Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:31 AM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (FLYaDIVE)
2. 06:28 AM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (Warren Brecheisen)
3. 11:19 AM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (MnwPeeps@aol.com)
4. 01:03 PM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (Doug Gray)
5. 02:36 PM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (John Erickson)
6. 05:56 PM - Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight (Warren Brecheisen)
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: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
George:
That is a difficult question to answer. If you were here is the USA and
flying under FAA R&G's the answer would go like this:
The RV6 is an EXPERIMENTAL class aircraft.
Under experimental you make that determination while doing your flight
tests.
Of course Max weight is a factor of HP and thrust developed.
OK, enough of the R&G stuff. Here is what I would do:
Empty weight of the plane +
Two occupants (each 200 Lbs) +
Full fuel +
Baggage (say 60 Lbs) = MAx Weight
And that would be for BOTH takeoff and landing.
I would also consider a MINIMUM VSI of 500 FPM to an altitude of say 10,000
Feet on a Standard Temp Day.
OR! Put in an O-360 with a Whirlwind Prop and electronic ignition and do
180 Kts with the ability to carry all you can stuff into the plane - Short
of Lead Bricks!
*Barry*
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:42 AM, George Nielsen <genie@swissmail.org> wrote:
>
> In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that the
> MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
> reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such an
> aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
>
> Thanks.
>
> George Nielsen
> RV-6 PH-XGN
> The Hague, the Netherlands
>
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: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
I know that many RV-6's have been licensed for greater than 1650 lbs. I checked
with Van's when I was ready to get my airworthiness certificate and their position
at the time was 1650 max, so that's what I used.
Warren
On May 11, 2013, at 1:42 AM, George Nielsen <genie@swissmail.org> wrote:
>
> In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that the MTOW
is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I reasonably state
the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such an aircraft weigh to
enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
>
> Thanks.
>
> George Nielsen
> RV-6 PH-XGN
> The Hague, the Netherlands
>
>
>
>
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: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes
you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.),
deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day)
and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs
combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer
day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even
close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the
departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for
a
few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just
barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O
weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as
Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to
safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the
climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long time
getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe.
I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not
to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought.
So - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp.
for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked
full right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below
stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward
rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip
(wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe
half-roll to the left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver
that always impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on
this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
genie@swissmail.org writes:
--> RV6-List message posted by: George Nielsen <genie@swissmail.org>
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
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: | Re: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not linked t
o the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross weight s
ince this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is limited in t
he RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and firewall/longeron structure.
As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if it w
ere my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density altitudes can b
e testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly leaned..
Doug Gray
RV-6 O-320
Sent from my iPad
On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps@aol.com wrote:
> Hi - A six owner for eight years.
>
> My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes y
ou "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
>
> What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), d
eliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) a
nd see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
>
> I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs c
ombined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer day
(maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even c
lose to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure e
nd ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a few m
ore knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely cl
ear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
>
> I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O weig
ht, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Ban
gor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to
safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the cli
mb rate is not up to snuff.
> Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
>
>
> Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long tim
e getting mixed messages about
> acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so safe
. I'm thinking, specifically, of
> snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not t
o deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. S
o - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. fo
r the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full
right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall
, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. T
he Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, a
s the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to t
he left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that alway
s impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
>
> But what about the RV-6?
> Thx for any tips on t
his - Mike
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie@swi
ssmail.org writes:
>
> In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
> the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
> reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
> an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
>
> Thanks.
>
> George Nielsen
> RV-6 PH-XGN
> The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - Lis
t Contribution Web Site p;
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Maximum Take-Off Weight |
One of the issues that most are not discussing is that this is mainly a
LANDING issue, not a takeoff issue. Our RVs have so much excess
performance that we can fly well above Max Gross and still have adequate
takeoff and climb performance. Furthermore, the takeoff and climb
performance is easily documented with simple test profiles that do not
require significant training to accomplish.
Where there is a LOT of unknown is during landing. Here you add a LOT of
stress to the airframe with the additional weight. How much is to much?
Does the distribution of this weight influence the stresses on the
airframe? How? (ie heavy guy up front, light guy in back, side by side
heavy people with no baggage, lighter side by side with heavy baggage
(CG is easy to compute, but there is more here than just that), etc.)
What happens if you do a less than perfect touchdown? Rough field?
Can you fly over Vans numbers? Sure, and there is a lot of data out
there from folks that have. Can your specific airplane? Are these folks
inducing surprise stressors to the airframe that may cause failure down
the road? I think you need to do a structural engineering study of the
airframe to truly answer that.
BL: These are experimental aircraft. There is a difference between
legal, smart, and common sense. What training do you have and how much
REAL effort (off the Internet) have you done to justify YOUR max gross
weight numbers?
Just some random thoughts,
John
From: owner-rv6-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv6-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV6-List: Maximum Take-Off Weight
RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not
linked to the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross
weight since this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is
limited in the RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and
firewall/longeron structure.
