 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
 |
|
In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes:
| Quote: | Research the history of the aircraft
and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
the airframe, |
Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications.
What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho.
It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot.
Patrick
See what's free at AOL.com.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
OK, just to stir the pot a little more………what category will your RV-10 operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative g’s. It all factors in doesn’t it. If you place an operating limit on the aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g’s could you not increase the gross weight using the same test data that van’s used? (just ignore the hard landing issue).
What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb?
Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think……..
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, the pictures look great.
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes:
| Quote: |
Research the history of the aircraft
and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
the airframe, |
Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications.
What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho.
It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot.
Patrick
See what's free at AOL.com.
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
01234
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
The three Standard categories are Normal, Utility and Aerobatic. The RV-10 has not been tested for more than the most conservative Normal. Utility will require proof of load carrying at higher (more extreme G load limits) and VAN has been quite clear that the wings will not accept Aerobatic so have at it and let us know by email if you survive the Test Flight. Get some rest first. Kitplanes had a great article on stall speeds with higher loads last month. You might read up on that before turning the key.
On the other hand the weights both positive and negative are documented. If you can shed enough weight, you might be able to hit the aerobatic G limit with two or three gallons of fuel onboard. Don’t forget the Christen Inverted Oil system too.
John #600
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rene Felker
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
OK, just to stir the pot a little more………what category will your RV-10 operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative g’s. It all factors in doesn’t it. If you place an operating limit on the aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g’s could you not increase the gross weight using the same test data that van’s used? (just ignore the hard landing issue).
What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute, or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb?
Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think……..
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein, the pictures look great.
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes:
| Quote: |
Research the history of the aircraft
and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
the airframe, |
Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and other modifications.
What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight. The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho.
It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test pilot.
Patrick
See what's free at AOL.com.
[/b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com[/b][quote][b] [b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
I've flown or examined most models of 172's up until the late '70s.
There are very few gross wt changes and a lot of structural changes,
some visible, some less obvious, but I doubt any of the gross wt changes
were made with no structural changes. C model upped it by 50 lbs with
shorter and stronger gear. D model had swept tail, changed fuel tanks,
upped it to 2300. No change after that for 20 years, until 1980 went to
2400 after they went to tubular gear and different variant of 160 hp
engine, different vertical fin, etc. Cessna changed the landing gear
at least 4 times after they made it a nose dragger that I know about.
They changed the wing struts at least a couple times. The tail changed
at least a couple times. Also complicating the picture is that the
plane was certified under CAR3 and many later changes were certified
under Part 23. So sum total there was less than a 10% change in gross wt
over more than 50 years of production, with over 20 variants produced,
all having some structural changes, with horsepower changes from 6 cyl
145 hp to 6 cyl 175 hp, to 4 cyl 150 hp to 4 cy 160hp to 4 cyl 180 hp to
six cyl 195 hp and 210 hp, and you think those gross wt changes were
just paper calculations? It also was produced under two different type
certificates, the second originating with the 175 that became P172, then
Cutlass and other variants with gross as high as 2550. So where is there
a year that gross changed with NO structural change? How do you know
there wasn't a change?
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
[quote]
What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without
changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft
and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross
weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation,
if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is
required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that
need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with
the change.
Dan
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
owl40188(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
I have not been following this list lately so I am going to chime in a bit late on this.
In reality if the C172 or any other aircraft needed structural changes or not for a gross weight increase in not relevant to the question of can the 2700lb gross weight be increased on the RV10. If the C172 needed a gross weight increase then the cognizant engineers, who hopefully were very knowledgeable of the structure and qualified, evaluated the structure and decided if something needed to be changed or not. If the structure was overdesigned then nothing needed to be done.
If someone is not qualified to do this then its best to just play by the rules and stick to the 2700 lb, specially when you you will be exceeding gross weight exactly because you have other people in it. I can tell you that I have signed many structural drawings and analyzed many parts and I would be reluctant do to this for myself simply because the lack of information to properly evalute it. Van tested a wing that was built in his factory with no fatigue cycles on it. No hard landings, no turbulence, not a couple thousand of hours of vibration and gust loads. Is the wing any individual builder built or the quickbuilt ones from the Phillipines as strong as what Vans crew put together for the test article? You think they might have taken extra care knowing it will be tested? Will another amateur built wing be able to carry the 3.8g's specially after 2000 hrs of flying?
