Mike D

Mike D

Well Known Member
Has anyone modified a -6 or -7 to accept a surfboard in the rear baggage area/tail cone?? Hoping not to have to use a belly pod.

Any pictures?

It seems as though I could get two 6?5? boards in there. I might even be able to get a 7?5? if I did not have a passenger and removed the right seat stick. (but much more fun going with buddies). I am not too worried about the CG as Surfboards are very light. But I am a slight bit concerned about removing the rear baggage bulkhead covers. I believe these are structural. Correct??

Also I would need to configure it so there is no chance of the board restricting the push rod.

How cool would it be to fly to a nice surf spot in your RV?!!:D
 
No worries there....

Shak Brah,
Panel your -6 to make it look like a woodie,
stick those too-long boards out the top of your slider,
throw some sex wax on the wings,
head for the west coast and shred.
Gnarly.


Working on a ski-tube for mine.
Geoffrey Patterson
9A
Happy Laker fan.
 
Seriously though,

I'm actually interested in hearing a serious answer to this question--
I suspect it may involve building a rack across the longerons aft of the baggage bulkhead.

Geoffrey Patterson
 
It would be way cool!

My 9-0 Brewer and 10-9 Harbor are non-starters though. Us longboarders are stuck putting a bike-style rack on the side and...OK, just kiddin'. A board would make a nice little airfoil...then be gone! :rolleyes:

I've been told the baggage bulkhead is structural (more qualified folks will likely confirm or deny that), and your concern about the elevator push tube is well placed. Securing it (or them) would be a beast too. Greg Arehart made a neat little hat rack behind the upper half of his baggage bulkhead, and I've see two Super Sixes that have backwards facing seats in the baggage area, and footwells extending into the tailcone. All of them are enclosed wells though, and seem to maintain some of that cross-sectional structure. So some have done innovative things back there, but probably a good idea to bounce any ideas off an experienced builder/tech counselor.

FWIW, I carried a spare set of flat wingtips (60"x 8" X 2" approx) to a race, and had to pull one seat and do some finageling get them in and out, and to make it safe and secure (slider 6). Might get some pretty hefty dings (plane and board) getting a board in and out.

But I like the picture...sunrise landing on a beachside strip, offshore breeze, nice tubes...there's gotta be a surfer girl in this program somewhere, right!?!? :D If you figure it out, please let us know!

Good outside the impact zone thinking! :)

Cheers,
Bob
 
Last edited:
I asked Ken from Van's about modifying the bulkhead so I could get my bicycle in there. His response was "you don't want to mess with the bulkhead".
 
I know detail photographs exist of at least one side by side RV with a modified baggage bulkhead so the builder could....and does....stow his golf club bag. A search should turn the pictures up somewhere.
 
This has crossed my mind too, although for a snowboard. CG is my obvious worry. If anyone has done it, I'm also all ears.
 
Probably less hassle to just rent the surfboards (or skiis or golf clubs or whatever) when you get there.

JMHO

Roberta
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies.
Mel Thanks for the confirmation that it is a structural part. Does this mean no holes or just limited holes? I know, I know, I am pushing here, but hey, I am a designer, that is what we do. :)

My current thought is to make a new baggage bulkhead cover. (brain freeze, so I can?t think of the official term for the removable part of the rear baggage wall) The new piece would have two 23?X4? holes with some pipe insulation to protect the board from the sharp aluminum edges. The center post would stay as is. There would have to be some additional supports toward the rear of the tail.

Think of it like a key hole and stocks (the punishment device not wall street type) I would slide the board into the keyhole type support in the rear and then support the front using a stock type of baggage wall.

Renting a board would have been my first choice, but if you can rent a board in the area, there are too many people or there are no airports.

Folding boards have been tried, but with very limited success. But I don?t think it would fit. Still the same problem.

The boards I would hope to fit in the RV would be around 6?7? by 23? by 3.5?.

The dream is to do some aerial surveillance to find a sweet wave and have the board to surf it. I need the RV speed get me to one of the coasts or to at least Corpus Christi.

A pod may be the only way, but in the tail cone would be the best. So I am still hoping.

If I do get this done, I will have to put some wood laminate down the side of my RV. :D
 
The baggage bulkhead is structural basically in "torsion" mode. It prevents the fuselage from "twisting".
If you "break" the horizontal stiffener corrugations, you have destroyed the torsional strength.
You can probably get more information from Van's, but this is the basic structural requirement.
 
