Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-12 wet wings
- Thread starter gossend
- Start date
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Ross, all the other RV's have "wet wings", meaning that the skin, or outer aluminum surface, doubles as the fuel tank as well. All the rivets and ribs are sealed with a substance called Proseal, that is fuel and oil/Jet-A resistant, to prevent leaks.
Cessna Agwagons have rubber bladders inserted inside the wings and so, are not considered "wet" as the other RV's.
Best
joedallas
Well Known Member
Fuel Tanks in a RV 12 Outcast ( Black Sheep )
Yes -Two RV 12's - Black Sheep
Call if you would like more Information.
727-237-7367
Please no Negative Comments.
We will have Some details after the first flight.
Joe
Yes -Two RV 12's - Black Sheep
Call if you would like more Information.
727-237-7367
Please no Negative Comments.
We will have Some details after the first flight.
Joe
Last edited:
Not meant as a negative comment Joe, just a realistic one...
In reality you will have some details after the first flight.
One successful flight with a major modification does not prove it well designed and adapted. That goes for any airplane, not just an RV-12 (or other RV models)
There is a big difference between making a successful flight, and accumulating a lot of actual flight time so that flight testing can prove their is no flight characteristics issues (see the recent Safety Section thread on Polar Moment influences on spin recovery, etc.), and/or issues with airframe longevity.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Some Not Full
Change Full to Some
Im shure glade the wright Brothers took chances.
Change Full to Some
Im shure glade the wright Brothers took chances.
I am too!
But once again... looking at it realistically... In that era of time, a lot of people paid the ultimate price as a result of those chances that were taken.
Yea, I might be extremely conservative, but there is a reason for that.
I have been in this business for a long time. I have seen a lot of people pay the ultimate price, and they all thought they had done it right.
I believe the biggest danger in home building, is the person operating with the attitude where anyone that says anything other than %100 complimentary things about what they are doing, is to be ignored and considered a detriment to the advancement of our hobby. (not saying you are one of those people, just saying).
My comments are based on very intimate knowledge of all the design aspects of the RV-12, and the concern that arises when I see someone making major mods such as this.
Ok, now that you've gotten me going...
In the many years I have been in this business, I have so many times, seen people proudly proclaiming to the world via the internet about the great modification they have made (once again, not saying that you have done that, but I have seen how it starts), and the next thing you know, 10 other guys are incorporating this idea and the original inventor is still a year or more from making his first flight!
<Ok, deep breath, relax>
I hope that explains a bit more where I am coming from
Last edited:
Michael White
Well Known Member
If the Wright brothers had lived in the litigious times that we do, they might not have been willing to take those chances....
Joe
All power to you.
Good old American ingenuity, seen less frequently now, more's the pity.
If done by reputable/sensible people with proper engineering analysis, as I'm convinced you will.
The removable wing on the RV-12 seems to be the least used feature, and it demands some, I feel, undesirable compromises.
John
All power to you.
Good old American ingenuity, seen less frequently now, more's the pity.
If done by reputable/sensible people with proper engineering analysis, as I'm convinced you will.
The removable wing on the RV-12 seems to be the least used feature, and it demands some, I feel, undesirable compromises.
John
yankee-flyer
Well Known Member
Yeah, BUT.......
I agree that a few flights don't tell you what a major mod has done to an airframe, especially one that hasn't had a rigorous structural analysis.
Lost a friend today. Vietnam fighter pilot, thousands of hours on everything including the Harrier, last command was CAG of Midway Air Group. He'd designed and built his own airplane, many years attending Oshkosh with it, but NOT an engineer by training. Wing panels outboard of a couple of feet were foam and fiberglass WITHOUT a spar-- a true monocoque wing of which he was proud. You could see the wing flex (he said about 3") on takeoff-- presumably more so during aerobatics. He flew the airplane almost every day-- usually 15-30 minutes and a few whifferdils and had about 700 hours on it. Right wing broke off just outboard of the attachment bolts, presumably while doing aerobatics. It's highly unlikely that he overstressed the airframe; much MORE likely that his particular composite wing reached its (incalculable) fatigue life.
Point is, you change the loads on an airframe you change a LOT of other things. Yes, fuel in the wings can be a good things (relief loads-- I'm an aero engineer) but you're also going to change the loads on those wing attach pins and the holes they fit into in the spars. Every hard landing (OK, it's difficult to do a hard landing in the -12) or taxiway bump will be putting different loads into them.
