|
-
POSTING RULES

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

03-11-2012, 09:24 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 159
|
|
Considering an accident/incident
Considering an accident/incident where damages were suffered, and may have been caused by an overweight condition (beyond Vans listed weights), all an opposing counsel would need to fry the offender can be found at:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flyrvs.htm
Vans refers to "maximum design gross weight":
The RV-3B, RV-4, RV-6/6A, RV-7/7A, and RV-8/8A have been designed for the operational stress limits of the aerobatic category (+6.0/-3.0 G) at and below their aerobatic gross weights. The operational stress limits for these aircraft between their aerobatic gross weights and their maximum design gross weights are utility category (+4.4/-1.75 G).
Who can argue that any experimental builder certifying his experimental aircraft for a maximum gross weight exceeding the designer's "maximum design gross weight" is not "letting it all hang out?" .....legally.
Barney, in Memphis
RV-3 & RV-4 flying
|

03-12-2012, 07:39 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.Adamson
As I have said before, and years before that.............these same questions come up every few years. Then we get the same repetitive answers from those who are only guessing with their "moral" high ground thinking. It's even got to the point of criticizing builders for upping the weight, and then daring to sell their aircraft to some unsuspecting buyer. And at the same time, you get potential buyers who are criticizing the builder for not upping the gross to start with.
|
And at the same time we get the same repetitive answers from armchair non-engineers who don't understand that the strength of the wing isn't the only consideration you need to think about when setting a gross weight.
Quote:
|
As I said before, get someone from Van's who will actually condemn the 1850 gross weight on an RV6A, then we'll talk about it.
|
Why limit yourself? Since no RV-6's have crashed while being operated at 2200lb gross, why not set it there? Van hasn't condemned a 2200 lb gross either, so it must be fine, right? 
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

03-12-2012, 08:13 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
Why limit yourself? Since no RV-6's have crashed while being operated at 2200lb gross, why not set it there? Van hasn't condemned a 2200 lb gross either, so it must be fine, right? 
|
I won't bother commenting on this....
|

03-12-2012, 08:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coventry. England
Posts: 614
|
|
Not condemned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
Why limit yourself? Since no RV-6's have crashed while being operated at 2200lb gross, why not set it there? Van hasn't condemned a 2200 lb gross either, so it must be fine, right? 
|
See here is the problem suddenly a 1650 gross has gone to a 1850 gross, now a 2200 gross. next it will be 2500..........
Van hasn't condemned it? Take a look at the page LAvion quotes above.
The following line is taken straight off that page.
No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit.
What do you expect Van to do contact every member who steps beyond this limit........ thats not his job. What van has done is set in stone a limit, thereby limiting his liability. Once you exceed those limits you are putting yourself in the hands of the civil liability lawyers if the worst should happen.
Van will just point at the limitations he sets and that line, you then have to explain to the court why you went outside these limits.
BTW don't 'assume that people like me are not engineers because we may have served with the police. I served an engineering apprenticeship (5years), have a degree in engineering and continued to practice throughout my police service. I also have a law degree so know a little bit about that too.
Bottom line here for the original poster of this question is given all that has been said, Am I happy to operate my aeroplane above Vans specified gross on the basis that I will carry the liability if an accident occurs. Am I happy that my airframe can take the loads, am I happy with my ability to cope with any situation, like gust loads which may develop.
Have a good day I look forward to meeting some of you in the next few weeks when I am in California!!
__________________
http://www.aerobuilder.blogspot.com
Steve Arnold
England
In completion stage of Loehle P5151
Built and now Flying G.BVLR Vans RV4
Rebuilt G.BDBD Tailwind
Rebuilt G BVTN Kitfox
Built G CDCD RV9A with WAM120
Riveted wings on Glastar G.LEZZ Now (G. SKUA)
|

03-12-2012, 12:30 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Steve, I agree with you. I was just pointing out the fallacy in the suggestion that simply because a lot of people had set their gross weights higher than recommended, and that they did so "because everyone else before them did it", that it was somehow safe. And if you're going to pull a number out of the air that isn't supported by the data, well, an inch is as good as a mile as they say.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

03-12-2012, 01:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coventry. England
Posts: 614
|
|
Problem
Snowflake,
We are on the same page..... the problem with sites like this is that you never know who is writing on the other end. I would like to think that we are all well motivated aviators and builders who are trying to help and look after each other, but of course I am very familiar with the other side of human nature.
It just seems strange to me that people keep coming up with the phrase Van has not condemned it when that line exists in Vans Literature.
No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit.
__________________
http://www.aerobuilder.blogspot.com
Steve Arnold
England
In completion stage of Loehle P5151
Built and now Flying G.BVLR Vans RV4
Rebuilt G.BDBD Tailwind
Rebuilt G BVTN Kitfox
Built G CDCD RV9A with WAM120
Riveted wings on Glastar G.LEZZ Now (G. SKUA)
|