As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if
it were my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density
altitudes can be testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly
leaned..
Doug Gray
RV-6 O-320
Sent from my iPad
On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps@aol.com wrote:
Hi - A six owner for eight years.
My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes
you "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.),
deliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp
day) and see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405
lbs combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm
summer day (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to
attain even close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines
at the departure end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over
just a tad for a few more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement
in climb to just barely clear the pines. My memory is that we did not
exceed MTOW by very much.
I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O
weight, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway
such as Bangor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have
plenty of room to safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know
right away if the climb rate is not up to snuff.
Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long
time getting mixed messages about
acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so
safe. I'm thinking, specifically, of
snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not
to deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second
thought. So - would love to get the straight poop and also control
movements - esp. for the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my
Yak-52, you kicked full right rudder - going straight-up at max power -
about ten knots below stall, simultaniously you went full left aileron
and then full forward rudder. The Yak would smoothly roll around its
right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, as the nose began to fall though,
the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to the left, and then
transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that always impressed
the young lovely in your passenger seat.
But what about the RV-6?
Thx for any tips on
this - Mike
In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
genie@swissmail.org writes:
In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
List Contribution Web Site p;
=========
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV6-List
=========
cs.com
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
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: Maximum Take-Off Weight |
In my previous note, I mentioned I used 1650 lbs (RV-6) based on Van's recom
mendation. During my final inspection, the DAR and I called Van's on the is
sue. It turns out that they tested the wing structure to 1650 during develo
pment of the 6-A and they approved of use the higher weight on my 6. Based o
n this, the DAR approved my 1650 lb gross.
Warren
On May 11, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> RV-6 data and specs are still available on the Vans Website but not linked
to the home page. Here is a link to these specs.
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv6specs.htm
>
> Note the RV-6 is 1600lbs not 1650. I use 1600 as my nominated gross weigh
t since this is what the designer has specified. I believe this is limited i
n the RV-6 case by the undercarriage design and firewall/longeron structure.
>
> As Mike has demonstrated even at the nominated gross weight for a 6A (if i
t were my aeroplane he would have been at 1655lbs) high density altitudes ca
n be testing. I am assuming the mixture was properly leaned..
>
> Doug Gray
> RV-6 O-320
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 12/05/2013, at 4:17 AM, MnwPeeps@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hi - A six owner for eight years.
>>
>> My thought is, barring your qual as an aeronautical engineer, what makes y
ou "feel" the good old number of 1650 is on the low side?
>>
>> What you could do: take it to a very long runway (Air Force base. etc.), d
eliberately overload it by a couple hundred pounds (on a standard temp day) a
nd see if the sucker is off by Vr and attains a safe climb.
>>
>> I had one experience...a slightly overweight guy as my pax (about 405 lbs
combined), mostly full tanks, plenty of runway, above-average warm summer d
ay (maybe 75 to 80. We took-off fine, but then we were unable to attain even
close to a normal and safe rate of climb (with large pines at the departure
end ahead of us. I almost went in my pants. Pushed over just a tad for a fe
w more knots, which gave us enough of an improvement in climb to just barely
clear the pines. My memory is that we did not exceed MTOW by very much.
>>
>> I learned my lesson big-time that day, and have been sensitive to T/O wei
ght, including other factors, ever since. If you went to a runway such as Ba
ngor, you could do all that, not climb much and still have plenty of room to
safely land and stop - about 14,000 feet. You'll know right away if the cl
imb rate is not up to snuff.
>> Edwards would be even better, but, well...you know.
>>
>>
>> Question for you - and any other readers with a six. I've spent a long ti
me getting mixed messages about
>> acceptable aerobatics in this plane. Some say safe, others say not so saf
e. I'm thinking, specifically, of
>> snap-rolls and hammerheads. Vans put out a bulletin years ago saying not t
o deliberately spin. Then guys tell me they spin without a second thought. S
o - would love to get the straight poop and also control movements - esp. fo
r the hammerhead, which varies plane to plane. In my Yak-52, you kicked full
right rudder - going straight-up at max power - about ten knots below stall
, simultaniously you went full left aileron and then full forward rudder. T
he Yak would smoothly roll around its right wing tip (wing-over-style)and, a
s the nose began to fall though, the a/c did a very comfortabe half-roll to t
he left, and then transitioned to straight down. A sweet maneuver that alway
s impressed the young lovely in your passenger seat.
>>
>> But what about the RV-6?
>> Thx for any tips on t
his - Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/11/2013 3:14:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, genie@sw
issmail.org writes:
>>
>> In the user manual of my 160 HP O-320 powered RV-6 I have stated that
>> the MTOW is 1650 lbs. This seems on the low side to me. How high can I
>> reasonably state the MTOW of my RV-6 in the handbook? How much can such
>> an aircraft weigh to enable take-off at sea level in a safe manner?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> George Nielsen
>> RV-6 PH-XGN
>> The Hague, the ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - Li
st Contribution Web Site p;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> //www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV6-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|