Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Bob Turner)
2. 05:43 AM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Carl Froehlich)
3. 06:23 AM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Phillip Perry)
4. 11:00 AM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Ben Westfall)
5. 11:19 AM - probable cause (David)
6. 02:01 PM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Kelly McMullen)
7. 02:15 PM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Gary)
8. 03:46 PM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Phillip Perry)
9. 07:27 PM - Re: Shoulder Harnesses (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
Well, I'd say the front harness mounts see a substantial amount of tension as well
as shear.
Looking at the photos and the text, it appears a large section of the left roof
failed. I wonder if the forces exerted by the shoulder harness contributed to
this? Or did the roof fail only after experiencing an unsurvivable loading, say
more than ten times the pilot's weight, from the harness? Or was the failure
due to crash forces applied directly, independent of the harness?
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=440623#440623
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
Phil,
Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top fiberglass t
hickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor points less than a
dequate considering the significant countersink depth needed to have the anc
hor screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no data to say my evaluation was
correct or not.
I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for each ancho
r point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of 10" by 10" o
r so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of that. The objecti
ve being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom of the cabin top.
This resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking the head of the an
chor screw such that it was slightly below the surface of the canopy top. I
flatten the screw edges and installed the anchor screw in some flox as I wa
nted to make sure it would not turn when tightening the nut onto the inside.
Sanded the flox flush, a layer of glass on top of that, then a skim coat o
f micro balloons to fair it in.
Carl
> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was really
curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is in that s
ituation.
>
> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder harness
es in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago. It's still si
tting in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped indentations in the g
lare shield. If he had effective shoulder harnesses, it would have saved th
em some blood and a deviated septum.
>
> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the integrity of t
he shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through the fiberglass
hole. I just wonder how it really performed in each of these accidents.
>
> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has been i
n an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed significantly?
>
> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information? Perhaps a FO
IA or something similar?
>
> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness perfo
rmed. We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information could/would b
e collected.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
I did the same thing on mine.
I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that have b
een logged.
Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is more info
rmation beyond what is available in the docket.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net> w
rote:
>
> Phil,
>
> Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top fiberglas
s thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor points less th
an adequate considering the significant countersink depth needed to have the
anchor screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no data to say my evaluation
was correct or not.
>
> I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for each anc
hor point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of 10" by 10"
or so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of that. The objec
tive being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom of the cabin top
. This resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking the head of the a
nchor screw such that it was slightly below the surface of the canopy top. I
flatten the screw edges and installed the anchor screw in some flox as I wa
nted to make sure it would not turn when tightening the nut onto the inside.
Sanded the flox flush, a layer of glass on top of that, then a skim coat o
f micro balloons to fair it in.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was reall
y curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is in that s
ituation.
>>
>> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder harnes
ses in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago. It's still s
itting in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped indentations in the
glare shield. If he had effective shoulder harnesses, it would have saved t
hem some blood and a deviated septum.
>>
>> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the integrity of t
he shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through the fiberglass
hole. I just wonder how it really performed in each of these accidents.
>>
>> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has been i
n an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed significantly?
>>
>> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information? Perhaps a
FOIA or something similar?
>>
>> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness perf
ormed. We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information could/would b
e collected.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shoulder Harnesses |
What about that crash near Lake Placid Airport in NY that went into the
trees in the cold. All occupants walked away OK with minor injories.
There was also the one in SoCal, Ramona RMN that put it on a hillside
into terrain and walked away. Seems the belts and airframe performed as
designed on those instances.
I think the key is survivable impact. I=99d hazard a pretty safe
guess that Van=99s engineered the structure appropriately. Who
knows if they used the official 170lb FAA weight or the bubba weight
though?
-Ben
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Perry
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Shoulder Harnesses
I did the same thing on mine.
I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that
have been logged.
Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is more
information beyond what is available in the docket.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
Phil,
Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top
fiberglass thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor
points less than adequate considering the significant countersink depth
needed to have the anchor screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no
data to say my evaluation was correct or not.
I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for each
anchor point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of 10"
by 10" or so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of that.
The objective being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom of
the cabin top. This resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking
the head of the anchor screw such that it was slightly below the surface
of the canopy top. I flatten the screw edges and installed the anchor
screw in some flox as I wanted to make sure it would not turn when
tightening the nut onto the inside. Sanded the flox flush, a layer of
glass on top of that, then a skim coat of micro balloons to fair it in.
Carl
On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was
really curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is
in that situation.
My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder
harnesses in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago.
It's still sitting in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped
indentations in the glare shield. If he had effective shoulder
harnesses, it would have saved them some blood and a deviated septum.
We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the integrity of
the shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through the
fiberglass hole. I just wonder how it really performed in each of these
accidents.
1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has been
in an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed significantly?
2) Would any of you know where we could get that information? Perhaps a
FOIA or something similar?
I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness
performed. We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information
could/would be collected.
Phil
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I must be doing something wrong; every contingency I plan for never happens.
