Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Sb 08-6-1
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of  my plane?

  

 Fire away!

  

 Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA  (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



   [quote][b]

Jim Berry

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 237
Location: Denver

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1

Dave,



If you are going to insure your aircraft, I would guess the insurance company would use non-compliance with the SB as a reason to weasel out of paying a claim. It could also be an issue if you wanted to sell the plane.



Jim Berry

40482

pascal(at)rv10builder.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Think of it as insurance

  

  



  From: Dave Leikam (daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com) 

 Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:52 PM

 To: RV-10 matronics (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: Sb 08-6-1

 



 What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of  my plane?

  

 Fire away!

  

 Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA  (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

I prefer to remove the empennage myself, in the hangar -  rather than have it do so on its own, at 10000'.



 [quote]         From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave    Leikam

Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 8:22 AM

To: RV-10    matronics

Subject: Sb 08-6-1

   

   What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of    my plane?

    

   Fire away!

    

   Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA    (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



 	  Quote: 	
		  



p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

ics.com

.matronics.com/contribution



	
"Warning:

The information contained in this email and any attached files is

confidential to BAE Systems Australia. If you are not the intended

recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email or any

attachments is expressly prohibited.  If you have received this email

in error, please notify us immediately. VIRUS: Every care has been

taken to ensure this email and its attachments are virus free,

however, any loss or damage incurred in using this email is not the

sender's responsibility.  It is your responsibility to ensure virus

checks are completed before installing any data sent in this email to

your computer."



[b]

vhmum(at)bigpond.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Do you realy need to ask.......

 [quote]   ---

GenGrumpy(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

1.  You never have any problems.

  

 2.  You crash and your insurance company denies any claim, and  anyone else in the plane or on the ground that might be injured has grounds  to take your entire estate.

  

 grumpy

 N184JM

  

 do not archive

  

 In a message dated 7/23/2008 6:00:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of    my plane?

    

   Fire away!

    

   Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA    (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



 	  Quote: 	
		  



="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
	


 

  



Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

  [quote][b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

What if I remove the AN hardware from my rod ends and use

Nylon bolts to save weight.....you wanna come with me and

take a test flight?



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Dave Leikam wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   What if I never do the SB on the tailcone of my plane?

  

 Fire away!

  

 Dave Leikam

 RV-10 #40496

 N89DA (Reserved)

 Muskego, WI

 

 *

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

In all honesty, I just don't know if I believe there is any good reason to  

pull apart those assemblies.  I know I have to do it, but man I don't  want 

to!!!



 Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA  (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



 [quote]   ---

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB,  and I will, but if the empennage is that inclined to come off  this  airplane without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it  after they were installed!

  

 Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA  (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



 do not archive

 [quote]   ---

ron.mcgann(at)baesystems.
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

You did ask us to 'fire away' - don't be too surprised with  the reponses.



 [quote]         From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave    Leikam

Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 1:29 PM

To:    rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Sb    08-6-1

   

   With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB,    and I will, but if the empennage is that inclined to come off  this    airplane without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly    it after they were installed!

    

   Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA    (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



   do not archive

   [quote]     ---

pascal(at)rv10builder.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Dave;

 it's a bummer but I was surprised how quickly it  actually took. I think there was more time thinking about it than the 2.5 hours  to complete it. If you are at the flying stage just do your thing, check the  area during the annual as recommended and when you've had enough do it.  

 Personally I figure if Van's has a SB out there and  they send the parts they think it's worth the effort and realize this issue  as being rather serious. It may be all about liability, it may be about fixing  an issue they acknowledge is a weakness, but they think it's a good reason  to do the SB regardless.

 Get motivated one day and do it, 

 P

  

  

 From: Dave Leikam (daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com) 

   Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:29 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com) 

 Subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1

 



 In all honesty, I just don't know if I believe there is any good reason to  

pull apart those assemblies.  I know I have to do it, but man I don't  want 

to!!!



 Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA  (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



 [quote]   ---

daveleikam(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

All right cease fire, I will do the SB, when I get  back from OSH.  

  

 Dave 

  

 do not archive

 [quote]   ---

n212pj(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point.   It's not so much about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering  decisions.  The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design  has some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed.  That's no  problem.  It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since some  very small pieces in this plane serve very important functions...think cotter  pins.  