Even if it is structural, could the edges of "slots" be reinforced enough to retain strength? I'm talking a 1/4 thick or more plate here. 5-10 pound weight penalty aside, I bet an engineer could run the numbers to make it work.
 
If it's a critical item that cannot stand modification Van's needs to be more consistent in what they tell builders. A couple of years ago they told me this was basically permissible (in a 7 or a 9). You would think it would have sent up the "Danger! Structural! Do Not Modify!" red flags.

My opinion is that this mod falls under the category of "it might be acceptable but Van's hasn't done the engineering and isn't going to bless it".

Cessnas and the like have equivalent amounts of open tailcone area, so there must be some way of providing sufficient torsional strength without a bulkhead. The trouble is getting the engineering analysis done.
 
Not to pick nits, Paul....

Ironflight said:
Correct - which means that if you change it without doing the analysis, it's called "guessing".....
Click to expand...

...but depending on who you ask, could it not also be called "Experimenting?"

My concern is more what two surfboards would weigh and their effect on the CG since the weight would be really far aft and the arm is my concern,

Best,
 
I will pick a nit...

We have people "experimenting" with engines and some of them end up dead. Some things should be left alone if you don't know what you are doing.
 
pierre smith said:
...but depending on who you ask, could it not also be called "Experimenting?"
Click to expand...

"Experimenting" still implies some modicum of thought. Trying something that entails risk without at least a tacit amount of thought is just being a daredevil....
 
I've been surfing in California since I was 12 and can tell you that any place that breaks good enough to merit a trip from Texas has got tons of people out already. The idea that you could find some uncrowded "secret spot" that just happens to have an airport next to it is just not realistic. You'd have way more fun just flying out to the coast, renting a car and gear and driving PCH.
 
That is why they call them secret spots

Humm?
Mavericks is right next to Half Moon Bay Airport and was undiscovered for years. Now it is one of the biggest big wave spots on earth.

I know of two more good spots right next to GA airports, but I am not telling ;)

Pierre, Paul, I am a pilot and a surfer but I am no dare devil. I would not really know how to proceed on this idea. I guess I could draw up some plans and run it by an engineer. Any ideas on how to move forward with this?

Surfboards are around 10lbs. Don?t think this will through off the CG too much. But I will work it out.
 
People have been surfing inside mavericks at least since the sixties and it's been in surf mags for probably fifteen years. It was never a secret, just too cold and heavy for most. A tenth of the country live in this state so the idea of "secret" locations just seems hard to picture, but what do I know.
 
Sorry Steve, just reread my comments and it may have come off not as I had intended. You may be right about every surf spot being known. I am just looking for the less surfed but still good spots.

Renting a board is like renting a plane. It may be cheaper and you don?t have to find a place to store it, but it is never convenient and you are always trying to get familiar with it. Most surf shops I know are 8am ? 6pm. I surf outside those times a lot. (or hope to again)

If nothing else the ? hour flight to Mustang beach sure beats the 2 hour drive. And a trip to Corpus is a day thing instead of a weekend thing. :)

Having your own plane that can get you there this fast has its advantages. Just hoping to fully utilize my RV for my life style.
 
Mike,

I agree completely about renting a board. Definitely less than optimal. I once looked at the existing folding boards and it seemed like it was mostly a way of getting longboards on trains and planes. I didn't see a lot of development on the shortboard area. Next time I see some yellow old board at a garage sale I'm gonna take it home and have a go at designing some type of breakdown system. I think you could cut it in half and then glass a hollow tube into the foam on both sides of the stringer that would then accept a slightly smaller diameter tube. All that's left is some way to keep it together. I imagine the last thing would be a strip of tape to clean up the joint. I know this sounds kinda kludgy, but its gotta be easier than getting the cowl to fit right. :D

Regarding modifying the plane, I think if it were readily do-able Vans would have done it long ago simply to increase the marketing appeal of RV's.
 
Baggage bulkhead for buckling prevention

Mel said:
The baggage bulkhead is structural basically in "torsion" mode. It prevents the fuselage from "twisting".
If you "break" the horizontal stiffener corrugations, you have destroyed the torsional strength.
You can probably get more information from Van's, but this is the basic structural requirement.
Click to expand...