NOT saying this will cause a problem-- AM saying none of us know whether it will cause a long-term problem or not.
Wayne 120241/143WM
I agree that a few flights don't tell you what a major mod has done to an airframe, especially one that hasn't had a rigorous structural analysis.
Lost a friend today. Vietnam fighter pilot, thousands of hours on everything including the Harrier, last command was CAG of Midway Air Group. He'd designed and built his own airplane, many years attending Oshkosh with it, but NOT an engineer by training. Wing panels outboard of a couple of feet were foam and fiberglass WITHOUT a spar-- a true monocoque wing of which he was proud. You could see the wing flex (he said about 3") on takeoff-- presumably more so during aerobatics. He flew the airplane almost every day-- usually 15-30 minutes and a few whifferdils and had about 700 hours on it. Right wing broke off just outboard of the attachment bolts, presumably while doing aerobatics. It's highly unlikely that he overstressed the airframe; much MORE likely that his particular composite wing reached its (incalculable) fatigue life.
Point is, you change the loads on an airframe you change a LOT of other things. Yes, fuel in the wings can be a good things (relief loads-- I'm an aero engineer) but you're also going to change the loads on those wing attach pins and the holes they fit into in the spars. Every hard landing (OK, it's difficult to do a hard landing in the -12) or taxiway bump will be putting different loads into them.
NOT saying this will cause a problem-- AM saying none of us know whether it will cause a long-term problem or not.
Wayne 120241/143WM
Hi Wayne, I agree whole heatedly. Any major change (flush rivets, fuel in wings) needs to be FULLY evaluated, with a full test flight program, and stress and strain calculations.
Sorry for your loss. I hope someone is sparred as a result of the lessons learned!
joedallas
Well Known Member
Risk Managment
Scott with all due Respect
When I called vans to order my 12 kit I asked if they had any problem with me building the Kit as EAB
and told them if they did I would not build a 12.
They said that they had no problem with me building EAB
Van makes excellent Kits and building them to the Plans is the Safest way to do build them and building any other way is not recommended by me.
I totally understand the risk of going my own way and will not recommend any one to follow in my footsteps without doing their own risk management.
someone asked the question about wet wings and I answered YES.
Against my Better Judgment.
There are at least three people that are putting the fuel tank in their wings and are afraid to post on this site because of getting slapped around by the negative comments.
I have had many conversations with them to try to work out the dangers of this task.
Constructive criticism is a good thing ( The Key word Constructive )
Please don't drive us into the wood work.
I was once told by my boss I am looking for the guy who can give me a Reason why it will work, anyone can give me Reasons why it won't work.
Your concerns are well founded and will cause us to proceed with caution.
I will register my aircraft as a RV12M.
I think any one modifying a 12 and building EAB should Register it this way to indentify it from the Standard RV 12.
One of these is close to his First Flight and he knows the risk and is checking and double checking to minimize this risk.
Thanks for your Concern.
I think the ultimate price is not trying.
Joe
Scott with all due Respect
When I called vans to order my 12 kit I asked if they had any problem with me building the Kit as EAB
and told them if they did I would not build a 12.
They said that they had no problem with me building EAB
Van makes excellent Kits and building them to the Plans is the Safest way to do build them and building any other way is not recommended by me.
I totally understand the risk of going my own way and will not recommend any one to follow in my footsteps without doing their own risk management.
someone asked the question about wet wings and I answered YES.
Against my Better Judgment.
There are at least three people that are putting the fuel tank in their wings and are afraid to post on this site because of getting slapped around by the negative comments.
I have had many conversations with them to try to work out the dangers of this task.
Constructive criticism is a good thing ( The Key word Constructive )
Please don't drive us into the wood work.
I was once told by my boss I am looking for the guy who can give me a Reason why it will work, anyone can give me Reasons why it won't work.
Your concerns are well founded and will cause us to proceed with caution.
I will register my aircraft as a RV12M.
I think any one modifying a 12 and building EAB should Register it this way to indentify it from the Standard RV 12.
One of these is close to his First Flight and he knows the risk and is checking and double checking to minimize this risk.
Thanks for your Concern.
I think the ultimate price is not trying.
