VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 09-22-2014, 03:24 PM
M Wreford M Wreford is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 15
Default RV-6 MTOW

I'm guessing this question has been answered before ,but,,,I was just browsing the vans sight and noticed the MTOW for the A model is 50 lbs higher thn the taildragger,,,,???
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-22-2014, 06:21 PM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
Default

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the difference is due to the different strength of the two gear configurations. I haven't seen factory confirmation.

[edit]Hey, I just noticed this is my 2000th post!
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)

Last edited by Snowflake : 09-23-2014 at 07:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2014, 06:49 PM
M Wreford M Wreford is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 15
Default

I've just been looking at a few of the POH's around, the MTOW seems to be very fluid, one was up at 2000lbs , I was considering calling mine 1800lbs in normal cat and thinking that was really pushing it ,,,
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2014, 10:41 PM
Mark Albery's Avatar
Mark Albery Mark Albery is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warwickshire UK
Posts: 703
Default

I remember reading somewhere that when Van's were deciding what gross weight to recommend for the RV-7, they looked at what people were typically using for the -6, and that was about 1800lb.

Maybe myth, but they seem to work fine with that. I would be less relaxed about exceeding Van's recommendations for aerobatic gross.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-22-2014, 11:31 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Albery View Post
I remember reading somewhere that when Van's were deciding what gross weight to recommend for the RV-7, they looked at what people were typically using for the -6, and that was about 1800lb.

Maybe myth, but they seem to work fine with that. I would be less relaxed about exceeding Van's recommendations for aerobatic gross.
Very much a Myth

The gross weight is chosen early on in the design process (as it is with any properly run aircraft design project), and all of the structures engineering is done based on that weight.

The idea that the airplane gets built, put on a scale, and then a reasonable amount of useful load added to teh empty weight to determine the approved gross weight is totally false.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-23-2014, 12:54 PM
arunnells arunnells is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 130
Default Gross weight moving targets

This is always an interesting subject I find as well. If you go on Vans' website under News and Events, Archives, and find the article about John Johansons' East and West circumnavigation of the globe, you will find Van himself approved John for a 136% increase in the gross weight of his RV-4 for his record attempt. This works out to 2,040 lbs on a normal 1500 lb gross weight, this was done for both the East and West circumnavigation flights. There is no other mention of other flight restrictions for this at the time such as limiting operations to Green arc air speeds, G limitations etc, which you would think would have been in place for safety reasons, but very interesting regardless. These posts always spark very lively discussions and opinions back and forth.
__________________
RV-6 tip up,190hp,Pmag,ported/flowed ECI heads, WW200 prop,older glass panel,long range tank,SOLD
RV-3A tip over, 170 hp, dual Pmags, 15 gal wing tanks, CN-1,CN-2 wing mods, D10A, XM396, SOLD
Murphy Rebel Elite purchased and flying
DR-107 One Design project with Schuenemann 21 foot wing, wing tanks, 50% done SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-23-2014, 07:01 PM
M Wreford M Wreford is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 15
Default

Got a reply from Vans , basically as we know we can pick whatever weight we want , but it effects a heap of things. Just wondering if anyone has had CG issues by having it loaded up and running the fuel tanks low?
__________________
Skywolf ,flying
RV6 building ,
empennage done
Wings done
Fuselage ,,,,,,
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWr...YKUbvwPhi7ARBg
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-23-2014, 07:58 PM
Kyle Boatright Kyle Boatright is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Wreford View Post
Got a reply from Vans , basically as we know we can pick whatever weight we want , but it effects a heap of things. Just wondering if anyone has had CG issues by having it loaded up and running the fuel tanks low?
You've gotta run the numbers for your airplane.

There are so many variables between engine, prop, paint, and other factors that there are substantial differences between airplanes. Mine, with a wood prop and a light engine can be loaded aft of the CG limit. Others, with a heavy engine/prop combo, not so much.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-23-2014, 09:47 PM
gasman gasman is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 3,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
You've gotta run the numbers for your airplane.

There are so many variables between engine, prop, paint, and other factors that there are substantial differences between airplanes. Mine, with a wood prop and a light engine can be loaded aft of the CG limit. Others, with a heavy engine/prop combo, not so much.
What am I missing about this statement??........
__________________
VAF #897 Warren Moretti
2019 =VAF= Dues PAID
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-23-2014, 11:16 PM
gyoung's Avatar
gyoung gyoung is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman View Post
What am I missing about this statement??........
He's saying it's easier to get into trouble with a light engine and prop than with a heavy engine and prop. Read the "can load" as "it's possible" and not as "permissible". It's dangerous to load aft of the aft CG limit,
__________________
Greg

1950 Navion - flying
RV-6 - 18 yrs and 99.5% done
1940 Rearwin Cloudster project next
4 L-2 projects on deck
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 03:43 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.