromised by no wing box, and also the straight line path from engne to tail (i.e. tying the tailwheel down does not really help since there is a structure "gap" between the wing spars). Trying to quantify these elements is nigh on impossible - the only people qualifed to answer are Vans, and we know their opinion on the matter
Andy
|
It really is amazing what we are learning by actually BUILDING our aircraft structures, isn't it Andy? The load paths are much more understandable when you put them togteher....
Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
|

01-04-2011, 10:39 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 687
|
|
RV8 Driveway Run
Ran up my RV8 / 180 CS sans wings without issue. *However* there could have been problems stemming from a couple areas.
Video Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHQfhOiyKQM
Tail shake: Mine didn't seem to have a real issue with tail shake, but I couldn't have known that at the time. Its since been brought to my attention that the wings do provide a good amount of mass damping to the fuselage and will help to reduce tail shake during startup/shutdown.
The wings also contribute a good bit of weight to the tail so the plane is considerably lighter on the tail without wings. My solution to that was to tie the tailwheel spring to the rear axle of a Chevy 1500. But that still wouldn't prevent it lifting up a couple feet with enough thrust up front.
Second: the torque impulse reacted by the landing gear looked worse on video than it felt in the cockpit. In the video, you can see both gear legs flexing a fair bit as the engine stumbled to life out of a slightly flooded state. To me, it didn't feel or look unstable or apt to tip over but the torque reaction, being entirely reacted by the gear & fuselage inertia, was somewhat more than I was accustomed to.
Y'all can draw your own conclusions. I for one didn't have any problems. But, the wings definitely do contribute additional mass stability to the airplane so if you feel like you need that, then by all means put them on. I personally have no fear of a tip-over so long as the airplane is secured to something that won't move, as was evident in the video. Structurally, I see no reason the wings need to be on for a simple ground run, other than their mass damping effect. They definitely do not add stiffness to the fuselage. The spar carry-through section is stiff transversely, but that stiffness isn't critical for this kind of operation.
__________________
?The important thing in aeroplanes is that they shall be speedy.?
- Baron Manfred von Richthofen
RV8 under construction
RV4 - Sold
United B777 FO, Chicago
Aero Engineer
RV8
Last edited by Bill Wightman : 01-04-2011 at 10:49 PM.
Reason: I originally posted this in the RV12 section. Copied it here.
|

01-05-2011, 11:01 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canby, Oregon
Posts: 1,786
|
|
I didn't start mine until the day before the first test flight.
I didn't avoid the early start up because of structural reasons, although it looks like that should be considered.
The reasoning used for the delay about starting the engine are as follows:
I try to fly my plane once a week. If for some reason I can fly for a month, I start getting concerned about not doing the best for my engine. If you keep the oil moving on a regular basis your engine will last longer.
My engine was shipped to me with preservative oil in it and was setting in my hangar, on a pallet and then on the plane for more then one year. Before starting the engine the oil needs to be drained and fresh oil put in.
After the first start the engine is in the non preserved state and the clock starts ticking. Now the pressure is on to get it in the air and I don't like being under pressure to complete the build. At the end stage of the project you need to take your time and make sure everything is right.
Kent
__________________
Kent Byerley
RV9A N94KJ - IO320, CS, tipup
AFS 3500, TT AP, FLYING....
Canby, Or
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.
|