I am always a little anxious when flying other non pilots; the night before
I go over in my mind about what could happen and my actions to be. Have I
checked this or that lately? Fortunately, to date, every contingency for
which I plan never happens. Sad to hear that the problem was pilot/builder
actions related but as you say, the person who knows and knows he knows does
not often listen even to low key suggestions or observations.
David McNeill
N46007 TT900+
CFII, A&P, TT5000+
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
I have thought about countersunk washers to strengthen things, but that
means taking away more fiberglass....not good.
On 4/11/2015 6:15 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> I did the same thing on mine.
>
> I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that
> have been logged.
>
> Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is
> more information beyond what is available in the docket.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich
> <carl.froehlich@verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>> Phil,
>>
>> Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top
>> fiberglass thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness
>> anchor points less than adequate considering the significant
>> countersink depth needed to have the anchor screw flush with the
>> cabin top. Again, no data to say my evaluation was correct or not.
>>
>> I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for
>> each anchor point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an
>> area of 10" by 10" or so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer
>> on top of that. The objective being to allow for fairing with the
>> rest of the bottom of the cabin top. This resulted in sufficient
>> thickness for countersinking the head of the anchor screw such that
>> it was slightly below the surface of the canopy top. I flatten the
>> screw edges and installed the anchor screw in some flox as I wanted
>> to make sure it would not turn when tightening the nut onto the
>> inside. Sanded the flox flush, a layer of glass on top of that, then
>> a skim coat of micro balloons to fair it in.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com
>> <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was
>>> really curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor
>>> bolt is in that situation.
>>>
>>> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder
>>> harnesses in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago.
>>> It's still sitting in his garage and has a pair of human head
>>> shaped indentations in the glare shield. If he had effective
>>> shoulder harnesses, it would have saved them some blood and a
>>> deviated septum.
>>>
>>> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the
>>> integrity of the shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled
>>> through the fiberglass hole. I just wonder how it really performed
>>> in each of these accidents.
>>>
>>> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has
>>> been in an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed
>>> significantly?
>>>
>>> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information?
>>> Perhaps a FOIA or something similar?
>>>
>>> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness
>>> performed. We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information
>>> could/would be collected.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> D============================================
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D============================================
>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>> D============================================
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
I am not sure what problem needs solving here. Don't we think Van designed things
correctly? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a design problem. SWAG
engineering just doesn't cut it here. Adding extra layers to the inside of a
composite structure only adds weight and not strength.
Gary
> On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have thought about countersunk washers to strengthen things, but that means
taking away more fiberglass....not good.
>
>> On 4/11/2015 6:15 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>> I did the same thing on mine.
>>
>> I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that have been
logged.
>>
>> Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is more information
beyond what is available in the docket.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>> Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top fiberglass
thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor points less than
adequate considering the significant countersink depth needed to have the anchor
screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no data to say my evaluation was correct
or not.
>>>
>>> I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for each anchor
point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of 10" by 10" or
so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of that. The objective
being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom of the cabin top. This
resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking the head of the anchor screw
such that it was slightly below the surface of the canopy top. I flatten
the screw edges and installed the anchor screw in some flox as I wanted to make
sure it would not turn when tightening the nut onto the inside. Sanded the
flox flush, a layer of glass on top of that, then a skim coat of micro balloons
to fair it in.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was really
curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is in that situation.
>>>>
>>>> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder harnesses
in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago. It's still sitting
in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped indentations in the glare
shield. If he had effective shoulder harnesses, it would have saved them some
blood and a deviated septum.
>>>>
>>>> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the integrity of the
shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through the fiberglass hole.
I just wonder how it really performed in each of these accidents.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has been in
an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed significantly?
>>>>
>>>> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information? Perhaps a FOIA
or something similar?
>>>>
>>>> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness performed.
We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information could/would be
collected.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> D============================================
>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> D============================================
>>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>>> D============================================
>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> D============================================
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> D============================================
>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>> D============================================
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D============================================
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D============================================
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
The question isn't why are they insufficient. They question is where do we go
to find out how they have performed in the incidents to date.
We have a decent set of incident data for off field landings. We have good
half dozen incidents resulting in fatalities.
None of the shoulder harness data is published but it has to be collected. It
exist. Being able to review that data relative to the accident type/severity
would let us know if we do have a problem or not. Dead men can't speak but the
data would and we would all benefit by the factual data.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Gary <speckter@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I am not sure what problem needs solving here. Don't we think Van designed things
correctly? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a design problem. SWAG
engineering just doesn't cut it here. Adding extra layers to the inside of
a composite structure only adds weight and not strength.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have thought about countersunk washers to strengthen things, but that means
taking away more fiberglass....not good.
>>
>>> On 4/11/2015 6:15 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>> I did the same thing on mine.
>>>
>>> I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that have
been logged.
>>>
>>> Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is more information
beyond what is available in the docket.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich <carl.froehlich@verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Phil,
>>>>
>>>> Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top fiberglass
thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor points less than
adequate considering the significant countersink depth needed to have the anchor
screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no data to say my evaluation was correct
or not.