  

 However, there are more than a few design issues that leave  one scratching the bald spot.  Doors that rip off when accidentally opening  in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of planes, not just the  RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and doors, should have been an  anticipated event leading to a more airworthy design), almost certainly causing  HS damage in the process.  Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door  strikes).  An odd "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason  (at least to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low,  high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to what  stresses.  Doors that do not have a second safety catch, especially given  their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.  Brakes that are not  vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the size and possible uses of the  plane.  A lack of a cage or simple roll bar to augment what is a  questionable structural component of the fuselage, namely the fiberglass  top.  Brake master cylinders that stick out so feet can hit them, possibly  causing some type of leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's  planes)  There are more, I'm sure.  

  

 Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop  door catch, both easy fixes to the current design.  Paul Grimstad has  developed a sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly  replacement.  We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll  bar would suffice.  The innovators are out there addressing the  shortcomings, which will be identified as we move forward.  Eventually they  will be addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being  addressed by the builder community.  Someone will come up with better  doors, I'm sure.  I hope.  Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and  doors.  

  

 Back to Dave's point.  I think we need to evaluate  each issue and address them, one by one, as a flying community.  We need to  question each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does.  It's not  an insurance issue.  His question was to shine a questioning light on a  design issue.  Is there something else going on here that we need to  understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or is it a  band-aid?  Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all registered users  indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught  and a quick response came forth.  What about the others?  I find the  door issue one of a nature that should not have to be addressed by each builder  alone, nor by the builder community, but by the engineers at  Van's.  

  

 My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of  something, that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a  fix!  I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch door  latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a parts list for  posting.  If you're using this list while building but do not contribute  ideas and discussions, please think about starting to do so.   There aren't that many who take the time to post; we need everyone's help and  good ideas.  

  

 Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this  thread.  And, thanks to all for their sincere, non-flammable  replies.  A great community.  

  

 Have fun at OSH.  Take lots of pictures!   Share!  

  

 John J    



 [quote]         From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave    Leikam

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM

To:    rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Sb    08-6-1

   

   With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB,    and I will, but if the empennage is that inclined to come off  this    airplane without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly    it after they were installed!

    

   Dave Leikam

RV-10 #40496

N89DA    (Reserved)

Muskego, WI



   do not archive

   [quote]     ---

toaster73(at)embarqmail.c
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

John, you make some excellent points.   

  

 There are plenty of aircraft out there that have  cracking bulkhead issues or some other type of structural problem... could be an  accessory or engine with a structural problem too.  Engines may need an  overhaul at a specified interval because the design and field experience has  dictated an inspection be done at a certain time, because the part wear rate has  been forecast and the failure modes and effects have been identified. Wear can  result in loss of wall thickness and fatgue failure so you look at the part at  the right time to either continue use or replace/repair it. You don't  necessarily change the design (such as add a plate)

 In this case the Van's engineering solution (by no  means the only one) is repeatative inspection until repair can be made at a  reasonable time. 

 Look at military aircraft, perhaps the fleet  accepts more risk because failure of the mission outweighs the risk (i.e. we  will fly with this crack because if we don't get these bombs to target we lose  the war). These types of analysis are done every day.

  

 I thought a bit about this SB and looked at the  requirements 25 hours inspection until annual.  This clearly means I can  fly about 100 hours before ever putting the plates in and I would have looked at  the location 3 times (as long as no cracks found). Given the reports from  the field it appears no cracks have been found except by Vans.  THis is  excellent field data to suggest that continued 25 hours may be an "alternate  means of compliance" and a crack growth to failure is not expected in 25 hours  of operation.   Or if crack growth could be forecasted the interval  could be XX  hours for the rest of the aircraft's life. So  you could probably ask Van's what if I inspect every XX hours and just not  put the plates in. 

 Just trying to say there are other ways to keep the  risk of tail failure at bay without actually complying with the  bulletin. 

  

 -Chris

 #40072  complying with SB because not flying,  tail is off, and it is easier to do than inspect every XX hours.

 [quote]   ---

rv10(at)sinkrate.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

John,  

   

I asked Van about the cabin top strength directly.  He said that they drop tested a fuselage and the top help up.  I did not ask him any more specifics as to the drop test except that I asked if the windows blew out or cracked but he didn’t remember.    

   

I myself don’t know a single thing about fiberglass strengths so I don’t even have an opinion as to the cabin top strength.  I’m curios why the impression is that the top is a “questionable structural component”.  Does anyone know for certain its strengths/weaknesses or are we all just aluminum bigots and we think fiberglass is weak?  I’m not picking on anyone I just want to know why the consensus seems to be that the top is not strong enough.  It looks thicker and stronger than any glass plane I’ve looked at.  