Joe
Last edited:
Mark Henderson
Well Known Member
I built my RV-12 stock. There were a number of sets of plans I bought over the years for airplanes I thought would be fun to build. I came to realize that I would never finish them. When Vans came out with the 12, here was a kit with all the engineering done for me. It was a kit I could, and did, finish. Since it's first flight I have made several small modifications--Moeller fuel gauge,an ASI and a couple of analog engine gauges, and splitting the rear bulkhead so I no longer have to pull the fuel tank. None of these change the basic design, or have any impact on safety.
I'm not quite sure why anyone buys a 12, then embarks on major modifications. That isn't really the niche the Rv-12 was designed to fill. I have no quarrel with those that want to fill the wings with fuel, or flush rivet the wings. But I can't help wonder why they spent all the money for this airplane, then try to make it into another?
If I ever want to get really adventurous, I'll dust off my Mini Imp plans.
I'm not quite sure why anyone buys a 12, then embarks on major modifications. That isn't really the niche the Rv-12 was designed to fill. I have no quarrel with those that want to fill the wings with fuel, or flush rivet the wings. But I can't help wonder why they spent all the money for this airplane, then try to make it into another?
If I ever want to get really adventurous, I'll dust off my Mini Imp plans.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
I am about ready to close out both "wet" wing tanks for the 8, man would I have loved to build a simple box tank ala the 12.
David Paule
Well Known Member
This is very interesting.
The RV-12 is so closely designed that it's not an optimal platform for large modifications.
There's a pretty good book, "Small Airplane Crashworthiness Design Guide," by Hurley and Vandenburg, available as a free PDF which you can find. It discusses different aspects of wing tanks and fuselage tanks and I was surprised to find that a well-designed and secured fuel tank located about where the RV-12's tank is, is better for crash survival than a leading edge wing tank. It's less likely to fail in a crash and less likely to be punctured by something like a stake in the ground.
The point is, if you're planning to do something like that, do your homework first and get it right. Don't expect it to be an easy change. And expect that on the RV-12, there will be unanticipated ramifications due to the mod. With that in mind, there's no reason why, given enough time, effort and money, it can't be done successfully.
Dave
The RV-12 is so closely designed that it's not an optimal platform for large modifications.
There's a pretty good book, "Small Airplane Crashworthiness Design Guide," by Hurley and Vandenburg, available as a free PDF which you can find. It discusses different aspects of wing tanks and fuselage tanks and I was surprised to find that a well-designed and secured fuel tank located about where the RV-12's tank is, is better for crash survival than a leading edge wing tank. It's less likely to fail in a crash and less likely to be punctured by something like a stake in the ground.
The point is, if you're planning to do something like that, do your homework first and get it right. Don't expect it to be an easy change. And expect that on the RV-12, there will be unanticipated ramifications due to the mod. With that in mind, there's no reason why, given enough time, effort and money, it can't be done successfully.
Dave
Perhaps Ken Krueger has already read this one!
rv9av8tr
Well Known Member
RV-12 fuel in wings
I know there are people who get all freaked out about having gas in the cockpit and think it's far more dangerous than having it in the wings... is this the rationale being used for this mod?
Look, I don't have an issue with modifying an existing design, but honestly, I hope you guys have done the engineering analyses to the extent that Van did for the original design. If not, then the mod is being evaluated on a "Trial By Fire" method.
You can call it an RV12M if you want, but that won't change the perception of anyone... it still looks like an RV-12 to the public and the regulators won't make the distinction. Without a full engineering evaluation, this is the kind of mod that puts ALL of us at regulatory risk. Have you read what the NTSB wants from us before first flight? THIS is exactly the kind of thing that can drive the final stake.
It's true that you have the right and freedom to do this, but the rest of us have the right and obligation to be concerned that this doesn't cause collateral damage and takes the rest of us down with you.
I know there are people who get all freaked out about having gas in the cockpit and think it's far more dangerous than having it in the wings... is this the rationale being used for this mod?
Look, I don't have an issue with modifying an existing design, but honestly, I hope you guys have done the engineering analyses to the extent that Van did for the original design. If not, then the mod is being evaluated on a "Trial By Fire" method.
You can call it an RV12M if you want, but that won't change the perception of anyone... it still looks like an RV-12 to the public and the regulators won't make the distinction. Without a full engineering evaluation, this is the kind of mod that puts ALL of us at regulatory risk. Have you read what the NTSB wants from us before first flight? THIS is exactly the kind of thing that can drive the final stake.
