|
-
POSTING RULES

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

10-29-2011, 09:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,378
|
|
John and Joe
I've decided when you two get too old to type you need to share a room at the nursing home. Are you sure you aren't twins that were separated at birth? lol
|

10-29-2011, 11:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Byron Bay, NSW
Posts: 104
|
|
Good idea Joe
Joe, I like your idea. I would do more with the underfloor reinforcement. Consider making it a vertical plate about 6"x4" with a 1"flange on the top edge to take the nutplate. For the inboard mount, rivet it against a rib with an array of rivets (5x2) to fix it to the web of the underfloor ribfor the inboard mount, and a line of rivets through the baggage cpt floor into the flange. For the outboard mount make the flange wider, rivet the vertical face of the new underfloor bracket to the fuse side skin, and more rivets to the baggage compartment floor.
Also consider making the retaining bracket from .063" thick 4130 cromolly.
Sorry I cant quote RV12 part numbers but my plans are at the hangar
|

10-29-2011, 11:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Acton, California
Posts: 58
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driftdown
That's the ultimate fix.
Absorbs shock like nothing else, contracts with atmospheric pressure and depending upon the manufacturer, is self sealing against punctures.
Problem is ............. $$$$
|
How much is your life worth? If a tank ruptures and spills fuel into the cockpit, it could have devastating consequences. After spending 50 to 60 thousand dollars building an aircraft, the cost of a racing bladder type fuel cell isn't all that much, as compared to the benefits. Fuel Safe, ATL, etc. makes them in various sizes. I would imagine one could be found that would fit quite nicely.
Last edited by Dirtbos : 10-29-2011 at 11:51 PM.
|

10-30-2011, 12:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: hazelwood north vic
Posts: 176
|
|
slow down
I know everyone with ideas has the best intentions in mind BUT we must step back and wait. This problem was caused by an aircraft CRASHING we havent seen pics of the rest of the damage and by modifiying the tank mounts then reinforcing the floor then what the fuselage etc we are playing design engineers when we are not. We dont know what the real scale of the impact was I realise that we dont want the tank to rupture but some of the suggestions may result in being hit by a full tank bouncing around a cockpit
|

10-30-2011, 01:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 1,024
|
|
Nylon???
Instead of making any changes to the design, you could probably use nylon bolts in those two spots. They would be plenty strong for normal use, but the heads would likely break off, or strip the threads, under the stress of a crash.
Someone could probably test it out pretty easily.
__________________
Steve Formhals
A&P, Tech Counselor & Flight Advisor
RV3B
RV8
|

10-30-2011, 04:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Byron Bay, NSW
Posts: 104
|
|
slow down or speed up
Crashly, most of us I'm sure know you are right about the need for an engineers approved solution. But that wont stop people musing about a fix. What would stop the chatter is a few official words from Vansaircraft. I have not read anywhere a written response from them. I feel I am being ignored as a customer about a safety critical issue. We have been left to make up our own judgement about the safety of the aircraft, which is as much an engineer's judgement, as is the best way to design an adequate fix. Come on Vans. Fair go. Talk to us!
Rod
|

10-30-2011, 04:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 288
|
|
Has anyone actually emailed Van's Aircraft and asked them for a direct comment?
As I've said before, personally I am content with the design but would take heed of any modification that Van's thinks is necessary IF they think a modification is required.
As a UK equivalent of an A&P, I'm certainly not qualified in anyway to come up with a better design than the team at Van's Aircraft.
Crashing an aircraft is bound to cause damage and potentially, injury. To design an aircraft that is 100% safe come what may is never going to happen. From what I gather the incident that started this thread wasn't in the book of normal flying.
__________________
Jerry Parr
England
Ex RV-12
Loving Rotax....
|

10-30-2011, 04:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Friday Harbor, Wa
Posts: 300
|
|
Pictures
Vans has a full set of pictures of the airplane that suffered the damaged fuel tank.
__________________
MRT890
120042 RV-12
N112XP
|

10-30-2011, 04:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,390
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrt890
Vans has a full set of pictures of the airplane that suffered the damaged fuel tank.
|
Van's engineering has also acknowledged that they are working on a solution. Implement one of the temporary solutions as suggested in this thread or wait for the revision from Van's. I am going to wait. Industry has taught me to wait for the engineered modification. A lot to consider and test. BUT, keep the suggestions coming, the folks at Van's watch VAF.
Last edited by MartySantic : 10-30-2011 at 04:42 PM.
|

10-30-2011, 06:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 905
|
|
It's constructive to talk about these issues, and it gives us a few ideas to mull over while we are waiting to hear what Vans solution is going to be. I like Joe's now that he has explained the right side attachment, and all are of them are interesting, but I am waiting, waiting, waiting, and flying as well.
Dick Seiders
|
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 05:19 AM.
|