I am confident that Van doesn't have the anwers to some of these questions and he has probably done little fatigue analysis on the airframe if any simply because the cost would be prohibitive. The safety factors are there to cover the unknowns so don't assume you have anything other than a 3.8g capability. I have just recently pulled 3g's doing loops in a Decathalon and it feels like a lot of load. That's a couple of SUV's sitting on your wing.
A reminder for those that are not aware, some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened. The wing appeared to have been built per the plans. That should give you a comforting feeling when thinking of pushing the envelopes.
The factory RV10 had a crack in the vertical stabilizer so they needed a doubler. Is everyone absolutely positive there is not some other weak area in the structure that has not been discovered yet. ? What if Vans vertical tail was just a bit stronger and didn't crack would any other builder have found the crack during inspection? What if the crack was in a hidden area? A lot bigger airframe designers than Vans have had problems with airplanes going out into the field and shortly starting to develop cracks with parts failing.
Its really the same with all major mods. Mods entail a risk to begin with even if you know what you are doing, if you don't know what you are doing and are just guessing then you are playing with fire. A builder flying an airplane at 2900 lbs for an hour or two does not make it safe. Test aircraft are typically instumented during flight test so that the stresses in the structure can be compared to the predicted values and are progressively pushed to the limits while monitoring the stresses.
Niko
---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n8vim(at)arrl.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
>>some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots
dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened.
NTSB Identification: *LAX98FA171 *.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Records Management Division
<http://www.ntsb.gov/info/sources.htm#pib>
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 24, 1998 in RIPLEY, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/31/2000
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-8, registration: N58RV
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
The aircraft, equipped with dual controls, departed for a demonstration
flight with the pilot in the front seat and the pilot-rated passenger in
the back. A demonstration flight includes only low-G maneuvers. The
aircraft, designed for aerobatics, had, since its manufacture, performed
aerobatic maneuvers on previous flights. The maximum allowable gross
weight for aerobatics is 1,550 pounds. The aircraft weighed an estimated
at 1,639 pounds at the time of the accident. An agricultural pilot
reported seeing the aircraft in a shallow climb about 500 feet agl. An
eyewitness, over a mile from the accident site, heard an engine surging
and looked up. He saw a yellow aircraft flying straight and level, about
1,000 feet agl. As he watched, something fell from the aircraft, which
was followed by a loud boom. The aircraft pitched up, nosed over,
rolled, entering a spin that continued until impact. The outboard
portion of the left wing was found 0.17 miles from the crash site. The
main spar had evidence of a ductile fracture due to a positive overload.
The spar material met design specifications for metal composition and
hardness. There was no evidence of fatigue or corrosion. The outboard
section of the left wing did not exhibit any evidence of aeroelastic
divergence. A flutter test showed the aircraft design was free from
flutter to speeds above its design envelope. Wing load testing showed
the wing design was able to support a limit load, +6 g's. The wing also
supported an ultimate load, +9 g's, for 3 seconds without failure. The
Engine Management System nonvolatile memory readout provided data points
equivalent to 191 mph in level flight. Maneuvering speed under the same
conditions was 142 mph.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the intentional or unintentional sudden application of aft elevator
control by an undetermined aircraft occupant that exceeded the design
stress limits of the aircraft. The aircraft gross weight, which exceeded
the maximum allowable for aerobatics, and airspeed, which exceeded the
maximum maneuvering speed for the weight, were factors in this accident.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick S.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 347
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
That is the most sombering reply to this post yet...
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Rick S.
RV-10
40185 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:54 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
I am the culprit who mentioned the observation of the potential for cracks on this list, two weeks before the inspection and subsequent SB was released by Vans. I am not a trained professional engineer but see enough to make reasonable observations for my nightly employment. Testing of the Amateur Built products is not as rigid or complex as for Certified aircraft. A point which should not be lost when Pen whipping paperwork or modifying components of someone else’s design.
Fly Safe, Fly Often, seek regular recurrent training and understand why Transition training is good for your fellow builders.
John #600
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Niko
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:12 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Establishing gross weight
I have not been following this list lately so I am going to chime in a bit late on this.
In reality if the C172 or any other aircraft needed structural changes or not for a gross weight increase in not relevant to the question of can the 2700lb gross weight be increased on the RV10. If the C172 needed a gross weight increase then the cognizant engineers, who hopefully were very knowledgeable of the structure and qualified, evaluated the structure and decided if something needed to be changed or not. If the structure was overdesigned then nothing needed to be done.