It's true that you have the right and freedom to do this, but the rest of us have the right and obligation to be concerned that this doesn't cause collateral damage and takes the rest of us down with you.
Last edited:
MacPara
Well Known Member
Boy, is this a weird "discussion". I don't really see the point in telling Joe that what he does makes no sense, because fuel in the cockpit is ok for some, or because it's hard to do because the -12 is not meant for modifications, or that it could affect the strucutral integrity of the plane, or what ever reason it is YOU wouldn't want to do this.
I personally think it's great that there are people out there that still trust their abilities to accomplish a task that they have chosen to do. You don't have to follow them and you don't have to approve of their effort, you don't even have to recognize what they're doing.
I am completely sure that Joe understands the risk of this endeavor. What I am not so sure of is that people understand to mind their own business and let others make their own decisions.
I personally think it's great that there are people out there that still trust their abilities to accomplish a task that they have chosen to do. You don't have to follow them and you don't have to approve of their effort, you don't even have to recognize what they're doing.
I am completely sure that Joe understands the risk of this endeavor. What I am not so sure of is that people understand to mind their own business and let others make their own decisions.
joedallas
Well Known Member
OOOpinions OOOpinions
I'm going to try to keep this as civil as possible
Your opinion of where fuel should be placed is your opinion
Mine is Different.
You have no Knowledge of the time I spent Analyzing this change or my engineering background.
My phone number is listed in my post for anyone who wants to have serious conversation on how to make this mod safe ( and I have had many ) thanks all.
It seems to me if you are really concerned you would have wanted more information before judgment
Any Help with real concerns with real data would be Welcome ( By Phone ) 727-857-9812
We want this to be safe to the best of our ability with any help from any one.
I forget what doe's EAA stand for
This is my last post on this subject
Joseph Dallas Rhodes
I'm going to try to keep this as civil as possible
Your opinion of where fuel should be placed is your opinion
Mine is Different.
You have no Knowledge of the time I spent Analyzing this change or my engineering background.
My phone number is listed in my post for anyone who wants to have serious conversation on how to make this mod safe ( and I have had many ) thanks all.
It seems to me if you are really concerned you would have wanted more information before judgment
Any Help with real concerns with real data would be Welcome ( By Phone ) 727-857-9812
We want this to be safe to the best of our ability with any help from any one.
I forget what doe's EAA stand for
This is my last post on this subject
Joseph Dallas Rhodes
"You can call it an RV12M if you want, but that won't change the perception of anyone... it still looks like an RV-12 to the public and the regulators won't make the distinction. Without a full engineering evaluation, this is the kind of mod that puts ALL of us at regulatory risk. Have you read what the NTSB wants from us before first flight? THIS is exactly the kind of thing that can drive the final stake.
It's true that you have the right and freedom to do this, but the rest of us have the right and obligation to be concerned that this doesn't cause collateral damage and takes the rest of us down with you."
*****************************
The thing I don't like about about the cabin fuel tank is that it takes up all the baggage space! And complicates maintenance and inspection activities. And - with the frangible bolts mod, has proven to have been less than perfect.
For those of you who can't see the point of modifying an existing design, read (again) the story of how Van got started in this business - it's recounted in this month's EAA magazine.
Bob Bogash
N737G
It's true that you have the right and freedom to do this, but the rest of us have the right and obligation to be concerned that this doesn't cause collateral damage and takes the rest of us down with you."
*****************************
The thing I don't like about about the cabin fuel tank is that it takes up all the baggage space! And complicates maintenance and inspection activities. And - with the frangible bolts mod, has proven to have been less than perfect.
For those of you who can't see the point of modifying an existing design, read (again) the story of how Van got started in this business - it's recounted in this month's EAA magazine.
Bob Bogash
N737G
rv9av8tr
Well Known Member
Unfortunately, today isn't the 1960's... and Van has always done the engineering first. In this example, folks have to acknowledge this would be a "hot topic", because it dosen't necessarly affect just Joe or the others pursuing this mod. Life should be so simple.
There was no indication offered that any engineering has been done with the wet tank mod... so the concerns raised here are to be expected and not out of line. Geezz... give people a break and some benefit of the doubt of their well meant intentions.
