VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-20-2011, 12:54 AM
fatherson fatherson is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeofReiley View Post
This paint... balance is BS !!! Fly by Van's numbers and everything will be fine balanced/painted or NOT.
I certainly agree that understanding and flying below Vne is critical, Reiley, but if Mehrdad spoke directly with Van's, and they said balancing after paint is important too, should we be quick to discount that advice? If so, why? (I'm not asking as an argument, rather, I'm honestly trying to learn here.)

--Stephen
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-20-2011, 01:15 AM
islandmonkey's Avatar
islandmonkey islandmonkey is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeofReiley View Post
Guys and Gals,

This paint... balance is BS !!! Fly by Van's numbers and everything will be fine balanced/painted or NOT.
I could not believe my eyes when I saw that this was posted by an EAA tech councillor.

Surly, balancing the flying surface after its been painted, increases the margin of safety. I know thats what I would want. Just imagine if an aerobatic manoever goes TU and you end up pointing downhill. It is very easy to exceed vne and maybe get close to non balanced flutter speed.
__________________
Anthony Johnston
Brit working in Zurich, Switzerland.
1500 hour pilot and ex instructor and examiner.
RV-4 s/n 4572 Emp Kit.
RV-3B s/n 11460 Emp Kit. (In storage).
Anthony's RV-4
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-20-2011, 04:43 AM
Pitts Pitts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
imagine if an aerobatic manoever goes TU and you end up pointing downhill
For many years, I have been nastily criticized because I have tried to get the message out that an RV is NOT an aircraft for hard aerobatics.

Or even an aerobatic trainer, because people make mistakes and fall out of maneuvers when they are learning them. And if someone makes one mistake, they're likely to make another mistake, with the nose pointing straight down.

An RV is simply not built as strongly as a Sukhoi, or an Extra, or a Zivko, or MX2, despite what you might think. It is NOT an unlimited-capable aerobatic airplane, and if you fly it like one, you will break it, sooner or later.

Andrew Philips (two hangars down from me) was not the first person to fly the snot out of an RV, and have it break up in flight on him. Please don't do that. It's really depressing for the rest of us.

An RV is wonderful at doing "gentleman aerobatics" - rolls, loops and combinations - in the hands of an experienced aerobatic pilot. Paper aside for a moment, so is a Cessna 172. I tell people to not do any aerobatics in an RV, that they wouldn't consider doing in a 172, from purely an engineering standpoint.

Bob Hoover could do wonderful aerobatics in an Shrike Commander. Bobby Younkin could blow your mind with a Beech 18. But both of these gentlemen were superb aerobatic pilots, and flew very carefully, imposing absolute minimum load on their airframes to complete the maneuvers.

Most of us don't fly as well as Bob Hoover or Bobby Younkin. It's funny, almost all pilots think they are "above average" which of course is a statistical impossibility.

Please don't fly your RV hard and fast. Feel free to personally attack me again for expressing that opinion, but I'm alive after all these decades and there are plenty of people who disagree with me, who aren't.
__________________
BSc, ATPL, ICAS SAC, SFOC, AP, PRM, L39 check pilot
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-20-2011, 04:48 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
Default Very well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitts View Post
.........Please don't fly your RV hard and fast. Feel free to personally attack me again for expressing that opinion, but I'm alive after all these decades and there are plenty of people who disagree with me, who aren't.
Your advice is really sound but you and I know that there will nevertheless, be guys who don't heed it....just keep watching the NTSB reports.

Thanks,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga

It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132


Dues gladly paid!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-20-2011, 04:50 AM
islandmonkey's Avatar
islandmonkey islandmonkey is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 538
Default

Totally agree with you Pitts


My point was that balancing the control surfaces, after painting, gives you an increased margin of safety over and above not balancing them.

I like big safety margins!!!
__________________
Anthony Johnston
Brit working in Zurich, Switzerland.
1500 hour pilot and ex instructor and examiner.
RV-4 s/n 4572 Emp Kit.
RV-3B s/n 11460 Emp Kit. (In storage).
Anthony's RV-4
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-20-2011, 05:02 AM
Pitts Pitts is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
balancing the control surfaces, after painting, gives you an increased margin of safety
Of course! Rightly or wrongly, in a nutshell, the TSB report concluded that there was a 100 knot delta between Van's published Vne (200 knots) and Van's flutter speed (300 knots), and that:

1) the painter used up 50 knots of that delta with paint and filler aft of the hinge point with no re-balancing afterwards, and

2) the pilot used up the other 50 knots of that delta by flying the aircraft considerably past Vne.

Like most other accidents, there is more than a single cause - a chain of events, lined up holes in the swiss cheese, pick your abstraction model.

