Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:30 AM - Maneuvers (Kelly McMullen)
2. 08:07 AM - Re: Maneuvers (bcondrey)
3. 08:18 AM - Re: Maneuvers (Tim Olson)
4. 09:07 AM - Re: Maneuvers (Phil Perry)
5. 09:35 AM - Re: Maneuvers (Tim Olson)
6. 01:23 PM - Re: Maneuvers (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 |
|
I know that most 2 place RVs are considered designed for aerobatic
maneuvers, and the RV-10 is not. However, having looked for awhile, I
find nothing indicating where that line is drawn. Not even sure where
such information might be found.
I would "assume" that most or all commercial maneuvers are acceptable
for the 10. Then comes what may or may not have been tested with regard
to spins. I haven't found anything that explicitly says they are
prohibited, or something less. I'm guessing that during the development
Vans may have done a little testing, but just don't find any guidance.
I'm not looking to do any thing beyond commercial maneuvers, just would
like to have more information on what to try to avoid. Perhaps some of
the early builders may have more information?
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 |
|
The previous version of the Vans website had a lot more info about the development
and testing of the -10. I dont recall details, but the yellow factory -10
was outfitted for a spin chute to support their testing. I recall it mentioned
that the -10 recovered nicely and the spin recovery chute was never needed.
Maybe a call to Vans would answer your questions.
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490954#490954
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 |
|
I don't really have any references to cite, just things I've heard for
years on the email list.
I'd always heard that Van's did test the RV-10 for spins, and either
it was found that it required a spin chute for guaranteed recovery, or
that when they tested it they had a spin chute. I don't have the
details on it, unfortunately. But I did hear that they do not state
that spins were approved in the RV-10, so I've never spun mine.
I had not heard the same thing regarding the RV-14, so I've done
spins in that plane, although I've never let it wind up more
than a couple turns. The RV-14 does recover very easily if you're
only into it for a couple turns, but the rudder seems significantly
larger overall than the -10.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I am guessing it is
really just based on G loading. The RV-10, from the Van's site
shows +3.8/-1.5G for standard category limitations.
The many of the other 2 seat RV's show +6.0/-3.0G when in the
aerobatic category, and the overall design was for the utility
category of +4.4/-1.75G.
All that is from this link:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/
So my guess is the G-loading is really the only significant difference,
with the exception of course that perhaps the RV-10 doesn't spin
recover as well. I am sure the RV-10 could potentially perform
many of the same maneuvers that you would do in an RV-14, but
you would be very close to the margins with the RV-10 even when
done correctly for some of them, so it wouldn't be advised.
I've been to at least 4.1G in the RV-14, for instance, and that
would be over the limit for the RV-10.
Tim
On 8/19/19 9:29 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I know that most 2 place RVs are considered designed for aerobatic
> maneuvers, and the RV-10 is not. However, having looked for awhile, I
> find nothing indicating where that line is drawn. Not even sure where
> such information might be found.
> I would "assume" that most or all commercial maneuvers are acceptable
> for the 10. Then comes what may or may not have been tested with regard
> to spins. I haven't found anything that explicitly says they are
> prohibited, or something less. I'm guessing that during the development
> Vans may have done a little testing, but just don't find any guidance.
> I'm not looking to do any thing beyond commercial maneuvers, just would
> like to have more information on what to try to avoid. Perhaps some of
> the early builders may have more information?
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 |
|
Thanks to The WayBack Machine, I have attached is a .pdf (that I created)
from the old Van's website. It contains information on the development of
the RV-10 and there is a photo of the prototype aircraft with a spin chute
attached to it. I don't see any information on the tests, but there is
proof that it was adapted with a chute for testing.
I'm really providing the .pdf so this information is not lost forever.
There's some good info in there that we will find useful until the final
-10 is no longer airworthy. It was basically a blog on 8 pages of their
site, so there may be a couple of spots in their narrative where the text
appears to be disjointed.
I'll keep poking around to see if I can find anything definitive on the
spin testing results (or anything else significant).
Phil
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:23 AM Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I don't really have any references to cite, just things I've heard for
> years on the email list.
>
> I'd always heard that Van's did test the RV-10 for spins, and either
> it was found that it required a spin chute for guaranteed recovery, or
> that when they tested it they had a spin chute. I don't have the
> details on it, unfortunately. But I did hear that they do not state
> that spins were approved in the RV-10, so I've never spun mine.
>
> I had not heard the same thing regarding the RV-14, so I've done
> spins in that plane, although I've never let it wind up more
> than a couple turns. The RV-14 does recover very easily if you're
> only into it for a couple turns, but the rudder seems significantly
> larger overall than the -10.
>
> I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I am guessing it is
> really just based on G loading. The RV-10, from the Van's site
> shows +3.8/-1.5G for standard category limitations.
>
> The many of the other 2 seat RV's show +6.0/-3.0G when in the
> aerobatic category, and the overall design was for the utility
> category of +4.4/-1.75G.
>
> All that is from this link:
> https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/
>
> So my guess is the G-loading is really the only significant difference,
> with the exception of course that perhaps the RV-10 doesn't spin
> recover as well. I am sure the RV-10 could potentially perform
> many of the same maneuvers that you would do in an RV-14, but
> you would be very close to the margins with the RV-10 even when
> done correctly for some of them, so it wouldn't be advised.
> I've been to at least 4.1G in the RV-14, for instance, and that
> would be over the limit for the RV-10.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 8/19/19 9:29 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> >
> > I know that most 2 place RVs are considered designed for aerobatic
> > maneuvers, and the RV-10 is not. However, having looked for awhile, I
> > find nothing indicating where that line is drawn. Not even sure where
> > such information might be found.
> > I would "assume" that most or all commercial maneuvers are acceptable
> > for the 10. Then comes what may or may not have been tested with regard
> > to spins. I haven't found anything that explicitly says they are
> > prohibited, or something less. I'm guessing that during the development
> > Vans may have done a little testing, but just don't find any guidance.
> > I'm not looking to do any thing beyond commercial maneuvers, just would
> > like to have more information on what to try to avoid. Perhaps some of
> > the early builders may have more information?
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
*Phil Perry, *EAA Lifetime #834284
President, EAA Chapter 59 - Waco, Texas
EAA=94*The Spirit of Aviation*
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 |
|
Thanks for posting the .pdf Phil, I've saved it myself so that we have
at least a couple copies of it.
Tim
On 8/19/19 11:05 AM, Phil Perry wrote:
> Thanks to The WayBack Machine, I have attached is a .pdf (that I
> created) from the old Van's website. It contains information on the
> development of the RV-10 and there is a photo of the prototype aircraft
> with a spin chute attached to it. I don't see any information on the
> tests, but there is proof that it was adapted with a chute for testing.
>
> I'm really providing the .pdf so this information is not lost forever.
> There's some good info in there that we will find useful until the final
> -10 is no longer airworthy. It was basically a blog on 8 pages of their
> site, so there may be a couple of spots in their narrative where the
> text appears to be disjointed.
>
> I'll keep poking around to see if I can find anything definitive on the
> spin testing results (or anything else significant).
>
> Phil
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks Phil. Good material.
Kelly
On 8/19/2019 9:05 AM, Phil Perry wrote:
> Thanks to The WayBack Machine, I have attached is a .pdf (that I
> created) from the old Van's website. It contains information on the
> development of the RV-10 and there is a photo of the prototype aircraft
> with a spin chute attached to it. I don't see any information on the
> tests, but there is proof that it was adapted with a chute for testing.
>
> I'm really providing the .pdf so this information is not lost forever.
> There's some good info in there that we will find useful until the final
> -10 is no longer airworthy. It was basically a blog on 8 pages of their
> site, so there may be a couple of spots in their narrative where the
> text appears to be disjointed.
>
> I'll keep poking around to see if I can find anything definitive on the
> spin testing results (or anything else significant).
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:23 AM Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
> <mailto:Tim@myrv10.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I don't really have any references to cite, just things I've heard for
> years on the email list.
>
> I'd always heard that Van's did test the RV-10 for spins, and either
> it was found that it required a spin chute for guaranteed recovery, or
> that when they tested it they had a spin chute. I don't have the
> details on it, unfortunately. But I did hear that they do not state
> that spins were approved in the RV-10, so I've never spun mine.
>
> I had not heard the same thing regarding the RV-14, so I've done
> spins in that plane, although I've never let it wind up more
> than a couple turns. The RV-14 does recover very easily if you're
> only into it for a couple turns, but the rudder seems significantly
> larger overall than the -10.
>
> I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I am guessing it is
> really just based on G loading. The RV-10, from the Van's site
> shows +3.8/-1.5G for standard category limitations.
>
> The many of the other 2 seat RV's show +6.0/-3.0G when in the
> aerobatic category, and the overall design was for the utility
> category of +4.4/-1.75G.
>
> All that is from this link:
> https://www.vansaircraft.com/flying-an-rv/
>
> So my guess is the G-loading is really the only significant difference,
> with the exception of course that perhaps the RV-10 doesn't spin
> recover as well. I am sure the RV-10 could potentially perform
> many of the same maneuvers that you would do in an RV-14, but
> you would be very close to the margins with the RV-10 even when
> done correctly for some of them, so it wouldn't be advised.
> I've been to at least 4.1G in the RV-14, for instance, and that
> would be over the limit for the RV-10.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On 8/19/19 9:29 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
> >
> > I know that most 2 place RVs are considered designed for aerobatic
> > maneuvers, and the RV-10 is not. However, having looked for
> awhile, I
> > find nothing indicating where that line is drawn. Not even sure
> where
> > such information might be found.
> > I would "assume" that most or all commercial maneuvers are
> acceptable
> > for the 10. Then comes what may or may not have been tested with
> regard
> > to spins. I haven't found anything that explicitly says they are
> > prohibited, or something less. I'm guessing that during the
> development
> > Vans may have done a little testing, but just don't find any
> guidance.
> > I'm not looking to do any thing beyond commercial maneuvers, just
> would
> > like to have more information on what to try to avoid. Perhaps
> some of
> > the early builders may have more information?
>
>
> ==========
> -List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> */Phil Perry, /*EAA Lifetime #834284
>
> President, EAA Chapter 59 - Waco, Texas____
>
> EAA/The Spirit of Aviation/
>
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! --
|