If someone is not qualified to do this then its best to just play by the rules and stick to the 2700 lb, specially when you you will be exceeding gross weight exactly because you have other people in it. I can tell you that I have signed many structural drawings and analyzed many parts and I would be reluctant do to this for myself simply because the lack of information to properly evalute it. Van tested a wing that was built [i]in his factory[/i] [i]with no fatigue cycles on it[/i]. No hard landings, no turbulence, not a couple thousand of hours of vibration and gust loads. Is the wing any individual builder built or the quickbuilt ones from the Phillipines as strong as what Vans crew put together for the test article? You think they might have taken extra care knowing it will be tested? Will another amateur built wing be able to carry the 3.8g's specially after 2000 hrs of flying?
I am confident that Van doesn't have the anwers to some of these questions and he has probably done little fatigue analysis on the airframe if any simply because the cost would be prohibitive. The safety factors are there to cover the unknowns so don't assume you have anything other than a 3.8g capability. I have just recently pulled 3g's doing loops in a Decathalon and it feels like a lot of load. That's a couple of SUV's sitting on your wing.
A reminder for those that are not aware, some time ago an RV8 wing broke up in level flight with both pilots dying. Vans has said that he doesn't understand how it happened. The wing appeared to have been built per the plans. That should give you a comforting feeling when thinking of pushing the envelopes.
The factory RV10 had a crack in the vertical stabilizer so they needed a doubler. Is everyone absolutely positive there is not some other weak area in the structure that has not been discovered yet. ? What if Vans vertical tail was just a bit stronger and didn't crack would any other builder have found the crack during inspection? What if the crack was in a hidden area? A lot bigger airframe designers than Vans have had problems with airplanes going out into the field and shortly starting to develop cracks with parts failing.
Its really the same with all major mods. Mods entail a risk to begin with even if you know what you are doing, if you don't know what you are doing and are just guessing then you are playing with fire. A builder flying an airplane at 2900 lbs for an hour or two does not make it safe. Test aircraft are typically instumented during flight test so that the stresses in the structure can be compared to the predicted values and are progressively pushed to the limits while monitoring the stresses.
Niko
----- Original Message ----
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:08:55 AM
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
I've flown or examined most models of 172's up until the late '70s.
There are very few gross wt changes and a lot of structural changes,
some visible, some less obvious, but I doubt any of the gross wt changes
were made with no structural changes. C model upped it by 50 lbs with
shorter and stronger gear. D model had swept tail, changed fuel tanks,
upped it to 2300. No change after that for 20 years, until 1980 went to
2400 after they went to tubular gear and different variant of 160 hp
engine, different vertical fin, etc. Cessna changed the landing gear
at least 4 times after they made it a nose dragger that I know about.
They changed the wing struts at least a couple times. The tail changed
at least a couple times. Also complicating the picture is that the
plane was certified under CAR3 and many later changes were certified
under Part 23. So sum total there was less than a 10% change in gross wt
over more than 50 years of production, with over 20 variants produced,
all having some structural changes, with horsepower changes from 6 cyl
145 hp to 6 cyl 175 hp, to 4 cyl 150 hp to 4 cy 160hp to 4 cyl 180 hp to
six cyl 195 hp and 210 hp, and you think those gross wt changes were
just paper calculations? It also was produced under two different type
certificates, the second originating with the 175 that became P172, then
Cutlass and other variants with gross as high as 2550. So where is there
a year that gross changed with NO structural change? How do you know
there wasn't a change?
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
>
> What I am talking about is the changes in the gross weight without
> changing/ modifying the airframe. Research the history of the aircraft
> and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
> the airframe, rather extensive testing was accomplished and the gross
> weight was modified. This is what I am referring to in this situation,
> if the builder is going to change the gross weight than a test period is
> required to verify it is safe, and as the builder they are the ones that
> need to determine how much and what testing is necessary to be okay with
> the change.
> Dan
>
> --
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
+3.8G/-1.5G has been, over time, determined to be the "acceptable"
limits for normal operations by the industry and the Feds. This means
in typically ordinary operations, an airplane will not encounter
conditions while flying that'll exceed these limits. However, as
mentioned elsewhere in this thread, exceeding those limits can be
quite easy. Deciding to lower your G limits so you can increase gross
weight is still a disaster waiting to happen to me. You've just
lowered your margins, so that where before you could have probably
tolerated moderate to moderately severe turbulence, you've just
limited yourself to only chop to light turbulence. Even then light
turbulence could overstress the airframe. This reminds me of my early
days in the company. Back then my boss used to share the field
difficulty reports from the Air Force with the troops. A certain
National Guard unit was transitioning from F-4 to F-15 at that time.