There was no indication offered that any engineering has been done with the wet tank mod... so the concerns raised here are to be expected and not out of line. Geezz... give people a break and some benefit of the doubt of their well meant intentions.
Valid point... But from the very beginning when the major modifications were undertaken, it was refered to as the RV-1.
The names Stits, Playboy, or anything else that connected it to Ray Stits were not used, other than to tell people that the airplane started out as that, but had now been highly modified
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
I think that is only fair. Somewhere in the building manual of the RV12, there is a notation that if you modify it, then don't call it a Vans or RV12. For that reason, my registration has no mention of an RV12. I have made major modifications, and if I crash it, any connection to Vans should be avoided.
Joe - I like your spirit! Best of luck to you! Bill Boyle - one comment. I think the removable wings are HIGHLY HIGHLY desirable for many, many reasons already covered in the forum. (They made my paint job possible at an auto shop, for one.) Would the same wing attachment setup be desirable if the fuel tanks were in the wings? YES! That would really be good.
Perhaps the current design went a bit overboard on avoiding the need to disconnect any lines or electrical at the wing root. A wing mounted pitot could be easily accommodated with a quick disconnect(s) for pneumatic tubing (although setting the wing down on the ground with one like the demo would not be good!) My AOA sensor uses a quick-disconnect for that piece of 1/8 tubing. I am sure fuel line disconnects are also possible similar to connecting up a hose to an air compressor. Yes, the plumbing would be more complicated - I would not be comfortable letting a 10-12 gallon or so wing tank get really low before switching... a "both" setting would be better if possible. Of course that poses problems with the fuel return...
Splitting the rear bulkhead panels is an easy mod for *inspection* at the annual without removing the existing tank. (Vans personal airplane has them split just like you see in the MODS sticky thread, I've seen it and discussed it with him.) But even with them split, I don't know if you could actually get back there and DO anything without removing the tank!! Pretty tight.
Ideal: RV12B, tail dragger, sliding canopy, removable wings, wing tanks.
Perhaps the current design went a bit overboard on avoiding the need to disconnect any lines or electrical at the wing root. A wing mounted pitot could be easily accommodated with a quick disconnect(s) for pneumatic tubing (although setting the wing down on the ground with one like the demo would not be good!) My AOA sensor uses a quick-disconnect for that piece of 1/8 tubing. I am sure fuel line disconnects are also possible similar to connecting up a hose to an air compressor. Yes, the plumbing would be more complicated - I would not be comfortable letting a 10-12 gallon or so wing tank get really low before switching... a "both" setting would be better if possible. Of course that poses problems with the fuel return...
Splitting the rear bulkhead panels is an easy mod for *inspection* at the annual without removing the existing tank. (Vans personal airplane has them split just like you see in the MODS sticky thread, I've seen it and discussed it with him.) But even with them split, I don't know if you could actually get back there and DO anything without removing the tank!! Pretty tight.
Ideal: RV12B, tail dragger, sliding canopy, removable wings, wing tanks.
dick seiders
Well Known Member
I think we all need to take a deep breath. I also think what Joe is doing is pretty cool. Wish I had the knowhow to try something that radical from the plans, but I don't. So I'll wish the experimentors the very best and will wait to see how it all works out. Somewhere down the line this may become an clear and safe option for those who want to do it.
Dick Seiders
Dick Seiders
To some maybe, not to others. But everyone sees it differently, so if Joe wants to experiment that's OK by me. And if he's done the necessary engineering then even better. But depending on your point of view, skill and comfort level, the `necessary engineering' could range from some back of the envelope calculations and `it looks about right', to a full FE analysis done by experienced specialists and backed up by a rigorous testing program. I don't know where Joe sits in the spectrum, but then I don't have to test fly the JDR1 either.