Mel, I don't understand this description. The engineering quantity that makes structures resistant to twisting is known as torsional stiffness. The shear web (aft deck) is very effective at increasing the torsional stiffness. The baggage bulkhead should have essentially no effect on the torsional stiffness of the fuselage.

What it would have a huge effect on, however, is how resistant the sides of the plane are to buckling inward. Because the sides are pretty much flat at this location, they are (relatively) easily deflected towards or away from the centerline. Making this bulkhead a solid piece of metal makes this much stronger, and the corrugations prevent the bulkhead itself from the buckling that a regular flat sheet of metal might experience.

Not having done any calculations, I wouldn't be seriously concerned with a hole, say 4 or 5 inches in diameter, but go much larger than that and more than one corrugation will be cut through, which I would see as undesirable. I can conceive of a method to add a significantly larger hole, but the complexity and weight of such a modification to still retain the benefit of the bulkhead would be excessive for the resultant gain.

Mike D said:
My current thought is to make a new baggage bulkhead cover. (brain freeze, so I can't think of the official term for the removable part of the rear baggage wall) The new piece would have two 23"X4" holes with some pipe insulation to protect the board from the sharp aluminum edges. The center post would stay as is. There would have to be some additional supports toward the rear of the tail.
Click to expand...

Michael, I would urge you to reconsider this modification. If you'd like to discuss further, please send me a PM and I'll provide my phone number.

On a somewhat related note, I've seen some "hat rack" modifications where the top section is hinged downward on a piano hinge. As long as the hinged panel is rigidly fastened to the bulkhead when in the up position using fasteners that can transfer shear loads, it should be fine IMO (again, no calculations done).

Good luck!

Edit: After re-reading this, I kinda sound like gmcjetpilot. Sorry for the verbosity. :(
 
Last edited:
There's always the two piece board idea.

http://www.bisect.com/

A bit pricey, but at least you could have a 10 footer in two 23" x 60" sections. That's still not convenient to handle, but an improvement. There are also 9'6", 9', and 8' models. An 8ft midboard model breaks down into two 48"x22" sections, not too bad to deal with. Just a thought...

George
 
mcencula said:
Mel, I don't understand this description. The engineering quantity that makes structures resistant to twisting is known as torsional stiffness. The shear web (aft deck) is very effective at increasing the torsional stiffness. The baggage bulkhead should have essentially no effect on the torsional stiffness of the fuselage.

What it would have a huge effect on, however, is how resistant the sides of the plane are to buckling inward. Because the sides are pretty much flat at this location, they are (relatively) easily deflected towards or away from the centerline. Making this bulkhead a solid piece of metal makes this much stronger, and the corrugations prevent the bulkhead itself from the buckling that a regular flat sheet of metal might experience.

Not having done any calculations, I wouldn't be seriously concerned with a hole, say 4 or 5 inches in diameter, but go much larger than that and more than one corrugation will be cut through, which I would see as undesirable. I can conceive of a method to add a significantly larger hole, but the complexity and weight of such a modification to still retain the benefit of the bulkhead would be excessive for the resultant gain.

Michael, I would urge you to reconsider this modification. If you'd like to discuss further, please send me a PM and I'll provide my phone number.
Click to expand...

I'm just sharing what I was told by Van's many years ago!
 
Thanks!!

Steve, You may be on to something. Most of the travel boards I have seen were long boards, pipe dreams, or huge money. I like long boards but half a long board won?t solve the problem of getting them into and RV-6. If I find an old board I could make a prototype of a triple stringer. The stringers could dovetail into the front and back of the board and then you could use some sort of dowel to secure them in. The stringers would need to be long enough to keep the board from flexing too much at the joint, but this may be the way. My board breaking is much better than my plane breaking. :eek:

Mike, I agree in theory about the idea of the baggage bulkhead preventing the straight sides from moving inward or out. But I am a self professed chicken when it comes to jeopardizing my, or my passengers, safety. I think I will give up on this idea unless I can find someone with a aeronautical engineering degree familiar with the construction of RV?s, who is willing to give me the go ahead. I think the many posts of getting a travel board are the way to go. But, in this case, I may have to make my own travel board.

But I think I will make a ?hat shelf? in the back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.