What Price A Masterpiece? By Dick VanGrunsven

[David-aviator]

I am amazed at the skill of some builders. But that being said, the empty weight is an embarrassment. The airplane like so many Americans is obese.

No doubt Mr. Hale could build an RV-10 that would come in at 1600 pounds and blow everyone away. That would be impressive.

I suppose some prefer the expensive auto look, others a simple old pick up will do. But when it comes to an airplane, performance is what counts and obese airplanes, like obese humans, are not going to win the race. It may be pretty, but it will be last.

As the designer, Van would be remiss in not pointing out the aerodynamic and safety compromises of this particular RV-10. He really has no choice in the matter. I like him because he has always called a spade a spade. There is no BS in his flying machines, they fly just great right out of the box. Sure the builder can modify 'em to his hearts content, but the end result will not be a better flying machine. It may be prettier and heavier, but it will not fly better.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by Sig600

.

Where is his (Van's) haste with the planes I see on the ramp at airports and airshows? RV's that were thrown together with zip ties and terrible workmanship? They're out there. I've seen some that make me shake my head and go "wow."

I've seen a couple of really doggy RV's in my time too. I mean real dogs - so bad I was surprised they got off the ground. Sport Aviation doesn't feature those aircraft. It did feature the RV-10 that is the subject of this thread. From an engineering perspective, Van probably thought he needed to protect his customers and his business and discourage other builders from making some of the same choices.

Shoot, there are two old RV-ator articles on mistakes I made during my build. I wrote one of the articles and a friend wrote another. Sharing best practices (and identifying bad ones) is a key to safety in our hobby. Safety is paramount and needs to take precedence over egos.

[Peterk]

How? (And I'm not intentionally being argumentative - I'd really like to hear your opinion on "how"

Kyle,
I can appreciate your concern that many VAFer's have been recently discussing how to police our own awful safety record. Dick has been invited by the Feds to participate. Potentially flying overgross (or endorsing it) would certainly qualify. First order of business should have been to ask the EAA why they were trying to submarine his efforts. Second, he should have let the EAA and the judges have their chance to address it. After all, Sport Av is a much larger audience...VAF is talking to the choir. We all know of scary homebuilts, and scary pilots and scary gun owners etc.
I am not trying to be argumentative either Kyle. I just think he damaged the cause by naming names. All the did was move the focus from a potential problem (it is legal) to character assassination. Changed the whole point. Its not about Greg. Its about being careful when you make changes. Calculate your risks carefully. Thanks for your legitimate concerns. I think we all are.

Pete

I will let your post stand Uhhhhh....thank you I guess?

[gasman]

Originally Posted by N546RV

I must admit, that seat belt bracket made me cringe.

Under normal use, this rudder cable attachment will fail first. The cables take the load of applying the brakes, and that tab will not hold up...... this makes me cringe............ Not only dose the rudder fail, but you lost the brake with it.

The seat belt may never get a chance to be tested............... if the rudder cables are corrected.

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by gasman

Under normal use, this rudder cable attachment will fail first. The cables take the load of applying the brakes, and that tab will not hold up...... this makes me cringe............ Not only dose the rudder fail, but you lost the brake with it.

The seat belt may never get a chance to be tested............... if the rudder cables are corrected.

I don't know enough about what the -10 pedal assembly should look like to comment on this one, hence why I didn't. I can't even really tell what's going on there.

As for the original article, I don't read it as hanging someone out to dry. What I get out of is a warning against making potentially uninformed modification decisions. As Van points out, these are experimental aircraft, and the builders are free to make modifications as they see fit. At the same time, they've done (I assume) exhaustive engineering analysis during kit development, and those numbers shouldn't be dismissed just because a builder wants more.

I suppose if I was in his shoes, I'd be worried about someone reading an article in a magazine, seeing that this "best in class" plane is flying with a gross weight increase, and assuming that that's OK without any additional critical thinking. And that's what I got out of it: "You can do whatever you want, but be aware of the potential negative consequences of going off the reservation."

[terrye]

First, I agree with the position taken by Van and his tone and discussion of the subject airplane. And I think these things have to be said, because the editors of Sport Aviation magazine are not doing their job. Their article on the subject airplane simply gushes with praise about the beauty and craftsmanship of the machine. There is nothing said about whether the modifications and additions are well engineered or whether they compromise the intent and mission of the RV-10 design. Perhaps the best way to have handled this would have been to invite Van's Aircraft to comment on the airplane and the article and to publish those comments in a sidebar. At least there would have been some balance to the article and readers contemplating a similar airplane should be aware of the consequences of the compromises. And the consequences in this case are severe. I don't think most customers have any idea how hard an airplane designer works to achieve high performance coupled with light weight and a meaningful useful load. If they did they might not take so many liberties in the fitting out of their airplane.

