RVs that have broken up in-flight?

[Neal@F14]

Threads today (or revived today) have discussed strength and longevity of the RV airframes, flutter, etc, have got me wondering... not many RVs have ever come apart in-flight. Does anybody have a complete list of those that have?

There's the RV-7A from Canada, and of course the Van's factory demo RV-8 crash. I also remember reading about an RV-4 in Australia that broke in-flight. I don't know much about the early RV-3 models, but understand that there were some problems with the wing.

Is there a definitive list somewhere that lists and explains all the known in-flight structural failures by model, and their suspected causes?

[RV10inOz]

I would say none, apart from those that were abused to some significant extent.

Here is the one down here http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24397/a...701033_001.pdf

The ATSB rarely investigate an experimental accident, this one is very rare, but maybe this was significant because of the high profile design and type and that it did break.

The findings really tell you a lot. It is pretty easy to avoid these things when you think about it.

[GusBiz]

Right over the Moorabin Training area.

The number of times I have been over that spot.

I wonder how high he was when he spun.

The report never found that, not that I could read.

[terrykohler]

That the operator exceeded limits? By how much? That the plane didn't make it thru a thunderstorm or mountain wave? Without an awful lot of on board instrumentation recording or transmitting data, about all you're going to get is that the plane broke up. The 7A tragedy in Ontario started with a lot of speculation on this site, moved to a "Tail Fell Off" initial report, and was finally covered in detail by Transport Canada only after recovery of the EFIS. Even with that, we've no way of knowing at what point past the design limits the failure(s) actually started.
Rather than start another guessing game on the forum, my suggestion would be to fly the plane within it's design limits- thousands of hours of "field testing" would suggest that the designs are pretty safe if you do that.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

[Sig600]

Originally Posted by terrykohler

That the operator exceeded limits? By how much? That the plane didn't make it thru a thunderstorm or mountain wave? Without an awful lot of on board instrumentation recording or transmitting data, about all you're going to get is that the plane broke up. The 7A tragedy in Ontario started with a lot of speculation on this site, moved to a "Tail Fell Off" initial report, and was finally covered in detail by Transport Canada only after recovery of the EFIS. Even with that, we've no way of knowing at what point past the design limits the failure(s) actually started.
Rather than start another guessing game on the forum, my suggestion would be to fly the plane within it's design limits- thousands of hours of "field testing" would suggest that the designs are pretty safe if you do that.Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

Questions?

[Snowflake]

Unfortunately, speculation gets shut down here pretty quickly in hopes of not offending anyone. Even factual reporting is likely to get a thread closed if it's too critical of anyone.

That being said, Terry is right: there will be no way of knowing at what point past the design limits the aircraft failed. On the other hand, we generally do know that the airplanes were operated beyond their design limits.

[RBD]

Originally Posted by Neal@F14

Threads today (or revived today) have discussed strength and longevity of the RV airframes, flutter, etc, have got me wondering... not many RVs have ever come apart in-flight. Does anybody have a complete list of those that have?

There's the RV-7A from Canada, and of course the Van's factory demo RV-8 crash. I also remember reading about an RV-4 in Australia that broke in-flight. I don't know much about the early RV-3 models, but understand that there were some problems with the wing.

Is there a definitive list somewhere that lists and explains all the known in-flight structural failures by model, and their suspected causes?

I don't know of a comprehensive list, Neal, but hope that someone will actually answer your question and provide you with what you're looking for (instead of questioning your motives). I would like to see such a list, too.

[jrs14855]

From the RV Journal:
7 RV3
1 RV8

Statistics through 7-10-99, believed to be US only.

[RV10inOz]

Terry, I am sure we all agree that fly inside the envelope and life is good. Trouble is some folk get confused with their ambition vs ability and slip outside the box.

I doubt there have been any genuine structural failures when flown indie the envelope. But the others do make for interesting and educational reading.

The RV 8 demo prang I old like to know more about, just for interests sake.

The Canadian RV 7 was possibly not helped by the mass balance of the rudder, but it was flow to destruction by confusing ambition with ability. That report was very well done, they had the efis data and video evidence.

Any good info....I am all ears

[Spindrift]

Seeing the RV4 report from Australia, which I had not heard about previously, served as a great reminder of why, after buying my flying RV-7, I:
- reweighed the plane and ensured correct calculation of the CG envelope
- haven't succumbed to the temptation to loop or roll since I haven't gotten proper training yet. I've done both in other planes and in this one with the original builder, but the idea of falling/spinning out of a botched maneuver without the experience to recover is frightening.
- would be very reluctant to ever do acro with a passenger, even with parachutes, given that with my own weight and full fuel, I'm pushing acro weight limits.