One airplane was flown into the base and as the paperwork was
reviewed, it was found with a 1G restriction to flight on it. The
airplane had a waiver attached, but the pilot who flew it had to have
the biggest set of any cock in the coop. Anyway, a 1G restriction
basically renders a fighter jet useless, in fact anything less than
the operational limits pretty much renders a jet useless. The NG kept
questioning why they got this bird and what to do with it. Eventually,
it was stripped of useable spare parts and the hulk placed on a
pedestal in front of the wing main office. I was fortunant to be part
of the airplane/pedestal interface design.
Kevin H.
On 5/19/07, Rene Felker <rene(at)felker.com> wrote:
| Quote: | OK, just to stir the pot a little more...what category will your RV-10
operate in? Utility, standard??? How may positive and how many negative
g's. It all factors in doesn't it. If you place an operating limit on the
aircraft of lets say +2/-.5 g's could you not increase the gross weight
using the same test data that van's used? (just ignore the hard landing
issue).
What is the fuel burn in climb? 19 gallons an hour? .32 gallons a minute,
or 1.9 pounds a minute. So can you add 20 pounds to the gross weight, and
just assume a 10 minute climb and a reduced capability during climb?
Been at work all day instead of being able to work on the plane, so if this
does not make sense it is because I am to tired to think....
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322 Finish or something like it, my panel arives on Wednesday form Stein,
the pictures look great.
801-721-6080
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:55 PM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Establishing gross weight
In a message dated 5/19/2007 10:52:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
LloydDR(at)wernerco.com writes:
Research the history of the aircraft
and you will see many gross weight changes without any modification to
the airframe,
Dan which aircraft were paper whipped into increases in gross weight/useful
load without any additional work? The Cessna 172's were increased because
of increased horsepower, tire size and rating changes and new landing gear
modifications...cherokee were increased because of horsepower increases and
other modifications.
What method are you using to calculate your changes to the 10 that Van's has
not gotten correct. I'd think that to really test the higher weights you'd
need to develop a test bed wing and frame. One would probably need both a
flying and static test bed product. I believe the Mooney factory static
test bed they loads bags of shot until the wing deforms or retains it's
original formation and attach points at a calculated load bearing weight.
The the test pilot fly's the test bed stressing the heck out of the plane in
every condition...spins, smap rolls etc and notes the results both with
instruments and feel. Who know's estabilishing a new higher gross could
include some fun flying...take along a parachaute, tho.
It seems that a pilot the other week believed that he could do aerobatics in
a baron as he believe the plane was capable of the stresses...it seems the
plane broke up and a few folks when with him as he became a fatal test
pilot.
Patrick
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:46 am Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
I am surprised that I have only gotten two real replies to my posting. As
you can guess, I was taking a look at the gross weight issue from another
perspective. Since I am not doing any design changes, how could I justify
increasing the gross weight within the constraints of current design.
Flying in the intermountain west, Ogden Utah is home base, there is no real
way of avoiding all turbulence....maybe not flying at all would avoid
it...., so assuming a -.5g is a little unrealistic, but the whole concept of
being able to have different gross weights as long as certain operating
limitations were placed on the flight still intrigues me. Maybe I will talk
to the DAR and see what he thinks......
But, just in case you are wondering, the placard on my airplane will read
Gross Weight....2700. I may sell the airplane one day and do not want to
accept any more liability than I have to......
Thanks for the replies, I love the exchange of ideas on this forum
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322 Finish or something like it.
801-721-6080
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: Establishing gross weight |
|
|
Rene' I have talked with Van about this at Oshkosh last year. Of course he feels that the plane should never be flown above gross. There is more to the calculations than just reducing the positive and negative g's for the wings when flying over gross. I know many people have put higher gross weight numbers on their aircraft in order to eliminate any problems with a ramp check. The fact is, most planes are flown over gross from time to time. If you ever see 3 or 4 people get into a Cirrus you can almost be guaranteed it is flying over gross. I have 2700 lbs on my plate as well.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt(at)yahoo.com
---
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
