Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
#1554212
I have to say Chaps, that some of this thread shows little regard or sympathy for poor old @Clearprop1 .

He's trashed his pride and joy along with his pride, he's created himself a right load of hassle sorting out insurance, aaib etc. So he's probably on a bit of a downer at the moment. This thread, which he kindly contributed to, has done little since other than slate the design and concept of his chosen aircraft! Have a heart guys!

Every aircraft has design/concept flaws, hopefully if they are considered significant enough the manufacturer, LAA, CAA etc will make recommendations to improve them where possible, but they all are what they are, and we still choose to fly them.

@Clearprop1 , I'm pleased you walked away from that, good luck with getting the insurance/rebuild sorted.
Ben K, G-BLEW, patowalker and 14 others liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1554216
MichaelP wrote:The RV6 flies well and has excellent performance with the O-320, I have flown the O-360 variants and I think it's a waste to put this heavy engine in the nose


What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.
#1554226
Regarding the RV-x design - I do wish people would only slate the design if they knew what they were talking about.

Attach the steel roll bar to something stronger? On an aluminium airframe it's always going to be attached to ali somewhere - as it is it's on the top longeron, not just a bit of skin.

CP1 got out unharmed - job done.
Ridders, Waveflyer liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1554235
Point taken GrahamB, it was meant tongue in cheek.

As for the roll over bar being connected to aluminium... Normally you attach strong to strong as in undercarriages connected to wing spars or another strong piece of the airframe.
The undercarriage in the RV6A is mounted such that the stress loads are into the strong wing centre section structure, in the 6 it's into the engine bearer/firewall structure.

So a carry through in strength from the roll over bar into reinforced structure is sensible.
A roll over bar makes less sense if it is connected to structure that crushes and allows the canopy to bear down on the heads of the occupants.

I think we all have sympathy for the pilot involved in this accident, but I think also that this is a forum to discuss and learn from such accidents.
Discussions such as this are also useful to those who might be building this type of aircraft, and will help them make a decision on the flip up vs slider canopies, and also understand better the risks.
Maxthelion liked this
#1554254
"Looking at the design, well in your photo if you hold up a peice of paper tail to nose, the canopy is just proud a little, which is why I suspect it didnt compress totally."

i agree. The canopy is compressed only slightly which is why they could slide it back and get the pilot out. The tail fin seems to have stopped the canopy from crushing in.

It took a while for enough people to come and lift the tail up. I was really afraid of seeing smoke while I was filming (I would have been over there but my knee is currently damaged so I was purely an observer). Always was afraid of fire in aeroplanes, especially when they turn over. The chimpunk was my worse fear... engine failure and forced landing in rough farm field and flip.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1554255
Alright, so sometimes my remarks are taken in the wrong way.
I realise this is a court of opinion, and that I should take it more seriously.
Sorry your Honours.

G-BLEW wrote:
MichaelP wrote:…As for homebuilds, most are in fact sturdier than factory built aeroplanes.
The Pazmany PL2 became a military trainer!



Hmmm, bit of a sweeping generalisation

The Cessna 172 can be disconcerting taxying on grass as you see the windscreen moving as the wings flex back and forth.


That's what it is supposed to do, it's a floating windscreen

Ian


First point first.
I'll make this sweeping generalisation: 'spinning close to the ground is always hazardous'. Most people will agree.

I ask instructors to always be ready to justify the things they say, and so I will justify my point that most homebuilds are in fact sturdier than factory built aeroplanes.

1. My first spinning was in a Cessna 150 and I was worried about its structural integrity. I didn't know much, but I looked at the way it was built. Clearly the aeroplane has been well up to this task as is proven by time. Homebuilts I have flown have had sturdier structures.

2. I have flown, first flown, and test flown a fair number of homebuilt aeroplanes, and I put my critical eye on all of them.
I've picked up and I have missed snags in both certified and homebuilt aeroplanes. Fortunately I haven't missed anything terribly important so far as I know.

3. The designers of homebuilt aeroplanes know that these aircraft are built by people who are rarely aircraft engineers, and so their structures must be strong and as foolproof as possible.

4. Whereas many of these designs have performance that is usually better than equivalent certified aeroplanes, the designer accepts that pilots may come unstuck, and it would be unfortunate if a design fell apart in the air for some defect... Now I think of the Zenair 601, a type that became my least favourite displacing the VP1 from this position.

So I contend that homebuilt aeroplanes generally are stronger in their designs.

Thinking out aloud:
The KitFox has small tubes, and a seemingly fragile airframe, but this is a very very light aircraft, and so far it has stood up to many tests in its operation.

The floating windscreen on the Cessna 172 always amused me. This is a flexible flying machine while the 150 and 152 are more robust and solid. I prefer to teach in the two seaters rather than the 172, my preference, it's up to you what you prefer.
But this floating windscreen on the 172 is a good tool to use against those who would dare to barrel roll this aeroplane, it's not an aeroplane to play silly buggers in, it's transport.
By pilotea
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1554259
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
MichaelP wrote:The RV6 flies well and has excellent performance with the O-320, I have flown the O-360 variants and I think it's a waste to put this heavy engine in the nose


What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.


Your's is an "angle valve" engine, and weighs a bit more due to counterbalanced crank, heavier cylinders etc. the 320/360s (non IO, and called parallel valve) comes in 2 flavours, narrow deck and wide deck, narrow deck is a bit lighter (I think it's 12 pounds) than the wide deck. A narrow deck 360 is about the same weight as a wide deck 320. Angle valve engines are 100LL only, most parallel valve engines can run on 91/96 octane fuel and also "premium fuel" if you can find it with 1% or less ethanol.
Paul_Sengupta liked this
#1554272
Paul_Sengupta wrote:..
Bulldogs of course are made of cast iron, but they're still prone to cracks on the frame between the gear legs if abused.


ISTR one was written off at RAF Newton when pilot (UAS FI, IIRC!) took a short cut when vacating, rather than waiting to reach the mown taxiway, and a wheel went into a rabbit hole .. :roll:
By pilotea
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1554321
aerofurb wrote:And of course, 320 and 360 parallel valve engines also come in injected or carburettors versions...

The Bulldog engine wasn't the lightest variant, it had to be said :wink:


Best engine afaik, if you don't want to customise with 580 cylinders etc etc... is the narrow deck 360, as light as it can be and some say less prone to crankcase cracking. Narrow deck lycomings can be identified easily, they have "banana plates" holding down the cylinders to the crank case.
#1554322
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
MichaelP wrote:The RV6 flies well and has excellent performance with the O-320, I have flown the O-360 variants and I think it's a waste to put this heavy engine in the nose


What's the difference in weight between an O-320 and an O-360? Doesn't it depend on the variant of the engine? Apparently I have the thick metal (I)O-360-A1B6 on mine with the balance weights and stuff, so I suspect one of the heavier variants.


Best thing I ever did was selling the RV6 with the 320 in it to get RV7. I have an RV7 with the heavy bulldog engine. That's the angle valve so the heaviest of the lot. I wouldn't change it for anything. :bounce:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7