>>>>
>>>> I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for each anchor
point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of 10" by 10" or
so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of that. The objective
being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom of the cabin top. This
resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking the head of the anchor screw
such that it was slightly below the surface of the canopy top. I flatten
the screw edges and installed the anchor screw in some flox as I wanted to make
sure it would not turn when tightening the nut onto the inside. Sanded the
flox flush, a layer of glass on top of that, then a skim coat of micro balloons
to fair it in.
>>>>
>>>> Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was really
curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is in that situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder harnesses
in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago. It's still sitting
in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped indentations in the glare
shield. If he had effective shoulder harnesses, it would have saved them some
blood and a deviated septum.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the integrity of
the shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through the fiberglass
hole. I just wonder how it really performed in each of these accidents.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has been
in an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed significantly?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information? Perhaps a
FOIA or something similar?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness performed.
We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information could/would be
collected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>>> D============================================
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> D============================================
>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>> D============================================
>>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>>> D============================================
>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> D============================================
>>>>
>>>> *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harnesses |
I do not think the question has been answered whether they are adequate,
i.e. what force are they designed for in shear and in tension.
I've not seen any evidence that they are inadequate. I believe there is a
significant difference between the green and pink canopys, espec
reinforcement behind the doors. The pink looks like it just about has a
roll bar installed there, just in front of the shoulder harness bolt holes.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The question isn't why are they insufficient. They question is where do
> we go to find out how they have performed in the incidents to date.
>
> We have a decent set of incident data for off field landings. We have
> good half dozen incidents resulting in fatalities.
>
> None of the shoulder harness data is published but it has to be
> collected. It exist. Being able to review that data relative to the
> accident type/severity would let us know if we do have a problem or not.
> Dead men can't speak but the data would and we would all benefit by the
> factual data.
>
> Phil
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Gary <speckter@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what problem needs solving here. Don't we think Van
> designed things correctly? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a
> design problem. SWAG engineering just doesn't cut it here. Adding extra
> layers to the inside of a composite structure only adds weight and not
> strength.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 11, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I have thought about countersunk washers to strengthen things, but that
> means taking away more fiberglass....not good.
> >>
> >>> On 4/11/2015 6:15 AM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >>> I did the same thing on mine.
> >>>
> >>> I'm just curious how they've actually performed in the accidents that
> have been logged.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps an I need to make a call into the NTSB and see if there is
> more information beyond what is available in the docket.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 11, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Carl Froehlich <
> carl.froehlich@verizon.net <mailto:carl.froehlich@verizon.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil,
> >>>>
> >>>> Good questions. Lacking data however I evaluated the canopy top
> fiberglass thickness for the pilot and copilot shoulder harness anchor
> points less than adequate considering the significant countersink depth
> needed to have the anchor screw flush with the cabin top. Again, no data
> to say my evaluation was correct or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> I added several bids of glass on the inside of the canopy top for
> each anchor point. The first layer being 1/16" thick covering an area of
> 10" by 10" or so, then another 6" by 6", 1/16" or so layer on top of
> that. The objective being to allow for fairing with the rest of the bottom
> of the cabin top. This resulted in sufficient thickness for countersinking
> the head of the anchor screw such that it was slightly below the surface of
> the canopy top. I flatten the screw edges and installed the anchor screw
> in some flox as I wanted to make sure it would not turn when tightening the
> nut onto the inside. Sanded the flox flush, a layer of glass on top of
> that, then a skim coat of micro balloons to fair it in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 6:29 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com
> <mailto:philperry9@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Last night I was thinking about the images in Doug's photos and was
> really curious to know how effective the shoulder harness anchor bolt is in
> that situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My curiosity stems from seeing a friends Culver Cadet (no shoulder
> harnesses in that old plane) that he landed off "field 7 years ago. It's
> still sitting in his garage and has a pair of human head shaped
> indentations in the glare shield. If he had effective shoulder harnesses,
> it would have saved them some blood and a deviated septum.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've had a handful of RV-10 accidents that have tested the
> integrity of the shoulder harness anchor bolt possibly being pulled through
> the fiberglass hole. I just wonder how it really performed in each of
> these accidents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) Have any of you seen, first hand, an RV-10 airframe after it has
> been in an accident where the shoulder harnesses were stressed
> significantly?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) Would any of you know where we could get that information?
> Perhaps a FOIA or something similar?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd really like to get the real details on how that shoulder harness
> performed. We've probably got 5-6 accidents where that information
> could/would be collected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> D============================================
> >>>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >>>>>
> D============================================
> >>>>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> >>>>>
> D============================================
> >>>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>>>
> D============================================
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>>
> >>>> *
> >>>>
> >>>>
> D============================================
> >>>> List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >>>>
> D============================================
> >>>> //forums.matronics.com
> >>>>
> D============================================
> >>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >>>>
> D============================================
> >>>>
> >>>> *
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|