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.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-10
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-09-2021, 10:28 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,345
Default Yep

I have the er tanks and have already been using them...gas at a one local airport is nearly $1 a gallon cheaper than most others... that adds up quickly...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Phase I as of 12-02-2020

Dues+ Paid 2020,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-10-2021, 12:10 AM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse View Post
We stopped installing them because of the poor workmanship. I really wish they would get their act together because they do work well.

Scott, I hear you on the moment of inertia and it is correct. Donít forget at one time Vanís provided fiberglass wing tip tanks for the 6. I used them, and they are still going strong on that 6 over 20 years and 2000 hours. I donít know if vans did any testing.

Iíve also installed them on both of my 10ís, so now have about 3000 hours with them. Thereís not as much out in the tip as the fiberglass tanks, as the tube holds quite a bit of the fuel. Iíve not notice any different flight characteristics, and did extensive testing during phase I, except for spins of course.

Just my opinion and experience.

Vic

Spin recovery is what would likely be dynamically influenced the most, and without doing actual testing, the level of influence is a total unknown.

I agree Vic, that distributing the fuel along more of the span is better than putting it all in the tip, but it seems my point is being misinterpreted like they often are. I never said it would be a serious issue, I just pointed out that it is a factor that very few "experimenters" even know or think about.

I do know that there are many RV's flying with "no problems" with this type of extended range tank but I think we should be careful characterizing that to mean they have no influence.
Perhaps there has not been a circumstance of an RV flying loaded and at an aft C.G., and full aux tanks, having an inadvertent spin entry and then crashing because the spin recovery characteristics were degrade.
To be clear, I am not saying it will happen (read my other post.. I said it hasn't been tested), but since it hasn't been tested, it could happen.
It is operating in an unknown area. All I am doing is providing the info that very few people seem to be aware of.

That is largely what this forum venue is for, isn't it?

As for the fiberglass tip tanks.... you are correct, but not everyone at Van's was in favor of selling them without having done any testing (there has never been any installed on factory airplanes). At least I for one was not fully in favor of it. I think it was done as a favor to John Johansen (the original developer and maker of them, modeled after what he had done for his around the world flights.
__________________
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
  #23  
Old 02-10-2021, 06:06 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,678
Default

Scott, I donít think you are being misinterpreted in a bad way. The problem with the written word is that inflection and intent get missed.

As with anything in aviation, there are risks and merits. As long as it is not dangerous, it might be worth understanding the merits, as well as any potential operating limitations.

We donít use the tanks for bladder-busting trips, but primarily for the safety factor and the convenience factor. During Alaska trips it is quite possible to fly 2 hours in a direction only to have to turn around and go back. Having the extra fuel makes the decision easier and really takes the stress out.
Even here at home the extra tanks give us the flexibility to make round-trip day trips to places that donít have fuel, like to Cedar Key.

The bottom line I that you do have to pay attention to loading, CG, and operational impacts, but with all of the hours I have flown with them installed in at least 2 different model of RVís, they seem to provide lot of merit without any problems SO FAR. I say SO FAR because in the scheme of things 3000 hours is not a lot of time. We still see ADíS issued on the certified fleet that has a whole lot more hours on it. Our wonderful RV fleet is still young in the scheme of things.

Vic
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
Kitplanes "Unairworthy" monthly feature
EAA Sport Aviation "Checkpoints" column
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Author "Pre-Buy Guide for Amateur-Built Aircraft"
www.Baselegaviation.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2021, 07:16 AM
Strikhedonia Strikhedonia is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 27
Default

I've really appreciated the discussions and information posted. Thanks guys!
__________________
www.strikhedonia.com
Chris French
RV10 in progress
EAA #: 561223
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2021, 08:15 AM
Deuelly Deuelly is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 34
Default

I've seen an RV-8 that had two full tanks on each wing. He simply ordered an extra set of tanks and modified things to work. I've also seen an RV-7 with the same thing only his were 2/3 or 1/2 in size. Couldn't this be done on a 10? It would also keep the extra fuel more inboard.

Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2021, 08:20 AM
emsvitil's Avatar
emsvitil emsvitil is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SoCal
Posts: 447
Default

How much of the leading edge of the wing is structural vs just being there...

Outer (rivets) vs inner (bolted on tanks).

There has to be a difference between being riveted on vs bolted on.
__________________
Ed
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-10-2021, 09:49 AM
TS Flightlines TS Flightlines is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ridgeland, SC
Posts: 2,720
Default

I think Scott is just being honest and saying that the Vans planes werent engineered with ER tanks, or Vans would have developed them and made them an option. It doesnt mean it cant be done, just means that Vans engineering hasnt tested it, and doesnt intend to.
Vic makes a valid point about the safety factor in having extra fuel. So with the issues with the HW tanks, and builders wanting the larger capacity, froma n engineering standpoint, whats the best solution---full leading edge tanks, or tip tanks for RV's? Maybe a belly tank?

Tom
__________________
Tom Swearengen, TS Flightlines LLC, AS Flightlines
Joint Venture with Aircraft Specialty
Teflon Hose Assemblies for Experimentals
Proud Vendor for RV1, Donator to VAF
RV7 Tail Kit Completed, Fuse started-Pay as I go Plan
Ridgeland, SC
www.tsflightlines.com, www.asflightlines.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2021, 10:09 AM
pa38112 pa38112 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Clarksboro, NJ
Posts: 894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuelly View Post
I've seen an RV-8 that had two full tanks on each wing. He simply ordered an extra set of tanks and modified things to work. I've also seen an RV-7 with the same thing only his were 2/3 or 1/2 in size. Couldn't this be done on a 10? It would also keep the extra fuel more inboard.

Brandon
If I were building a 10, I would put two standatd but seperate tanks in each wing and plumb them like the Hotel Wiskey tanks so that I could keep the outer tanks empty if I wanted. It would add virtually no weight, double your fuel capasity, and allow you to operate just like a standard system.
__________________
http://aprs.fi/N153MC
2004 RV6A Flying
2002 RV6A Flying
1978 PA38-112
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-10-2021, 10:19 AM
andrewtac andrewtac is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Friendswood TX
Posts: 315
Default

Probably best solution would be replace the pilot with a tank. Any change will make things different. In the baggage compartment and no more than tested in that compartment should fit within original testing.

I too wanted the ER tanks more for options than for 5+ hour sorties.
__________________
Mark Andrew Tacquard

RV8 N189DK
RV10 in progress
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-10-2021, 10:19 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,345
Default except

Except when you put another 180 lbs of fuel in each of them...

The ER tanks hold about 45 lbs a side...

Big difference...

I am using my ER tanks; fuel near me at one airport is nearly a dollar a gallon cheaper than most other places...it adds up quick...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Phase I as of 12-02-2020

Dues+ Paid 2020,...Thanks DR+
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 05:14 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.