As an engineer myself, I have been put in the position of customers "using up some of the margins" that I have used in the design. Usually it has taken the form of asking me what the "real" instead of the "nameplate" payload of the machine. I always stated very firmly that the "nameplate" payload is the only one there is. And as the customer walked away I knew very well that he was going to overload his machine.

I had a conversation with one of Van's engineers about this very topic and we both agreed that the "margin of safety" or "factor of ignorance" is the property of the designer, not the right of the customer to use however he desires. Van makes this point in his comments as he has a right to do.

[RBD]

Originally Posted by Peterk

I just think he damaged the cause by naming names. All the did was move the focus from a potential problem (it is legal) to character assassination. Changed the whole point. Its not about Greg.

I believe one of the first sentences that Van wrote in his article included "....the absolutely gorgeous interior that Greg Hale built into his award-winning RV-10." Seems like an acknowledgment of Mr. Hales craftsmanship to me. Yes, Van then went on to focus on how the added weight and other modifications negatively affected the performance and safety of the plane - citing REAL numbers, no less. Van is, at the end of the day, an airplane designer, engineer, and enthusiast. You've got to realize that he sees straight past that fancy (heavy) interior (and yes, it looks great) and sees the issues that the weight causes. Van advocating "build it simple, build it light" is certainly not a new mantra.

I guess I just don't see the need to level charges of "character assassination" at Mr. V. The article was intended to call attention to the price one pays when adding weight (and making other modifications) to a plane that recently was in the press (again, not a new trend for Van.) So you're right...."It's not about Greg."

[GusBiz]

In Australia we give Americans lots of stick for going on about the land of the free, and the right to free speech and all that hoohar.

But to be honest I read every single post and it made me smile because it was a testimony to people having their say.

The protective inventor, the over zealous builder, those that agree with Dads harsh words, those who say you leave him alone and those that just looked at the facts.

All of that got expressed and can be read by anyone with an internet connection. No one got litigated against ( I am hoping ) and some of us readers learnt a few things about design safety and testing the edge in a reasonable way or not.

Truth be told, every person had the right to say what they did.

This was a very good post, for more reasons than just what is relevant to aviation.

[roee]

I cringed when I read that article in Sport Aviation a couple of weeks ago. Glad I'm not the only one.

Probably enough has been said here about that airplane and the decisions made by the builder, so I won't add to that.

But I will say unabashedly that I think the editors of Sport Aviation should be deeply embarrassed for publishing that article as it was, glorifying that project as something to strive for. I hope they'll redeem themselves by publishing Van's comments in the next issue. Anyone know if Van submitted his article to Sport Aviation?

[Sig600]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

I am amazed at the skill of some builders. But that being said, the empty weight is an embarrassment. The airplane like so many Americans is obese.

No doubt Mr. Hale could build an RV-10 that would come in at 1600 pounds and blow everyone away. That would be impressive.

I suppose some prefer the expensive auto look, others a simple old pick up will do. But when it comes to an airplane, performance is what counts and obese airplanes, like obese humans, are not going to win the race. It may be pretty, but it will be last.

As the designer, Van would be remiss in not pointing out the aerodynamic and safety compromises of this particular RV-10. He really has not choice in the matter.

I like him because he has always called a spade a spade. There is no BS in his flying machines, they fly just great right out of the box. Sure the builder can modify 'em to his hearts content, but the end result will not be a better flying machine. It may be prettier and heavier, but it will not fly better.

Knowing Greg's back ground, he knows what he's doing, and he's got the money to pay for the gas to haul around some Lexus seats if he so chooses. If he wants to top it off with 120 gallons and go non-stop to the moon solo, he can. If he wants to put just 40 gallons in and take 4 friends to the beach, he can.... in either case in complete comfort and in both cases within the build spec of the airplane. At no place did I see him say that HIS airplane could haul four people, bags and full fuel, but that the RV-10 could, and his will perform to that spec when he loads it as such.


If the end result of a builder "modifying to the hearts content" doesn't result in a better airplane, then every owner of a rocket, fastback, or anyone that put more than Van's spec HP in their airplane is wrong. Same goes for anyone with tip tanks, modified cowls, subaru engines, and on and on.


If Dick wants to take the "Experiment" out of Experimental then he needs to close the doors to his shop and move on, or start building certified production aircraft.... otherwise, when a kit leaves the factory his say in what it becomes ends at the door

Disclaimer, mine will be within recommendations, to Dicks recommended power setting, and operated within published tolerances. With engine/FWF/prop all purchased from Van's. Why? Because he designed it, and I trust him. However attacking his customers right to "free speech" has really rubbed me the wrong way. Didn't his original RV start off as a highly modified Stitts Playboy? Where was his vehement standardization to design then?