Value of easily removable wings
This conversation is very interesting and one of the issues addressed is the appeal or dislike of the removable wings. My experience with the removable wings has been positive. As another poster stated, it enabled me to get a great paint job using automotive facilities. More importantly, this feature was very useful when I made my flight to Petaluma, CA from Ohio last summer. The day after arrival, I noticed a wet spot on the fuselage while doing maintenance. The fuel tank was leaking at the left, front corner. A rivet and perhaps part of the corner was leaking. The facilities at the airport were fair and I made two attempts over a five day period trying to fix the leak using externally applied epoxies recommended by the local A&P folks. At this point the airplane had 79 hours and the trip through West Texas and Southern Arizona was very rough and turbulent due to the 100-110 F temperatures in the afternoons. Perhaps this contributed to the leak and perhaps I didn't put enough Pro-seal in the corner. Whatever, I lost confidence in the fuel tank and was not going to fly it back over the mountains. My choices were to take a commercial flight home, order a new, pre-built tank from Van's, ship the tank to Petaluma, fly commercial back to Petaluma, install the new tank and calibrate the fuel system and then fly the 12 back to Ohio. Or I could rent a 24 foot U-haul, yank the wings and drive home. That's what I did. I got home safely, no damage to the airplane, gave countless drivers a view of the tail feathers of an RV12 sticking out of the back of a van and had a new experience to relate. I am a fan of the removable wings.
This conversation is very interesting and one of the issues addressed is the appeal or dislike of the removable wings. My experience with the removable wings has been positive. As another poster stated, it enabled me to get a great paint job using automotive facilities. More importantly, this feature was very useful when I made my flight to Petaluma, CA from Ohio last summer. The day after arrival, I noticed a wet spot on the fuselage while doing maintenance. The fuel tank was leaking at the left, front corner. A rivet and perhaps part of the corner was leaking. The facilities at the airport were fair and I made two attempts over a five day period trying to fix the leak using externally applied epoxies recommended by the local A&P folks. At this point the airplane had 79 hours and the trip through West Texas and Southern Arizona was very rough and turbulent due to the 100-110 F temperatures in the afternoons. Perhaps this contributed to the leak and perhaps I didn't put enough Pro-seal in the corner. Whatever, I lost confidence in the fuel tank and was not going to fly it back over the mountains. My choices were to take a commercial flight home, order a new, pre-built tank from Van's, ship the tank to Petaluma, fly commercial back to Petaluma, install the new tank and calibrate the fuel system and then fly the 12 back to Ohio. Or I could rent a 24 foot U-haul, yank the wings and drive home. That's what I did. I got home safely, no damage to the airplane, gave countless drivers a view of the tail feathers of an RV12 sticking out of the back of a van and had a new experience to relate. I am a fan of the removable wings.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
But Frank, you can't do that!
Remember Vans says you cannot trailer or haul an RV12 without supporting the tail, or it will fall off! Requires a jig to support the entire body all the way to the tail.
Just curious, did the tail fall off for you? I thought not, neither did the dozens of others that have done the same thing. Seriously, did you loosen up any rivets or make any wrinkles in the skin?
Remember Vans says you cannot trailer or haul an RV12 without supporting the tail, or it will fall off! Requires a jig to support the entire body all the way to the tail.
Just curious, did the tail fall off for you? I thought not, neither did the dozens of others that have done the same thing. Seriously, did you loosen up any rivets or make any wrinkles in the skin?
Tony Partain - Van's semi-official airplane mover - who moves Van's own airplanes - trailered mine from Oklahoma City to Seattle - er, no tail supports. Mike, Tony's best driver - left me and drove that night to Aurora to take Van's demo airplanes to Sun'n'Fun - no tail supports.....
Tail looks pretty good - no wrinkles.
Bob Bogash
N737G
Tail looks pretty good - no wrinkles.
Bob Bogash
N737G
But Frank, you can't do that!
Remember Vans says you cannot trailer or haul an RV12 without supporting the tail, or it will fall off! Requires a jig to support the entire body all the way to the tail.
Just curious, did the tail fall off for you? I thought not, neither did the dozens of others that have done the same thing. Seriously, did you loosen up any rivets or make any wrinkles in the skin?
The world is full of people much smarter than myself, but that doesn't mean I will ever stop passing along personal experience in case it may help others.
I have personal experience with instances of damage if the tail is not supported, and I know of other instances where damage did not occur.
So what should be the proper response Don. "Just stick it on a trailer... it will be fine". "Oh your airplane got damaged... Hmmm... yea I have heard of that happening to a few people". "I guess you were one of the unlucky ones" "see ya!
Don, think for a minute. Do you think I would make up stuff like this just to stir up debate. Believe me... I have a lot better things to do. My main reason for participating here at all is to help people. Help them avoid having to learn things the hard way.
This world we live in is not made of absolutes.