   

-Ben W  

   

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen

 Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:45 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Sb 08-6-1  

  

   

Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point.  It's not so much about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.  The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed.  That's no problem.  It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since some very small pieces in this plane serve very important functions...think cotter pins.    

   

However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one scratching the bald spot.  Doors that rip off when accidentally opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.  Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes).  An odd "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least to me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low, high power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to what stresses.  Doors that do not have a second safety catch, especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.  Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the size and possible uses of the plane.  A lack of a cage or simple roll bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of the fuselage, namely the fiberglass top.  Brake master cylinders that stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of leak (I've never understood this in all of Van's planes)  There are more, I'm sure.    

   

Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch, both easy fixes to the current design.  Paul Grimstad has developed a sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement.  We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would suffice.  The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings, which will be identified as we move forward.  Eventually they will be addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being addressed by the builder community.  Someone will come up with better doors, I'm sure.  I hope.  Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and doors.    

   

Back to Dave's point.  I think we need to evaluate each issue and address them, one by one, as a flying community.  We need to question each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does.  It's not an insurance issue.  His question was to shine a questioning light on a design issue.  Is there something else going on here that we need to understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or is it a band-aid?  Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all registered users indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy that the problem was caught and a quick response came forth.  What about the others?  I find the door issue one of a nature that should not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by the builder community, but by the engineers at Van's.    

   

My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something, that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a fix!  I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a parts list for posting.  If you're using this list while building but do not contribute ideas and discussions, please think about starting to do so.  There aren't that many who take the time to post; we need everyone's help and good ideas.    

   

Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread.  And, thanks to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies.  A great community.    

   

Have fun at OSH.  Take lots of pictures!  Share!    

   

John J      [quote]  

       

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam

 Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1    

With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but if the empennage is that inclined to come off  this airplane without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't fly it after they were installed!  

    

   

    

Dave Leikam

 RV-10 #40496

 N89DA (Reserved)

 Muskego, WI  

    

do not archive  

  [quote]    

---

seipel(at)seznam.cz
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

John,



Every aircraft is a set of compromises and the RV-10 is no different.  

Sure, the doors are a little flimsy, the construction is light in he 

horizontal stab (and many other areas of the aircraft), the brakes and 

rudder system are simple if not terribly ergonomic.  But the aircraft 

flies fast, gets good fuel performance, handles like an RV, and doesn't 

cost half a million dollars.  If you want to beef up the construction, 

add a roll cage, put in better door latches, better brakes, better 

rudder pedals, change the trim tabs, etc then hey, it's experimental and 

you should definitely go for it.  After you add all the weight and cost 

to make the changes, you might have a more bullet-proof aircraft, but 

it'll also be more expensive, more complex, and either be slower or burn 

more gas. 



I think we all might have different ideas of what constitutes perfection 

when it comes to the RV-10.  I do appreciate those that come up with 

improvements to Van's design and think every builder should have the 

opportunity to implement them or not as they so choose.  I do not think 

that Van's should have to research and do the engineering on each and 

every one of them, nor should they be obligated to try and incorporate 

them into the kit.  They've addressed the issues as they see them, with 

simple solutions that in their opinion get the job done.



I'll just have to disagree on the cabin top not being structural.  Van's 

designed it to be structural, hence the instructions not to drill into 

it except where they placed hard points.  If you've got information 

about an RV-10 incident where the cabin top failed, then I'd definitely 

be interested to hear about it.



PJ Seipel

RV-10 #40032



John Jessen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dave actually has an interesting and worthy point.  It's not so much 

 about the SB, I think, as about some of the engineering decisions.  

 The plane is a good airplane, and certainly every plane design has 

 some unforeseen issues that must be field addressed.  That's no 

 problem.  It's also not about how big or small the pieces are, since 

 some very small pieces in this plane serve very important 

 functions...think cotter pins. 

  

 However, there are more than a few design issues that leave one 

 scratching the bald spot.  Doors that rip off when accidentally 

 opening in flight (it will happen many times within any fleet of 

 planes, not just the RV-10, and give the flex within the cabin and 

 doors, should have been an anticipated event leading to a more 

 airworthy design), almost certainly causing HS damage in the process.  