The pilot probably could have gotten away with flying 50 knots over Vne if his control surfaces had been re-balanced after painting.

Being a belts and suspenders kind of guy, fixing both #1 and #2 above seem like good ideas.

Build your RV carefully, and fly it gently, and it will give you many years of uneventful flying.

Don't do this to it:

__________________
BSc, ATPL, ICAS SAC, SFOC, AP, PRM, L39 check pilot

Last edited by Pitts : 05-20-2011 at 05:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-20-2011, 07:07 AM
Bob Axsom Bob Axsom is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,685
Default I liked your input better when you talked about arobatics

I liked it better when you said to not do anything in an RV that you would not do in a Cessna 172. The speed in this case was strictly do to the way he was flying the plane. I have modified my RV-6A for speed, have flown it in many races, and I firmly believe it is physically impossible to get even a highly modified RV to 234 kts (indicated or TAS) in steady state level flight. The fastest example in 5 years of SARL racing no one has come close even in ground speed with a tail wind. The fastest speed recorded was a straight line race of several hundred miles with a healthy tail wind.


AirVenture Cup 2008 7/27/08 RV Blue RV-8 Huft, John 217.17

THE SPEED IN THE CANADIAN CASE WAS A RESULT OF THE WAY THE PLANE WAS FLOWN JUST AS MUCH AS THE INFLIGHT BREAKUP. LET'S FOCUS ON THE CAUSE WHICH IS THE WAY THE PLANE WAS FLOWN AND TREAT RESULTS AS RESULTS.

Bob Axsom

Last edited by Bob Axsom : 05-20-2011 at 07:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-20-2011, 07:57 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default First 300 hours....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Axsom View Post

THE SPEED IN THE CANADIAN CASE WAS A RESULT OF THE WAY THE PLANE WAS FLOWN JUST AS MUCH AS THE INFLIGHT BREAKUP. LET'S FOCUS ON THE CAUSE WHICH IS THE WAY THE PLANE WAS FLOWN AND TREAT RESULTS AS RESULTS.

Bob Axsom
I agree.

From all indications the pilot was well liked, shared his building and flying experience and appeared confident. Its the last part that did him in - unwarranted confidence.

There was a time when new pilots were specially cautioned about the first 300 hours after training. At least it was so in the military. We were confident but that confidence was a false feeling built up doing all the so-called confidence building stuff with an instructor in the back seat. They knew the risks and kept accidents to a minimum during training by constant supervision.

Where guys got into trouble was during advanced training which was mostly solo. I remember one happy go lucky guy, the life of a party, very confident. He flew into the side of a hill in his F-100 on a gunnery range doing at least 400 knots. The first 300 hours can kill anyone.

That's what happened to Andrew, rest his soul. He has a lot of company if there is a special place for pilots.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-20-2011, 08:10 AM
aarvig's Avatar
aarvig aarvig is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KANE, Hugo, Minnesota
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeofReiley View Post
Guys and Gals,

This paint... balance is BS !!! Fly by Van's numbers and everything will be fine balanced/painted or NOT.
No offense Reiley but this is opinion presented as fact. Obviously the Canadian transportation board found this as one link in the sequence of "events" or "findings" that led to an in-flight breakup. Discarding this as "BS" (when you are an EAA Tech Counsellor) could lead someone to believe it is not important. The conclusion didn't state that paint or balance was a single causative factor but that it likely played a role. I do agree with your advice to fly by the numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by islandmonkey View Post
I could not believe my eyes when I saw that this was posted by an EAA tech councillor.

Surly, balancing the flying surface after its been painted, increases the margin of safety. I know thats what I would want. Just imagine if an aerobatic manoever goes TU and you end up pointing downhill. It is very easy to exceed vne and maybe get close to non balanced flutter speed.
Ditto this
__________________
Aaron Arvig
RV-9A
Empennage Done
Wings-In Progress
N568AK Reserved
SOLD?but I'll be back
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-20-2011, 08:37 AM
LifeofReiley's Avatar
LifeofReiley LifeofReiley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by islandmonkey View Post
I could not believe my eyes when I saw that this was posted by an EAA tech councillor.

Surly, balancing the flying surface after its been painted, increases the margin of safety. I know thats what I would want. Just imagine if an aerobatic manoever goes TU and you end up pointing downhill. It is very easy to exceed vne and maybe get close to non balanced flutter speed.
I never said that flying surfaces should not be balanced! It's a really good idea. IMHO, balanced flying surfaces was not going to help this gentleman out in any way and that was my point.
__________________
Reiley
Retired N622DR - Serial #V7A1467
VAF# 671
Repeat Offender / Race 007
Friend of the RV-1
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 06:51 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.