Many builders successfully do first engine starts with no wings mounted. Guess what. Van himself will not do it, and he recommends to others that they do not do it either. But many people do, and don't have any problems.
So what is the right answer. There are known instances of airframe damage caused by doing so. I guess the recommendation should be "How luck do you feel?"
So what kind of info do you want Don? From now on should my posts that counter-dict the experience that some people have had, have a heading that says "Warning - streak of good like required for this info to be valid" ?
Seriously, one of the big problems here on the VAF forums (and others like it), is how quickly valuable input can get derailed by just one or two outspoken participants who, since what is presented doesn't align with there own logic or previous experience, claim it can't be true. And they just plain wont believe unless you provide them with scientific data and photographic proof.
This should not be a place where people flex their brain muscles just to improve there rank in the wolf pack.
Fortunately, a lot of very smart people keep right on posting here anyway, because they know that there are literally thousands of other lurkers that see value in hearing what others that have learned from experience, have to say.
P.S. The stuff highlighted in red, you totally dreamed up. The only thing that has ever said was "support the tail so that it can't wag around". I do it with a simple adjustable strut that threads into the tail tiedown hook socket.
Last edited:
I can guarantee, when Van's fully assembled RV-12 is transported over the road in/on a trailer, it has a tail support installed.
How do I know?
I install it.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
We appreciate you, Scott.
Scott, many more of us take your and Van's advice to heart and we thank you for posting said advice on here.
You can lead a horse to water..and blah, blah.
Thanks much,
Scott, many more of us take your and Van's advice to heart and we thank you for posting said advice on here.
You can lead a horse to water..and blah, blah.
Thanks much,
Same here. When Scott says something I listen, Don is a `character' and forum fashion statement (ever seen his shorts and braces?), and I respect Joe's determination to do things his way. Don too for that matter.
Or another "old saying" that I just made up.....
"You can buy 'em books and send 'em to school, but you can't keep 'em from eating the covers off."
"You can buy 'em books and send 'em to school, but you can't keep 'em from eating the covers off."
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Terrible Thread Drift
I think Scott knows I have no beef with him or his guidance. In fact on the trailering issue, I have decided NOT to trailer my 12 to the paint shop several hundred miles away, but to finish up and fly it there. This decision was based on Scott sharing his knowledge with us. Obviously Scott has an infinite amount of knowledge about the 12 compared to me, who has not even completed one or even flown in one yet (or even ATTACHED the tail). One should certainly consider our qualifications when deciding on a course.
I am the sort that always likes to see the "other side" of such issues, and point them out for all to consider. I truthfully have not found anyone yet who has damaged their 12 by such transport, despite most everyone disregarding the guidance. We can learn here, for instance just how to best support the airframe when transporting it. Carelessly supporting the tail could even result in damage if the rest of the plane is not secured properly. Photos are free here, could you give us some Scott? I had thought from previous posts that the biggest danger was the up and down bouncing effects, not the wagging action. Has anyone made a tail support system they would share photos of with us?
I think Scott knows I have no beef with him or his guidance. In fact on the trailering issue, I have decided NOT to trailer my 12 to the paint shop several hundred miles away, but to finish up and fly it there. This decision was based on Scott sharing his knowledge with us. Obviously Scott has an infinite amount of knowledge about the 12 compared to me, who has not even completed one or even flown in one yet (or even ATTACHED the tail). One should certainly consider our qualifications when deciding on a course.
I am the sort that always likes to see the "other side" of such issues, and point them out for all to consider. I truthfully have not found anyone yet who has damaged their 12 by such transport, despite most everyone disregarding the guidance. We can learn here, for instance just how to best support the airframe when transporting it. Carelessly supporting the tail could even result in damage if the rest of the plane is not secured properly. Photos are free here, could you give us some Scott? I had thought from previous posts that the biggest danger was the up and down bouncing effects, not the wagging action. Has anyone made a tail support system they would share photos of with us?
Now that was funny.
Glasair III -I helped build a Glasair I years ago. It was a nice plane. It did have gas in the wings and even worse, it had a header tank right behind the engine. The tail and HS on the -9 I am building are as smooth as the Glasair!
Glasair III -I helped build a Glasair I years ago. It was a nice plane. It did have gas in the wings and even worse, it had a header tank right behind the engine. The tail and HS on the -9 I am building are as smooth as the Glasair!