 Too few ribs in the HS to sustain bird (or door strikes).  An odd 

 "discontinuity" in the trim tabs for some unknown reason (at least to 

 me, is this a means of addressing a problem in handling at low, high 

 power speeds?) not actually understood that might be contributing to 

 what stresses.  Doors that do not have a second safety catch, 

 especially given their lack of aerodynamics when opened in flight.  

 Brakes that are not vented and of a mass that is correspondent to the 

 size and possible uses of the plane.  A lack of a cage or simple roll 

 bar to augment what is a questionable structural component of the 

 fuselage, namely the fiberglass top.  Brake master cylinders that 

 stick out so feet can hit them, possibly causing some type of leak 

 (I've never understood this in all of Van's planes)  There are more, 

 I'm sure. 

  

 Tim James has a -10 with a roll bar, as well as a two-stop door catch, 

 both easy fixes to the current design.  Paul Grimstad has developed a 

 sensible (and beautiful) rudder pedal and brake assembly replacement.  

 We're waiting for a truly structural cabin top, but a roll bar would 

 suffice.  The innovators are out there addressing the shortcomings, 

 which will be identified as we move forward.  Eventually they will be 

 addressed, one at a time, leading to a better platform, but being 

 addressed by the builder community.  Someone will come up with better 

 doors, I'm sure.  I hope.  Maybe a whole replacement for cabin top and 

 doors. 

  

 Back to Dave's point.  I think we need to evaluate each issue and 

 address them, one by one, as a flying community.  We need to question 

 each and every one, which, by his question, Dave does.  It's not an 

 insurance issue.  His question was to shine a questioning light on a 

 design issue.  Is there something else going on here that we need to 

 understand, and does this replacement part fix the inherent problem or 

 is it a band-aid?  Yes, the fact that a piece was sent out to all 

 registered users indicates a serious problem, and we all are happy 

 that the problem was caught and a quick response came forth.  What 

 about the others?  I find the door issue one of a nature that should 

 not have to be addressed by each builder alone, nor by the builder 

 community, but by the engineers at Van's.  

  

 My plea is that, if a builder finds something or knows of something, 

 that it be shared with all, especially if they have come up with a 

 fix!  I'll try to get good pictures of Tim's roll bar and double catch 

 door latch, and perhaps whatever measurements are needed, along with a 

 parts list for posting.  If you're using this list while building but 

 do not contribute ideas and discussions, please think about 

 starting to do so.  There aren't that many who take the time to post; 

 we need everyone's help and good ideas.  

  

 Thanks, Dave, for having the courage to open this thread.  And, thanks 

 to all for their sincere, non-flammable replies.  A great community. 

  

 Have fun at OSH.  Take lots of pictures!  Share! 

  

 John J   



     ------------------------------------------------------------------------

     *From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com

     [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave

     Leikam

     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:59 PM

     *To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com

     *Subject:* Re: Sb 08-6-1



     With all due respect, I know I have to do the SB, and I will, but

     if the empennage is that inclined to come off  this airplane

     without those two small pieces of aluminum installed, I wouldn't

     fly it after they were installed!

      

     Dave Leikam

     RV-10 #40496

     N89DA (Reserved)

     Muskego, WI

     do not archive



 *

 *

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

I've heard speculation from someone close to the situation that they

believe that the bulkhead simply wasn't properly deburred on that one

aircraft. Given that it was primarily used for transition training,

with a lot of stalls shaking the tail, it  wasn't too surprising. More

significant is that no one else seems to have found a crack, nor was

there one on 410RV.



On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   John, you make some excellent points.

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

vhmum(at)bigpond.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Just do it and move on.



regards Chris

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

Over a year ago, while working on the emppange, I installed a gusset on each side of the same area in question in the SB.  Can someone take a look at what I did and comment as to whether this should take care of the problem?  Thanks guys.   

Don McDonald 

#40636  - finishing the finishing



--- On Thu, 7/24/08, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 [quote]From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Sb 08-6-1

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 3:04 PM



[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com>  I've heard speculation from someone close to the situation that they believe that the bulkhead simply wasn't properly deburred on that one aircraft. Given that it was primarily used for transition training, with a lot of stalls shaking the tail, it  wasn't too surprising. More significant is that no one else seems to have found a crack, nor was there one on 410RV.  On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> wrote: > John, you make some excellent points. >

IMG_2299c.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

130.2 KB

Viewed:

593 Time(s)

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

patrick.pulis(at)seagas.c
Guest

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: Sb 08-6-1

That would make a great T-shirt logo.



Do Not Archive 



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

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