03-12-2012, 01:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WAM120RV
No RV should ever be operated above its design gross weight limit.
|
On the other hand, Van gave Jon Johanson a one time approval for a gross weight increase of 136% on his stock built RV4 with tank modifications. This was required because it was built in Australia. At a normal gross of 1500 lbs, that would be 2040 lbs. Seems he's flown it around the world in different directions, at least three times.....perhaps more.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/jj-plane.htm
|

03-12-2012, 02:32 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
It just so happens I snagged a copy of Dan’s W&B table just before he took his site down.
Looking over the numbers he had collected at that time, here is what I found:
These numbers are only for those aircraft with an inflated GW.
Type___# Samples___Avg OG #__Avg OG %____Range over GW
RV-3________2_______150_______14%______100 to 200 lbs
RV-4_______24_______116________8%_______50 to 300 lbs
RV-6_______58_______172_______11%_______50 to 500 lbs
RV-7_______34_______108________6%_______50 to 200 lbs
RV-8________5_______174_______10%_______50 to 470 lbs
RV-9_______10________85________5%_______50 to 100 lbs
RV-10_______4_______138________5%______100 to 200 lbs
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
Last edited by N941WR : 03-12-2012 at 05:32 PM.
|

03-12-2012, 03:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coventry. England
Posts: 614
|
|
Jon Johanson
Hi Larry
Yes, I met Jon at the LAA rally in England during I think his first world trip. His canopy had cracked while flying over Greenland if I remember correctly. I gave him what assistance I could to get on his way.
He is a remarkable man and quite a charactor. If I remember correctly the main issue was whether the landing gear would stand up to the load.
Again what you should do is look at the context of the permission. The theory is that the aeroplane will take off at this weight............ burn off a load of fuel and land at a much lighter weight. Quite different to taking your 300lb plus buddy up burn off an hours fuel and land on a repetative basis. A one off permission is exactly that, it does not imply permission for everyone else to follow suit.
You are lucky in the states to have the freedoms you have and OK you can set your own limits........... but without doubt if you go outside what VAN says and there is an accident someone will come after you with a law suit.
There is another way of looking at this....... say you were in the market for an RV and you found two identical RV's. The only difference was that one had been operated over Vans gross throughout its life, the other had not. which would you buy.... the one with a hard life or the other one.
Actually, there is a really simple answer to this, if you have a six and want to lift more weight buy a seven. If thats not enough buy a 10!!
I have been considering building a 6 when I finish the 4. I flew a 7 recently and it was great....... so because of the extra load and aerobatic load that perhaps where I should go.
Anyway, I think you know why I have a problem with this from the posts above........ an aeroplane with a gross of 1600 has gone to 2200 in a few pages. As someone has said in a different thread thread when is it going to stop....... when there is a fatality?
Anyway best wishes to you and the rest of VAF I will be in your fine country in a few hours, and am looking forward to a flight in fellow Brit Mark Alberry's 8 in LA. Then we will visit the Grand Canyon and you might even get me up in one of them Helium Copters.
Someone once told me that helicopters dont fly, they are so ugly the earth just repels them....... 
__________________
http://www.aerobuilder.blogspot.com
Steve Arnold
England
In completion stage of Loehle P5151
Built and now Flying G.BVLR Vans RV4
Rebuilt G.BDBD Tailwind
Rebuilt G BVTN Kitfox
Built G CDCD RV9A with WAM120
Riveted wings on Glastar G.LEZZ Now (G. SKUA)
|

03-12-2012, 04:15 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WAM120RV
There is another way of looking at this....... say you were in the market for an RV and you found two identical RV's. The only difference was that one had been operated over Vans gross throughout its life, the other had not. which would you buy.... the one with a hard life or the other one.
|
I've been around the RV market......for a whole lot of years...
Therefor, the aircraft with different specified gross weights will most likely be far from identical. Option one (1650#)is going to be bare bones with a wooden prop. And it will be lucky if it's received a paint job in it's 15 years of operation.
Option 2 (1850 GW) will most likely have a constant speed prop, leather seats, some insulation on the floor, and a sidewall upholstery job. Probably has a 2 axis auto-pilot too! And best of all, it will be painted...........instead of saying "I get to pick my own color scheme".
This is usually how the RV6(A) scenario plays out. I know which one............I'd want...
L.Adamson -- 6A, 1850 GW, Hartzell CS
|
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 01:24 AM.
|