Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:10 AM - (BFlood@sauer-danfoss.com)
2. 07:16 AM - Re: (Moxie)
3. 07:42 AM - Re: RV-9 (little wheel in the back) (Haywire)
4. 09:20 AM - Re: (Clay R)
5. 03:45 PM - Re: (Peter Laurence)
6. 06:31 PM - Little wheel (Jill and Tom Welch)
7. 07:36 PM - Re: Little wheel - Big engine (Haywire)
8. 09:04 PM - Re: (Gary Crowder)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
06/16/2003 08:09:47 AM
--> RV9-List message posted by: BFlood@Sauer-Danfoss.com
I would love a bit of feedback from those who have built their ailerons.
According to the Van's instructions you should countersink the spar for the
ailerons instead of using a dimple die b/c the metal is 0.060 inch thick.
This didn't work too well. When I got all done I noticed that the
countersink was really close to all the way through the spar. In fact the
clecos would no longer stay attached to the spar. I riveted the whole thing
together and it seems okay but it was a bit of a mess. The second aileron
spar I dimpled and it was way better, I didn't observe any warping in the
spar as the directions warned. Did anyone think the countersinks in the
aileron spar looked too deep for comfort or have a similar experience?
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Moxie" <rv9a@wideopenwest.com>
BFlood,
>> I would love a bit of feedback from those who have built their ailerons.
>> According to the Van's instructions you should countersink the spar for
the
>> ailerons instead of using a dimple die b/c the metal is 0.060 inch
thick.
>> This didn't work too well.
I had the same Problem. I found a RV9A website that explained to counter
sink the top
skin w/ the aileron spar (like the tank skin to baffle countersink). The
nose skin then covers the top. I like the idea of dimpling only.
If I find the Website again I will pass it along.
Best regards,
Moxie 78-)
Working on the Wings 90329
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: | RV-9 (little wheel in the back) |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Haywire" <haywire@telus.net>
Hi Guys;
Ed has forwarded to me the link for the article that I mentioned (as I
was
too busy (lazy?) to find it). I had forgotten that it was posted as
anonymous, but is most likely written by Ken Scott from Vans, not Ken Kruger
as I had erroneously stated earlier. I have pasted the article below in its
entirety as I feel it is a very valid argument. As I mentioned earlier, a
friend of mine who is a commercial bush pilot in northern Alberta agrees
with this argument wholeheartedly.
Another thing that should be mentioned is that this article was written
before the "9" was released as a taildragger, but through the rumour mill
I've heard that it is very difficult to land as it really doesn't want to
stop flying, a trait that is discussed in this article in reference to the
traditional Vans wing. The greater lift of the Roncz airfoil has made this
even worse.
This is not to put down the TD, but to explain my reasoning for using the
TG configuration for rough strip use, but I will use it as a TD for ski
operations which I'm looking forward to.
Please read article below if not read already.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RV-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe
in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass".
Nosewheel vs. Tailwheel (another opinion) by Anonymous
I'm a private pilot of average ability, but I have lucked into the chance
to do more RV flying (and compare the types) than most people. I have an
RV-6 that Ive flown for several years, accumulating about 600 hours and
probably 800 landings. Ive flown 45 hours or so in RV-4s and maybe 80 in
RV-8s. I have about 400-500 hours and at least 1000 landings in tri-gear
RVs, including the RV-6A, RV-8A and RV-9A.
Which do I like better? Well, drum me out of the real-men-fly-taildraggers
corps, but I have become an unabashed proponent of the tri-gear. And not
because there is a thing wrong with the tailwheelers.
I love my 6 and fly it every chance I get. I dont have an extensive
breadth of tailwheel time the usual Champ/Citabria stuff and a few goes at
Pipers but certainly the RV is not a whole lot more demanding, once you
understand the differences. It is quicker, and less forgiving of errors in
airspeed and attitude, but directional control is not the usual problem on
landing. (It can be on take-off if you are not ready with your right foot.)
However, it is NOT as easy as landing the tri-gear.
I find that I can almost always land the tri-gear shorter. That surprises a
lot of people, who have mental images of super STOL tailwheel bush
airplanes, but in the case of the RV theres a reason: tailwheel RVs are
very difficult to land in a true full-stall condition. Usually, to get the
airplane that slow, the nose has to be quite a bit higher than it wants to
be for landing. You end up getting the tailwheel on while the mains are
still in the air, and the airplane pivots around the tailwheel, banging the
mains into the surface. With the spring steel gear the RVs use, any energy
put into the gear leg is going to come back out right now, and the airplane
will start hopping. If its a hard bounce, it can hop quite energetically,
and it is very easy to end up in a PIO, half a step out of phase with the
airplane and making everything worse in a hurry.
The usual technique is to fly the airplane on to the ground in a 3-point
attitude and as the speed bleeds off and the weight transfers to the gear,
gradually pull the stick back in your gut. This is why the tailwheel is
more demanding: if you put the mains on first and drop the tailwheel even a
little bit, the angle of attack increases, and that RV wing will fly so slow
that you will find yourself several inches above the surface waiting for the
darn thing to come back down. Pull that stick back too much, too soon and
you can balloon impressively, and youd better be ready with the throttle.
Even if you have all three wheels on the ground, and pull the stick too
soon, you can flex the tailspring enough to get the same resultthe AOA
increase and the airplane comes back off the ground. Go to a fly-in and
watch RVs landmost of them skip once or twice. Nowhere during the this
skipping does the airplane want to swap ends (good) but neither can you get
any good out of the brakes (not so good). I also find wheel landings on
this gear something of a challenge, although several of my friends have
become quite good at them. It helps to deliberately land on one wheel at a
time, to minimize the amount of spring back from the gear legs. Since wheel
landings use noticeably more runway and are harder to do, I rarely do them.
Call me chicken if you like.
Conversely, when landing the tri-gear, you can touch down in almost the same
attitude as the tailwheel airplane, but now when the mains touch, the nose
wants to come down. The AOA decreases, which means that the airplane will
stay on the ground. It is easy to keep the nose wheel from touchingeven at
landing speeds, RVs have plenty of elevator authority. But now that you
know youre down to stay, you can apply the brakes earlier in the landing
roll, hence shorter landings.
In rough or short field operations, I prefer the trigear. For one thing I
can see over the nose when Im taxiing (not easy in the tailwheels,
especially the wide RV-6) which means I can miss the chuckholes, taxiway
edges etc. Im not worried particularly about prop clearanceif I stay out
of the holes, the only way I can get the prop is to tear the nosewheel off.
The larger nosewheel also seems to bridge some of the gopher holes the
little tailwheel falls into.
As far as performance, I cant tell the difference in speeds. Im sure Van
s quoted figures are accurate, but the variation he notes between nosewheel
and tailwheel is also well within the variation between individual airplanes
of the same gear type.
I also find flying cross-country in the tri-gear to be more relaxingI know
that I can land the airplane under whatever conditions I find when I reach
my destinationIve made at least one landing on a paved runway in an RV-6A
that I would not have attempted in my RV-6.on that day, the crosswinds were
so strong that had I been in the tailwheel airplane, I would have found a
wide spot on the airport and landed into the wind and not even attempted the
runway.
It almost seems like something for nothingan airplane that is easier to
land, consistently lands shorter, is easier to taxi, and goes just as fast.
There must be a downside but the only one I can think of is that the
tri-gear RV-6A is slightly heavier (about 17 pounds according to Vans guys)
than an identical-except-for-the-wheels RV-6 and a little more expensive.
The RV-8A, surprisingly, is actually slightly lighter that a comparable
RV-8 no gear towers in the fuselage, and lighter rod gear legsthose leaf
spring gear legs in the RV-8 are really massive. (I suppose you could use
the aftermarket aluminum leaves in the RV-8 and save more than difference,
but I dont know the service history on themVan sells the 8 with steel
gear, and do you suppose that he overlooked the weight savings when he
designed the thing? I doubt it.)
Ive heard all the arguments about which gear arrangement looks better, and
thats certainly a valid personal opinion. But Ive found that I cant see
the wheels when Im sitting in the airplane, which is the viewpoint I put
value on most.
My conclusion is that if I build another RV (I would love to build an RV-9A,
but I already have a good airplane and cant afford two right now) I will
use the nosewheel.
All the above is personal opinion. It should be considered grist for the
decision mill and nothing more. If your heart really cries out for a
taildragger, go right ahead. Building an airplane is a lot of work, and I
can see no point in spending it all on your second choice.
----
---
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: Clay R <clayr_55@yahoo.com>
That was probably mine..
http://webpages.charter.net/RV9A/Wing2.htm
--clay
--- Moxie <rv9a@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Moxie"
> <rv9a@wideopenwest.com>
>
>
> BFlood,
>
> >> I would love a bit of feedback from those who
> have built their ailerons.
> >> According to the Van's instructions you should
> countersink the spar for
> the
> >> ailerons instead of using a dimple die b/c the
> metal is 0.060 inch
> thick.
> >> This didn't work too well.
>
> I had the same Problem. I found a RV9A website that
> explained to counter
> sink the top
> skin w/ the aileron spar (like the tank skin to
> baffle countersink). The
> nose skin then covers the top. I like the idea of
> dimpling only.
>
> If I find the Website again I will pass it along.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Moxie 78-)
>
> Working on the Wings 90329
>
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" <plaurence@the-beach.net>
Haven't got to the ailerons yet. But on the stab spar I had about 1/3 of the
thickness left. These were .065 .
As you probably know, the rule of thumb is dimple .040 and thinner and
machine sink above this thickness.
The countersink depth for a #3 rivet is apprx. .045.
This should leave you with approx .015 or 25% of the thickness of the spar.
There should have been some of the rivet shank engaging the side of the
hole. Perhaps you sunk the rivet head a little too deep.
Were the rivets swimming in the hole? If so, they may not have swelled
enough to give you strengh and prevent smoking.
In my opinion, I would probably (and don't yell) redo the spar. You can deal
with the enlarged skin holes by using a longer rivet and swelling it to fill
the hole. BTW, When I was building the 6, I became Florida's best rivet
remover and sweller!
However, as I recall I did dimple the rear wing spar on my RV6A .
Peter
> >
> I would love a bit of feedback from those who have built their ailerons.
> According to the Van's instructions you should countersink the spar for
the
> ailerons instead of using a dimple die b/c the metal is 0.060 inch thick.
> This didn't work too well. When I got all done I noticed that the
> countersink was really close to all the way through the spar. In fact the
> clecos would no longer stay attached to the spar. I riveted the whole
thing
> together and it seems okay but it was a bit of a mess. The second aileron
> spar I dimpled and it was way better, I didn't observe any warping in the
> spar as the directions warned. Did anyone think the countersinks in the
> aileron spar looked too deep for comfort or have a similar experience?
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Jill and Tom Welch" <tomtana@centurytel.net>
I think either works fine but I like todd, will be putting on skiis,My favorite
type of flying.with 210hp getting out of short strips isnt an issue(landing is
more of an issue)and last but least of all nothing is more stunning than an
rv with a little wheel(it can always be converted later)
Tom
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: | Little wheel - Big engine |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Haywire" <haywire@telus.net>
>
> I think either works fine but I like Todd, will be putting on
> skiis,My favorite type of flying.with 210hp getting out of short
> strips isnt an issue(landing is more of an issue)and last but
> least of all nothing is more stunning than an rv with a little
> wheel(it can always be converted later)
>
> Tom
>
210hp ? In your "9"? Surely not a Lyc? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against
extra ponies as long as they're handled properly, I'm just curious as to
what you're using. I've got the turbo rotary which can produce 250hp, but
plan to limit my boost for normalization only, keeping it down to about
180hp. Unless of course an emergency requires more... like showing up some
bigmouth Lyc driver ;-)
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RV-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Whatever you vividly imagine, Ardently desire, Sincerely believe
in, Enthusiastically act upon, Must inevitably come to pass".
---
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 |
|
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Gary Crowder" <rv9er@3rivers.net>
I agree with Peter. .040 is tough to dimple nicely. I wouldn't try .060. If
you carefully machine countersink .060, you should have plenty left.
One alternative would be to try to dimple the .060, (which wouldn't be deep enough
for a good fit ), then finish with a light countersink.
Gary
Haven't got to the ailerons yet. But on the stab spar I had about 1/3 of the
thickness left. These were .065 .
As you probably know, the rule of thumb is dimple .040 and thinner and
machine sink above this thickness.
The countersink depth for a #3 rivet is apprx. .045.
This should leave you with approx .015 or 25% of the thickness of the spar.
There should have been some of the rivet shank engaging the side of the
hole. Perhaps you sunk the rivet head a little too deep.
Were the rivets swimming in the hole? If so, they may not have swelled
enough to give you strengh and prevent smoking.
In my opinion, I would probably (and don't yell) redo the spar. You can deal
with the enlarged skin holes by using a longer rivet and swelling it to fill
the hole. BTW, When I was building the 6, I became Florida's best rivet
remover and sweller!
However, as I recall I did dimple the rear wing spar on my RV6A .
Peter
> >
> I would love a bit of feedback from those who have built their ailerons.
> According to the Van's instructions you should countersink the spar for
the
> ailerons instead of using a dimple die b/c the metal is 0.060 inch thick.
> This didn't work too well. When I got all done I noticed that the
> countersink was really close to all the way through the spar. In fact the
> clecos would no longer stay attached to the spar. I riveted the whole
thing
> together and it seems okay but it was a bit of a mess. The second aileron
> spar I dimpled and it was way better, I didn't observe any warping in the
> spar as the directions warned. Did anyone think the countersinks in the
> aileron spar looked too deep for comfort or have a similar experience?
>
>
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! --
|