Author: Todd Houg <thoug@...> Time: Tue Mar 4, 2003 3:49 am PST Link
Vans posted the latest update information on the RV10 on their website today.
The prototype is equipped with a spin recovery rocket chute - how cool!
Todd Houg
RV-9A
Author: "arocknid" <arocknid@...> Time: Tue Mar 4, 2003 5:42 pm PST Link
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Todd Houg <thoug@a...> wrote:
> Vans posted the latest update information on the RV10 on their
website today.
>
> The prototype is equipped with a spin recovery rocket chute - how
cool!
>
> Todd Houg
> RV-9A
What do you think of those Ballistic Recovery 'Chutes? It looks
like it possibly saved a life in Texas when a Cirrus lost an
aileron, but one failed up here in KY when somebody tried it. . .
Author: "Steve Mustaikis" <mustaiks@...> Time: Sun Mar 9, 2003 8:35 am PST Link
I have no problem with an airplane that has a chute, but I do have a problem
with the cirrus design. The cirrus is designed that the only possible recovery
method from a spin is pull the chute. I don't believe that this is a good design
practice. I can accept bad spin charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
But the plane should be able to recover from a spin entry without totaling the
aircraft.
I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before manufacturing aircraft,
Steve
> What do you think of those Ballistic Recovery 'Chutes? It looks
> like it possibly saved a life in Texas when a Cirrus lost an
> aileron, but one failed up here in KY when somebody tried it. . .
Author: Chris <chrisw3@...> Time: Sun Mar 9, 2003 12:07 pm PST Link
Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> I have no problem with an airplane that has a chute, but I do have a
> problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is designed that the only
> possible recovery method from a spin is pull the chute. I don't
> believe that this is a good design practice. I can accept bad spin
> charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard. But the plane should
> be able to recover from a spin entry without totaling the aircraft.
>
> I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before manufacturing aircraft,
I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm sure that Vans is
confident that the plane will recover from an accidental spin just
fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he will be pushing the
testing to the limit and entering spins for several turns and just in
case the plane won't recover from a fully developed spin he decided to
put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for that "in case"
scenario during testing and there is no plan to sell the plane that
way. But that is just my take on what I read on the update page.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
chrisw@p...
N35° 20.492'
W97° 34.342'
Author: John Jessen <jjessen@...> Time: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:00 pm PST Link
My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and therefore the spin testing
is being done correctly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans website
Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> I have no problem with an airplane that has a chute, but I do have a
> problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is designed that the only
> possible recovery method from a spin is pull the chute. I don't
> believe that this is a good design practice. I can accept bad spin
> charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard. But the plane should
> be able to recover from a spin entry without totaling the aircraft.
>
> I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before manufacturing aircraft,
I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm sure that Vans is
confident that the plane will recover from an accidental spin just
fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he will be pushing the
testing to the limit and entering spins for several turns and just in
case the plane won't recover from a fully developed spin he decided to
put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for that "in case"
scenario during testing and there is no plan to sell the plane that
way. But that is just my take on what I read on the update page.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
chrisw@p...
N35° 20.492'
W97° 34.342'
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/g22lp
?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: Larry R <_lr_@...> Time: Sun Mar 9, 2003 6:09 pm PST Link
Ditto.
I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the regulations - this is to
increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an unpredictable
event, too, and not setting the project back a year or so.
-lr
--- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and therefore the spin
> testing
> is being done correctly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> Steve Mustaikis wrote:
>
> > I have no problem with an airplane that has a chute, but I do have
> a
> > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is designed that the
> only
> > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the chute. I don't
> > believe that this is a good design practice. I can accept bad spin
> > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard. But the plane
> should
> > be able to recover from a spin entry without totaling the aircraft.
> >
> > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before manufacturing aircraft,
>
> I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm sure that Vans is
> confident that the plane will recover from an accidental spin just
> fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he will be pushing
> the
> testing to the limit and entering spins for several turns and just in
> case the plane won't recover from a fully developed spin he decided
> to
> put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for that "in case"
> scenario during testing and there is no plan to sell the plane that
> way. But that is just my take on what I read on the update page.
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206
> chrisw@p...
> N35° 20.492'
> W97° 34.342'
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17053400
>
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/g22lp
> ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Author: Bill Ervin <n57wc@...> Time: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:58 pm PST Link
If you look at the design, its attached to the out
side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
thinking on Vans part!!
I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
production RV-10 ;)
Bill
--- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> Ditto.
>
> I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> regulations - this is to
> increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> unpredictable
> event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> or so.
>
> -lr
> --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> therefore the spin
> > testing
> > is being done correctly.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> website
> > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> >
> > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> chute, but I do have
> > a
> > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> designed that the
> > only
> > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> chute. I don't
> > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> can accept bad spin
> > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> But the plane
> > should
> > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> totaling the aircraft.
> > >
> > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> manufacturing aircraft,
> >
> > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> sure that Vans is
> > confident that the plane will recover from an
> accidental spin just
> > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> will be pushing
> > the
> > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> several turns and just in
> > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> developed spin he decided
> > to
> > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> that "in case"
> > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> sell the plane that
> > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> the update page.
> > --
> > Chris Woodhouse
> > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > 405-691-5206
> > chrisw@p...
> > N35° 20.492'
> > W97° 34.342'
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flake/g22lp
> > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Author: "Steve" <arocknid@...> Time: Tue Mar 11, 2003 2:47 am PST Link
Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this particular 'chute --
looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a problem with
an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to pull
the 'chute. . .
To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much rather
fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about my
abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that). What if I
make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the elevator
departs the airframe?
My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)build
one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and make
sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> thinking on Vans part!!
>
> I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> production RV-10 ;)
>
> Bill
>
> --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > Ditto.
> >
> > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > regulations - this is to
> > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > unpredictable
> > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > or so.
> >
> > -lr
> > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > therefore the spin
> > > testing
> > > is being done correctly.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > website
> > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > chute, but I do have
> > > a
> > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > designed that the
> > > only
> > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > chute. I don't
> > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > can accept bad spin
> > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > But the plane
> > > should
> > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > totaling the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > manufacturing aircraft,
> > >
> > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > sure that Vans is
> > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > accidental spin just
> > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > will be pushing
> > > the
> > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > several turns and just in
> > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > developed spin he decided
> > > to
> > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > that "in case"
> > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > sell the plane that
> > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > the update page.
> > > --
> > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > 405-691-5206
> > > chrisw@p...
> > > N35° 20.492'
> > > W97° 34.342'
> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >
> > > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
7053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
e/g22lp
> > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Author: "Deene Ogden" <deene@...> Time: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:29 am PST Link
Steve, the temporary "spin chute" that Van has mounted to the rear of the
RV-10 is common practice when testing spins with a new design (assuming one
has the $$ to do it right). The chute allows the test pilot and test
program to fully explore the spin characteristics of the plane with minimum
exposure to the test pilot and prototype plane. Should the plane get into
an unrecoverable mode in the tests, the pilot deploys the chute which
stabilizes the plane in a nose down attitude. At that point the pilot cuts
the chute from the plane and normal recovery is made.
The fact that Van is pursuing this testing is a very positive statement
about the RV-10 program. Many homebuilt designs are not fully spin tested
and spins in these planes have to be avoided because the outcome is
unknown...AND many factory (certificated) airplanes are placarded "spins
prohibited" because they have undesirable, even unrecoverable spin modes.
At least when the correct testing is done, the plane will have known spin
characteristics and appropriate subsequent actions can be taken. If the
design turns out to be spin resistant or recovers safely/easily from spins,
the designer is happy. Otherwise, he changes the design to improve the
spin behavior or he prohibits spins.
Deene Ogden
EAA Flight Advisor
"Steve"
<arocknid@y... To: RV10@y...om
om> cc:
Subject: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans website
03/10/2003 10:03
PM
Please respond to
RV10
Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this particular 'chute --
looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a problem with
an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to pull
the 'chute. . .
To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much rather
fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about my
abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that). What if I
make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the elevator
departs the airframe?
My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)build
one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and make
sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> thinking on Vans part!!
>
> I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> production RV-10 ;)
>
> Bill
>
> --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > Ditto.
> >
> > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > regulations - this is to
> > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > unpredictable
> > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > or so.
> >
> > -lr
> > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > therefore the spin
> > > testing
> > > is being done correctly.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > website
> > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > chute, but I do have
> > > a
> > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > designed that the
> > > only
> > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > chute. I don't
> > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > can accept bad spin
> > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > But the plane
> > > should
> > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > totaling the aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > manufacturing aircraft,
> > >
> > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > sure that Vans is
> > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > accidental spin just
> > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > will be pushing
> > > the
> > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > several turns and just in
> > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > developed spin he decided
> > > to
> > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > that "in case"
> > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > sell the plane that
> > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > the update page.
> > > --
> > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > 405-691-5206
> > > chrisw@p...
> > > N35° 20.492'
> > > W97° 34.342'
> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >
> > > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
7053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
e/g22lp
> > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Steve" <arocknid@...> Time: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:16 pm PST Link
Yes, I understand the temporary spin chute, and it's a great idea.
Also, I'm in agreement that pursuit of the spin envelope is a
positive statement about the RV10s development. The idea I wanted
to toss out is about a more permanent installation -- similar to the
Cirrus. I am not suggesting that there will be anything wrong with
the RV10 -- everything leads me to believe the exact opposite.
Also, I am not suggesting that Van include a chute -- I wonder about
the possibility of an aftermarket installation. My interest (and
I'm not saying I'd install one) is because I'm a "belt-and-
suspenders" kind of pilot. I would use such a chute to save my life
and the lives of passengers in the event of structural failure or
something like that -- quite possibly something that's my fault as
the builder. Let me say that I do not know yet if I have the
capability to build this or any other airplane, and I'm always
interested in items that enhance safety. Also, I'd better add that
I want to know a lot better about my abilities to safely complete
this kit before I'll ever start. Thanks. . .
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Deene Ogden" <deene@u...> wrote:
>
> Steve, the temporary "spin chute" that Van has mounted to the rear
of the
> RV-10 is common practice when testing spins with a new design
(assuming one
> has the $$ to do it right). The chute allows the test pilot and
test
> program to fully explore the spin characteristics of the plane
with minimum
> exposure to the test pilot and prototype plane. Should the plane
get into
> an unrecoverable mode in the tests, the pilot deploys the chute
which
> stabilizes the plane in a nose down attitude. At that point the
pilot cuts
> the chute from the plane and normal recovery is made.
>
> The fact that Van is pursuing this testing is a very positive
statement
> about the RV-10 program. Many homebuilt designs are not fully
spin tested
> and spins in these planes have to be avoided because the outcome is
> unknown...AND many factory (certificated) airplanes are
placarded "spins
> prohibited" because they have undesirable, even unrecoverable spin
modes.
> At least when the correct testing is done, the plane will have
known spin
> characteristics and appropriate subsequent actions can be taken.
If the
> design turns out to be spin resistant or recovers safely/easily
from spins,
> the designer is happy. Otherwise, he changes the design to
improve the
> spin behavior or he prohibits spins.
>
> Deene Ogden
> EAA Flight Advisor
> "Steve"
> <arocknid@y... To:
RV10@yahoogroups.com
> om>
cc:
> Subject: [RV10]
Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> 03/10/2003
10:03
PM
> Please respond
to
RV10
> Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this particular 'chute -
-
> looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a problem with
> an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to pull
> the 'chute. . .
> To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much rather
> fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about my
> abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that). What if
I
> make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the elevator
> departs the airframe?
> My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)build
> one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and make
> sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
>
> --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> > If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> > side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> > suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> > be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> > pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> > thinking on Vans part!!
> >
> > I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> > production RV-10 ;)
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > > regulations - this is to
> > > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > > unpredictable
> > > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > > or so.
> > >
> > > -lr
> > > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > > therefore the spin
> > > > testing
> > > > is being done correctly.
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > > website
> > > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > > chute, but I do have
> > > > a
> > > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > > designed that the
> > > > only
> > > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > > chute. I don't
> > > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > > can accept bad spin
> > > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > > But the plane
> > > > should
> > > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > > totaling the aircraft.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > > manufacturing aircraft,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > > sure that Vans is
> > > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > > accidental spin just
> > > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > > will be pushing
> > > > the
> > > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > > several turns and just in
> > > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > > developed spin he decided
> > > > to
> > > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > > that "in case"
> > > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > > sell the plane that
> > > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > > the update page.
> > > > --
> > > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > > 405-691-5206
> > > > chrisw@p...
> > > > N35° 20.492'
> > > > W97° 34.342'
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >
> > > > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
> 7053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
> e/g22lp
> > > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of Service
> > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: Larry R <_lr_@...> Time: Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:52 am PST Link
Steve, as this will be my first project, I share some of your concerns.
Here are some of the things I plan to do/say/think that help:
- I know that the Van's kits historically have a good safety record. By
the time I finish my -10, there will doubtlessly be a bunch flying
already. So I won't be a pioneer.
- My goal is to produce an exact copy of the Van's prototype - I'm not
planning to modify anything. I don't trust myself to change things, and
even if I did, I wouldn't want to be flying a "one-of". I want as much
company walking down this road as possible.
- I like the idea that you can look at a piece of aluminum, or a rivet,
and tell if its got a problem. This is not as easy to do with
fiberglass.
- I plan to draw extensively for help on the local EAA chapter members
and other RV builders. I want to involve the FAA inspector in the
process as early and as often as he'll tolerate. I plan to spend a lot
of time on forums like this. IOW, I'm not planning to do this in a
vaccuum.
- I plan of fly the h*ll out of the thing when its finally done<g>.
For some bizarre reason, the prospect of tooling around at 10,000 feet
in a collection of parts I nailed together myself doesn't seem to
really spook me that much. Mabye that's because, when you think about
it, it's really not THAT much more intimidating than flying around in a
similar collection that was nailed together 25 years ago by some
marginally-interested worker making $5/hour. I figure I've *gotta* have
a more vested interest than he did<g>.
While I think highly of the idea of a recovery parachute for the entire
plane, I've noticed that it doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot for
Cirrus's overall safety record. I think that at this point, they've
lost about 5 aircraft for various reasons, and just had their first
unquestionable parachute 'save'. When I was at OSH last year, I spent
some time at the BRS booth trying to convince them that they should be
talking to the folks at Van's about a solution for the RV-10. I'd
certainly consider it if it was avaiable.
If this message precipitates a discussion about what us first-time
builders can do to increase our safety as much as possible (notice I
did not say 'insure safety', that'd be great.
-lr
--- Steve <arocknid@y...> wrote:
> Yes, I understand the temporary spin chute, and it's a great idea.
> Also, I'm in agreement that pursuit of the spin envelope is a
> positive statement about the RV10s development. The idea I wanted
> to toss out is about a more permanent installation -- similar to the
> Cirrus. I am not suggesting that there will be anything wrong with
> the RV10 -- everything leads me to believe the exact opposite.
> Also, I am not suggesting that Van include a chute -- I wonder about
> the possibility of an aftermarket installation. My interest (and
> I'm not saying I'd install one) is because I'm a "belt-and-
> suspenders" kind of pilot. I would use such a chute to save my life
> and the lives of passengers in the event of structural failure or
> something like that -- quite possibly something that's my fault as
> the builder. Let me say that I do not know yet if I have the
> capability to build this or any other airplane, and I'm always
> interested in items that enhance safety. Also, I'd better add that
> I want to know a lot better about my abilities to safely complete
> this kit before I'll ever start. Thanks. . .
> --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Deene Ogden" <deene@u...> wrote:
> >
> > Steve, the temporary "spin chute" that Van has mounted to the rear
> of the
> > RV-10 is common practice when testing spins with a new design
> (assuming one
> > has the $$ to do it right). The chute allows the test pilot and
> test
> > program to fully explore the spin characteristics of the plane
> with minimum
> > exposure to the test pilot and prototype plane. Should the plane
> get into
> > an unrecoverable mode in the tests, the pilot deploys the chute
> which
> > stabilizes the plane in a nose down attitude. At that point the
> pilot cuts
> > the chute from the plane and normal recovery is made.
> >
> > The fact that Van is pursuing this testing is a very positive
> statement
> > about the RV-10 program. Many homebuilt designs are not fully
> spin tested
> > and spins in these planes have to be avoided because the outcome is
> > unknown...AND many factory (certificated) airplanes are
> placarded "spins
> > prohibited" because they have undesirable, even unrecoverable spin
> modes.
> > At least when the correct testing is done, the plane will have
> known spin
> > characteristics and appropriate subsequent actions can be taken.
> If the
> > design turns out to be spin resistant or recovers safely/easily
> from spins,
> > the designer is happy. Otherwise, he changes the design to
> improve the
> > spin behavior or he prohibits spins.
> >
> > Deene Ogden
> > EAA Flight Advisor
> > "Steve"
>
> > <arocknid@y... To:
> RV10@yahoogroups.com
>
> > om>
> cc:
>
> > Subject: [RV10]
> Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> > 03/10/2003
> 10:03
> PM
>
> > Please respond
> to
> RV10
> > Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this particular 'chute -
> -
> > looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a problem with
> > an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to pull
> > the 'chute. . .
> > To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much rather
> > fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about my
> > abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that). What if
> I
> > make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the elevator
> > departs the airframe?
> > My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)build
> > one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and make
> > sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
> >
> > --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> > > If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> > > side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> > > suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> > > be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> > > pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> > > thinking on Vans part!!
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> > > production RV-10 ;)
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > > > Ditto.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > > > regulations - this is to
> > > > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > > > unpredictable
> > > > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > > > or so.
> > > >
> > > > -lr
> > > > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > > > therefore the spin
> > > > > testing
> > > > > is being done correctly.
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > > > website
> > > > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > > > chute, but I do have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > > > designed that the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > > > chute. I don't
> > > > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > > > can accept bad spin
> > > > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > > > But the plane
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > > > totaling the aircraft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > > > manufacturing aircraft,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > > > sure that Vans is
> > > > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > > > accidental spin just
> > > > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > > > will be pushing
> > > > > the
> > > > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > > > several turns and just in
> > > > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > > > developed spin he decided
> > > > > to
> > > > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > > > that "in case"
> > > > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > > > sell the plane that
> > > > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > > > the update page.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > > > 405-691-5206
> > > > > chrisw@p...
> > > > > N35° 20.492'
> > > > > W97° 34.342'
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > >
> > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
> > 7053400
> 85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
> > e/g22lp
> > > > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of Service
> > > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > removed]
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Author: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@...> Time: Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:20 am PST Link
I tell prospective builders all the time that this kit comes in a really big
box that has the following text on it...
"For ages 18 and older. Some assembly required. Batteries not included."
It is very difficult to screw it up if you do two things. Care and Ask. As
you get further along in the project you begin to realize how well designed
the aircraft is and as long as you can follow directions, aren't afraid to
ask questions, willing to admit that you screw up and replace the parts that
you do (screw up) then you will be fine. There are a bunch of RV's out
there and they are not falling apart. I have seen some that I would not fly
in that have hundreds of hours on them. Most of the builder supplied
problems that cause crashes in RV's are systems related. Mostly fuel
problems if I remember right. Engine failure should not kill a pilot and
the kinks should be worked out of the system before you load your whole
family in the bird and head to Aunt Edna's. Structural failures of RV's
just aren't happening, and that says something for the quailty of the design
and the ease of construction.
All that being said I do think that Van would be wise to figure a way to get
the BRS fitted to the RV-10 at least as an option. The other RV's aren't
family haulers and the RV 10 is. I think that there would be a huge
interest in having the option to install a BRS. I would consider it if and
when I ever build a -10 that is if they ever offer a -10 (instead of a 10A
that is. :-)
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry R" <_lr_@y...>
To: <RV10@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> Steve, as this will be my first project, I share some of your concerns.
> Here are some of the things I plan to do/say/think that help:
>
> - I know that the Van's kits historically have a good safety record. By
> the time I finish my -10, there will doubtlessly be a bunch flying
> already. So I won't be a pioneer.
>
> - My goal is to produce an exact copy of the Van's prototype - I'm not
> planning to modify anything. I don't trust myself to change things, and
> even if I did, I wouldn't want to be flying a "one-of". I want as much
> company walking down this road as possible.
>
> - I like the idea that you can look at a piece of aluminum, or a rivet,
> and tell if its got a problem. This is not as easy to do with
> fiberglass.
>
> - I plan to draw extensively for help on the local EAA chapter members
> and other RV builders. I want to involve the FAA inspector in the
> process as early and as often as he'll tolerate. I plan to spend a lot
> of time on forums like this. IOW, I'm not planning to do this in a
> vaccuum.
>
> - I plan of fly the h*ll out of the thing when its finally done<g>.
>
> For some bizarre reason, the prospect of tooling around at 10,000 feet
> in a collection of parts I nailed together myself doesn't seem to
> really spook me that much. Mabye that's because, when you think about
> it, it's really not THAT much more intimidating than flying around in a
> similar collection that was nailed together 25 years ago by some
> marginally-interested worker making $5/hour. I figure I've *gotta* have
> a more vested interest than he did<g>.
>
> While I think highly of the idea of a recovery parachute for the entire
> plane, I've noticed that it doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot for
> Cirrus's overall safety record. I think that at this point, they've
> lost about 5 aircraft for various reasons, and just had their first
> unquestionable parachute 'save'. When I was at OSH last year, I spent
> some time at the BRS booth trying to convince them that they should be
> talking to the folks at Van's about a solution for the RV-10. I'd
> certainly consider it if it was avaiable.
>
> If this message precipitates a discussion about what us first-time
> builders can do to increase our safety as much as possible (notice I
> did not say 'insure safety', that'd be great.
>
> -lr
> --- Steve <arocknid@y...> wrote:
> > Yes, I understand the temporary spin chute, and it's a great idea.
> > Also, I'm in agreement that pursuit of the spin envelope is a
> > positive statement about the RV10s development. The idea I wanted
> > to toss out is about a more permanent installation -- similar to the
> > Cirrus. I am not suggesting that there will be anything wrong with
> > the RV10 -- everything leads me to believe the exact opposite.
> > Also, I am not suggesting that Van include a chute -- I wonder about
> > the possibility of an aftermarket installation. My interest (and
> > I'm not saying I'd install one) is because I'm a "belt-and-
> > suspenders" kind of pilot. I would use such a chute to save my life
> > and the lives of passengers in the event of structural failure or
> > something like that -- quite possibly something that's my fault as
> > the builder. Let me say that I do not know yet if I have the
> > capability to build this or any other airplane, and I'm always
> > interested in items that enhance safety. Also, I'd better add that
> > I want to know a lot better about my abilities to safely complete
> > this kit before I'll ever start. Thanks. . .
> > --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Deene Ogden" <deene@u...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve, the temporary "spin chute" that Van has mounted to the rear
> > of the
> > > RV-10 is common practice when testing spins with a new design
> > (assuming one
> > > has the $$ to do it right). The chute allows the test pilot and
> > test
> > > program to fully explore the spin characteristics of the plane
> > with minimum
> > > exposure to the test pilot and prototype plane. Should the plane
> > get into
> > > an unrecoverable mode in the tests, the pilot deploys the chute
> > which
> > > stabilizes the plane in a nose down attitude. At that point the
> > pilot cuts
> > > the chute from the plane and normal recovery is made.
> > >
> > > The fact that Van is pursuing this testing is a very positive
> > statement
> > > about the RV-10 program. Many homebuilt designs are not fully
> > spin tested
> > > and spins in these planes have to be avoided because the outcome is
> > > unknown...AND many factory (certificated) airplanes are
> > placarded "spins
> > > prohibited" because they have undesirable, even unrecoverable spin
> > modes.
> > > At least when the correct testing is done, the plane will have
> > known spin
> > > characteristics and appropriate subsequent actions can be taken.
> > If the
> > > design turns out to be spin resistant or recovers safely/easily
> > from spins,
> > > the designer is happy. Otherwise, he changes the design to
> > improve the
> > > spin behavior or he prohibits spins.
> > >
> > > Deene Ogden
> > > EAA Flight Advisor
> > > "Steve"
> >
> > > <arocknid@y... To:
> > RV10@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > om>
> > cc:
> >
> > > Subject: [RV10]
> > Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> > > 03/10/2003
> > 10:03
> > PM
> >
> > > Please respond
> > to
> > RV10
> > > Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this particular 'chute -
> > -
> > > looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a problem with
> > > an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to pull
> > > the 'chute. . .
> > > To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much rather
> > > fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about my
> > > abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that). What if
> > I
> > > make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the elevator
> > > departs the airframe?
> > > My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)build
> > > one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and make
> > > sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
> > >
> > > --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> > > > If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> > > > side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> > > > suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> > > > be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> > > > pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> > > > thinking on Vans part!!
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> > > > production RV-10 ;)
> > > >
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Ditto.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > > > > regulations - this is to
> > > > > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > > > > unpredictable
> > > > > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > > > > or so.
> > > > >
> > > > > -lr
> > > > > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > > > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > > > > therefore the spin
> > > > > > testing
> > > > > > is being done correctly.
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > > > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > > > > website
> > > > > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > > > > chute, but I do have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > > > > designed that the
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > > > > chute. I don't
> > > > > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > > > > can accept bad spin
> > > > > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > > > > But the plane
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > > > > totaling the aircraft.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > > > > manufacturing aircraft,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > > > > sure that Vans is
> > > > > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > > > > accidental spin just
> > > > > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > > > > will be pushing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > > > > several turns and just in
> > > > > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > > > > developed spin he decided
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > > > > that "in case"
> > > > > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > > > > sell the plane that
> > > > > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > > > > the update page.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > > > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > > > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > > > > 405-691-5206
> > > > > > chrisw@p...
> > > > > > N35° 20.492'
> > > > > > W97° 34.342'
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
> > > 7053400
> > 85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
> > > e/g22lp
> > > > > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> > > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > > M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > > > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > > > Terms of Service
> > > > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > removed]
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Steve" <arocknid@...> Time: Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:09 pm PST Link
Totally cool! Thanks, Larry, and thanks Phil. That's exactly what
I was thinking about when I started this thing off about chutes.
I'll be a first-time builder, too, if and when I do it, and thus,
I've some concerns. I agree with you, Larry -- I'll be asking for
all the help possible. Likewise, Phil, I do care and will ask.
You're right in that this particular plane is a family cruiser, and
that's exactly why I'm interested in it. Also, I do admit that I
agree that I'll feel happy in a plane at fl 100 that I built myself,
maybe even more so than in one from Vero or Wichita and from
the '70s. And yes, I have to admit that it seems there have been
some problems with the Cirrus. Bad things seem to have been
happening to that craft, and that's very unfortunate. I remember
when the R22 seemed to be having a spate of accidents, and I hope
the Cirrus comes through as well as the helicopter seems to have. . .
--- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@p...> wrote:
> I tell prospective builders all the time that this kit comes in a
really big
> box that has the following text on it...
>
> "For ages 18 and older. Some assembly required. Batteries not
included."
>
> It is very difficult to screw it up if you do two things. Care
and Ask. As
> you get further along in the project you begin to realize how well
designed
> the aircraft is and as long as you can follow directions, aren't
afraid to
> ask questions, willing to admit that you screw up and replace the
parts that
> you do (screw up) then you will be fine. There are a bunch of
RV's out
> there and they are not falling apart. I have seen some that I
would not fly
> in that have hundreds of hours on them. Most of the builder
supplied
> problems that cause crashes in RV's are systems related. Mostly
fuel
> problems if I remember right. Engine failure should not kill a
pilot and
> the kinks should be worked out of the system before you load your
whole
> family in the bird and head to Aunt Edna's. Structural failures
of RV's
> just aren't happening, and that says something for the quailty of
the design
> and the ease of construction.
>
> All that being said I do think that Van would be wise to figure a
way to get
> the BRS fitted to the RV-10 at least as an option. The other RV's
aren't
> family haulers and the RV 10 is. I think that there would be a
huge
> interest in having the option to install a BRS. I would consider
it if and
> when I ever build a -10 that is if they ever offer a -10 (instead
of a 10A
> that is. :-)
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
> http://www.myrv7.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry R" <_lr_@y...>
> To: <RV10@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> > Steve, as this will be my first project, I share some of your
concerns.
> > Here are some of the things I plan to do/say/think that help:
> >
> > - I know that the Van's kits historically have a good safety
record. By
> > the time I finish my -10, there will doubtlessly be a bunch
flying
> > already. So I won't be a pioneer.
> >
> > - My goal is to produce an exact copy of the Van's prototype -
I'm not
> > planning to modify anything. I don't trust myself to change
things, and
> > even if I did, I wouldn't want to be flying a "one-of". I want
as much
> > company walking down this road as possible.
> >
> > - I like the idea that you can look at a piece of aluminum, or a
rivet,
> > and tell if its got a problem. This is not as easy to do with
> > fiberglass.
> >
> > - I plan to draw extensively for help on the local EAA chapter
members
> > and other RV builders. I want to involve the FAA inspector in the
> > process as early and as often as he'll tolerate. I plan to spend
a lot
> > of time on forums like this. IOW, I'm not planning to do this in
a
> > vaccuum.
> >
> > - I plan of fly the h*ll out of the thing when its finally
done<g>.
> >
> > For some bizarre reason, the prospect of tooling around at
10,000 feet
> > in a collection of parts I nailed together myself doesn't seem to
> > really spook me that much. Mabye that's because, when you think
about
> > it, it's really not THAT much more intimidating than flying
around in a
> > similar collection that was nailed together 25 years ago by some
> > marginally-interested worker making $5/hour. I figure I've
*gotta* have
> > a more vested interest than he did<g>.
> >
> > While I think highly of the idea of a recovery parachute for the
entire
> > plane, I've noticed that it doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot
for
> > Cirrus's overall safety record. I think that at this point,
they've
> > lost about 5 aircraft for various reasons, and just had their
first
> > unquestionable parachute 'save'. When I was at OSH last year, I
spent
> > some time at the BRS booth trying to convince them that they
should be
> > talking to the folks at Van's about a solution for the RV-10. I'd
> > certainly consider it if it was avaiable.
> >
> > If this message precipitates a discussion about what us first-
time
> > builders can do to increase our safety as much as possible
(notice I
> > did not say 'insure safety', that'd be great.
> >
> > -lr
> > --- Steve <arocknid@y...> wrote:
> > > Yes, I understand the temporary spin chute, and it's a great
idea.
> > > Also, I'm in agreement that pursuit of the spin envelope is a
> > > positive statement about the RV10s development. The idea I
wanted
> > > to toss out is about a more permanent installation -- similar
to the
> > > Cirrus. I am not suggesting that there will be anything wrong
with
> > > the RV10 -- everything leads me to believe the exact opposite.
> > > Also, I am not suggesting that Van include a chute -- I wonder
about
> > > the possibility of an aftermarket installation. My interest
(and
> > > I'm not saying I'd install one) is because I'm a "belt-and-
> > > suspenders" kind of pilot. I would use such a chute to save
my life
> > > and the lives of passengers in the event of structural failure
or
> > > something like that -- quite possibly something that's my
fault as
> > > the builder. Let me say that I do not know yet if I have the
> > > capability to build this or any other airplane, and I'm always
> > > interested in items that enhance safety. Also, I'd better add
that
> > > I want to know a lot better about my abilities to safely
complete
> > > this kit before I'll ever start. Thanks. . .
> > > --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, "Deene Ogden" <deene@u...>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve, the temporary "spin chute" that Van has mounted to
the rear
> > > of the
> > > > RV-10 is common practice when testing spins with a new design
> > > (assuming one
> > > > has the $$ to do it right). The chute allows the test pilot
and
> > > test
> > > > program to fully explore the spin characteristics of the
plane
> > > with minimum
> > > > exposure to the test pilot and prototype plane. Should the
plane
> > > get into
> > > > an unrecoverable mode in the tests, the pilot deploys the
chute
> > > which
> > > > stabilizes the plane in a nose down attitude. At that point
the
> > > pilot cuts
> > > > the chute from the plane and normal recovery is made.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that Van is pursuing this testing is a very positive
> > > statement
> > > > about the RV-10 program. Many homebuilt designs are not
fully
> > > spin tested
> > > > and spins in these planes have to be avoided because the
outcome is
> > > > unknown...AND many factory (certificated) airplanes are
> > > placarded "spins
> > > > prohibited" because they have undesirable, even
unrecoverable spin
> > > modes.
> > > > At least when the correct testing is done, the plane will
have
> > > known spin
> > > > characteristics and appropriate subsequent actions can be
taken.
> > > If the
> > > > design turns out to be spin resistant or recovers
safely/easily
> > > from spins,
> > > > the designer is happy. Otherwise, he changes the design to
> > > improve the
> > > > spin behavior or he prohibits spins.
> > > >
> > > > Deene Ogden
> > > > EAA Flight Advisor
> > > > "Steve"
> > >
> > > > <arocknid@y... To:
> > > RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > > om>
> > > cc:
> > >
> > > > