VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old 08-20-2022, 07:51 PM
Mark Burns's Avatar
Mark Burns Mark Burns is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Posts: 883
Default

Mike,
It's P/N VS-809

It was $31.50 in 2012

Mark


Quote:
Originally Posted by alcladrv View Post
Could someone share the correct part number for the appropriate vertical stab fibreglas tip to install on an RV7 to match the RV8 rudder?

Picture downloaded from Mark Burns' post above:

Attachment 29796

Thanks,

Mike
__________________
Mark Burns
Ruston, Louisiana
RV-7A N781CM 1,700+ hrs
FFI FL-24
A&P
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-21-2022, 04:33 AM
swift12 swift12 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Palmerston North
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL View Post
Thanks, I followed this accident as I had talked to Dean several times before the accident. My son self-toured NZ and Dean was kind to give him a north end tour. My son was impressed with his methodical approach to safety. Noted the 244kts, too much for what ever reason.

I am certainly interested in learning, including that we may speculate after a report is out.(thanks DanH!) A new arena!! Although my intended learning is all in the technical arena. Numbers numbers numbers.

The 9 (7tall) rudder compared to the 8 (7short) is 11% heavier, CG is 27% farther from the spar, and area is 30% greater with a .016 skin vs .020. Both have the same counterweight, giving the 8 a better balance percent. It really should not surprise anyone that the it would improve flutter margin. We get reminded every 12-18 months of this.

Fly safe.
All good Bill….as I say to my colleagues it’s not who’s right it’s what’s right….and can we learn anything from it. Interesting about the numbers on the rudders. Reading a lot of this stuff makes me keen on investigating it further throughout my build and perhaps looking at an 8 rudder instead. I won’t be doing any low level aeros and don’t enjoy spinning. it seems to me the 8’s haven’t had these failures….mmmm
__________________
2022 dues paid gratefully. great site for help and info.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-21-2022, 10:17 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylor View Post
Really? What about the ailerons? They have counterbalances but are not 100% balanced.
Yes, but they are also used differently... The aileron is designed to carry an aerodynamic load during flight... The rudder is essentially intended to float in trail most of the time until it's needed.

Of course, that said, the elevators are intended to carry a load full time as well, and they are balanced... So... Hmm.

Quote:
Good call! Additional counterbalance weight at the rudder tip could quite possibly have negative consequences on the resonant frequency of the entire rudder/vertical stabilizer system. What "seems" like a good thing could really be a bad thing!
This is very true as well, and I wouldn't suggest changing what Van's recommends. I haven't read that part of the build manual, it just seemed to me that if the control was going to be balanced, that it would make sense that it be balanced, not "partly balanced." I admit it's been a while since I studied control surface design, I may be forgetting something fundamental.

Does the build manual say to build the rudder first, or the elevators? Could it be that the manual goes into detail on the elevators, and then later when building the rudder it assumes you know all about balancing from doing the elevators and don't need a refresher?
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-21-2022, 10:21 AM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 11,214
Default

Re balancing, Glenn earlier posted a link to an excellent paper well worth reading. I repeat the link here:

https://raptor-scientific.com/conten...l_Surfaces.pdf
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-21-2022, 04:55 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 739
Default Update to Spreadsheet in Post #1

"BillL" brought to my attention another in-flight breakup of an RV-7 (N731RV; Arlington, AZ; 6/27/2017). I added it to the spreadsheet in Post #1 of this thread. Links to the NTSB report and the docket can be found there.

From the NTSB Final report:
"Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The inflight overstress separation of the vertical stabilizer and rudder during flight which resulted in the pilot's inability to maintain airplane control. Contributing to the accident was an inflight collision with a bird."
__________________
Carl N.
RV-8
KAWO

Last edited by RV8JD : 08-21-2022 at 05:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-21-2022, 05:37 PM
Tandem46's Avatar
Tandem46 Tandem46 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8JD View Post
… in-flight breakup of an RV-7 (N731RV; Arlington, AZ; 6/27/2017)…Contributing to the accident was an inflight collision with a bird."[/indent][/i]
Yeah, this accident has been discussed on here before. I agree with others that it’s doubtful a “rock pigeon” brought down this RV. The NTSB does mention: “It is possible that the pilot made an evasive maneuver before or during impact with the bird, that in combination, resulted in an overstress structural failure of the, vertical stabilizer and rudder”.
I agree.
__________________
RV-7 Flying since 2004
IO-360 1 LSE & WW200RV
1,200 hrs+
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-22-2022, 05:26 AM
Z-EDD's Avatar
Z-EDD Z-EDD is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
Yes, but they are also used differently... The aileron is designed to carry an aerodynamic load during flight... The rudder is essentially intended to float in trail most of the time until it's needed.

Of course, that said, the elevators are intended to carry a load full time as well, and they are balanced... So... Hmm.


This is very true as well, and I wouldn't suggest changing what Van's recommends. I haven't read that part of the build manual, it just seemed to me that if the control was going to be balanced, that it would make sense that it be balanced, not "partly balanced." I admit it's been a while since I studied control surface design, I may be forgetting something fundamental.

Does the build manual say to build the rudder first, or the elevators? Could it be that the manual goes into detail on the elevators, and then later when building the rudder it assumes you know all about balancing from doing the elevators and don't need a refresher?
I have just re-read the instructions for the RV-7 empennage. Note these instructions were updated at the time of the HS service bulletin in 2014 and are in the newer “check box” format and rather more detailed than the old instructions, which I don’t have access to right now. Construction of the rudder is detailed before the elevators and contains no reference to balancing. Elevator construction is last in the sequence and has 2 references to balancing. In the pre- amble it is mentioned that the elevators are balanced control surfaces. Under “finishing the elevators” it is stated to conduct final balancing after the elevators are finished and painted, and the preferred method is to leave the counterweights slightly heavy and then balance by drilling small holes on the inner face of the counterweight.

So no mention of balancing the rudder, followed by considerable detail on balancing the elevators. For whatever reason the designer never intended the rudder to be fully balanced.
__________________
Ed Fleming
RV-7- Flying as of 12/23/20
Harare, Zimbabwe
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-22-2022, 06:21 AM
rv8ch's Avatar
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 5,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-EDD View Post
... For whatever reason the designer never intended the rudder to be fully balanced.
Which is completely reasonable. The paper that has been referenced a couple of times in this thread talks about this - it's not always desirable to have the CG on the hinge line.
__________________
Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/help-people-in-ukraine/
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-22-2022, 08:42 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-EDD View Post
For whatever reason the designer never intended the rudder to be fully balanced.
Until someone from Van's weighs (sorry) in on this I don't think we can conclude what the designer's intent was. We can only conclude that instructions for balancing were not included in the manual... And I think most of us would agree that not everything is in the manual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8ch
The paper that has been referenced a couple of times in this thread talks about this - it's not always desirable to have the CG on the hinge line.
This is true. Different aircraft with different configurations will have different margins for flutter and different control harmonization and feel. But I would have expected that two control surfaces that are so similar in configuration (Elevator and Rudder on an RV) and used in the same performance envelope would have similar requirements for balancing.

But, there are differences, elevator is pushrod controlled and is usually under load, rudder is cable controlled and usually floating, etc. etc. It would be great if someone from Van's could comment on this but given the litigious society we live in I can understand why they don't.

At the end of the day I don't think it's been shown that an RV-7/7A operated within the published design/performance envelope is at any risk.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-22-2022, 08:45 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post

At the end of the day I don't think it's been shown that an RV-7/7A operated within the published design/performance envelope is at any risk.
Agree. If there was a systemic fault here, dozens or hundreds of 7s would have crashed by now, given the thousands flying.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 462.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


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 01:55 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.