Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:42 PM - Re: Rivets on RVs (Alfredo Santoro)
2. 06:04 PM - >Re: Rivets on RVs (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
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: Rivets on RVs |
--> RV4-List message posted by: "Alfredo Santoro" <alfredo.santoro@poste.it>
Thank you Rob, Your answer has been really useful, and it's good news also!
Because an RV 4 kit is less expensive, final result is better looking (in
our opinion) and I do not need cabin room, being myself quite small.
I understand from what you wrote that the RV 8 is not stronger than the RV
4, and that is what I needed to know, since I will like practicing a little
of careful aerobatics with my plane, the day I will have one...
The only issue that still makes me think about RV4 and RV8 is a message a
pilot posted in Matt's Aerobatics List a few months ago. I will cite it
here:
>GUYS: Those of you who have RV's, and want to do acro.
>From a long-time acro instructor.
> ALL of the RV's are designed with prop shaft extensions, and please be
>aware that this single factor is tremendously limiting in pulling any kind
>of "G" with these planes, or in doing any kind of high-angular-velocity
>changes.
> Remember that the prop is a tremendous gyroscope, and as such, when you
>introduce high angular rate changes, the forces on that gyroscope are
>tremendous, and when you add in the moment arm of that prop shaft
>extension,
>you are placing unrealistic loads on the crankshaft.
> If you continue with this action, the inevitable result will be, one
>day, that your prop instantaneously departs from the plane. There will be
>no warning, the crank will just break, and all that forward weight will be
>lost.
> Think about what that does to your CG, and then decide if you want to
>continue doing any kind of serious acro in your RV's.
> Van says that it is not an acro bird. He's right. It is a wonderful
>plane, but it isn't designed for this kind of flight.
>Lee Taylor"
Then a guy answered:
>Aerobatic-List message posted by: Ken Balch <kbalch@cfl.rr.com>
>Not true. While certainly the case with the earlier birds, the 'modern'
>RVs (the -7 & -8, anyway) do not require the prop extensions. My RV-8
>(Lyc. IO-360-A1B6 & Hartzell c/s) doesn't have one. This was one of my
>deciding issues when I built the plane: I didn't want a bird with a prop
>extension.
>
>Regards,
>Ken Balch
>RV-8 N118KB
>Pitts Model 12 N612KB (under construction)
Now, I read that since 1993, RVs have been available with the short cowl
option, which allows the use of a 2.25" extension rather than a 4"
extension. RVs can also use either FP wood props or CS metal props, which
have very different weights.
So I guess that to have no worries at all about that torque I only need to
make sure my RV 4 had the short cowl and short extension, and maybe a FP
wood prop.
Do you agree?
Thank you.
Alfredo.
----- Original Message -----
From: "rob ray" <smokyray@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV4-List: Rivets on RVs
> --> RV4-List message posted by: rob ray <smokyray@yahoo.com>
>
> Hi Alfredo,
>
> I don't know what he was smoking, but it must have been good...ha! The
> RV8 has improvements over the 4 in 3 areas, cockpit room, pre-punched
> holes, thicker tail skins...period! As far as aerobatics,aesthetics,
> athletics..etc go, the RV4 is superior, having personally extensively
> flown aerobatics in both airplanes. The RV4 is smaller, lighter and
> slightly more nimble in pitch. The wings internally are completely
> different, the RV8 being along the lines of the "new RV's" with the one
> piece spar billet.
> The RV4/6 wing, back during RV6 certification in 1985 was subjected to
> sandbag piling for intergrity for the FAA. At 9G's (150%) design load,
> everybody left the room happy with no deformation or rivets popped. After
> they were gone, they(Van's) continued to pile sandbags (for grins) to see
> where or if it would actually fail. Where it finally broke was a well kept
> secret, but one of the witnesses told me it was in excess of 11 G's and
> even then it didn't break. The RV8 was only tested to failure at 9G's. For
> my money, a layered spar is better for overall strength. Simply use .020
> skins on the tail surfaces, all else stock, you'll love the RV4.Yes it is
> more work to build, but worth it.
>
> I don't know about you, but after 1400 hours, I still haven't gotten tired
> of my 150HP RV4, and I get to fly F16's every now and again. Good Luck!
>
> Rob Ray
>
> Alfredo Santoro <alfredo.santoro@poste.it> wrote:
> --> RV4-List message posted by: "Alfredo Santoro"
>
> Hello, everybody.
> I was thinking that some of you would sure be able to clarify me something
> that I was told by an RV 6 builder that I met.
> I asked him suggestions about building an RV 4, which is what I am aiming
> to do as soon as possible. (Well, I am still at the decision phase about
> what kit to purchase).
> He was busy, during a home-builder meeting which I was attending as a
> tourist or little more, so he explained me the thing rather quickly and I
> am not sure I understood it well.
> Basically, when he heard me talking about an RV 4 (which I love and had
> enjoyed a chance to fly), he suggested me to prefer an RV 8, instead,
> because of the different kind of rivets Van's adopted on it.
> He said that the RV 8 type of riveting is completely different and makes
> the structure stronger, expecially in aerobatics.
> Is anybody of you able to explain me the differences among the two, and
> confirm me this thesis?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Alfredo Santoro
> Rome, Italy.
>
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: >Re: Rivets on RVs |
--> RV4-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
I have built two RV-4's and have done just fun aerobatics in both. I used a
150 HP Lycoming with a wood prop on both. The first RV-4 had a 4" prop
extension and the second has a 2 1/4" prop extension. The new finish kit has the
cowl for C/S or fixed prop using a 2 1/4" extension. I had up to 5 1/5 G's
positive and 3 1/2 negative on the first plane and flew 700 hours on it.
I like the 150 HP RV-4 because I use a mixture of auto 87 octane and 100 LL
avgas. This makes my flying more affordable.
If you do smooth aerobatics,and pay attention to the manuvering speed you
will be OK, I think.
You'll love the RV-4.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
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! --
|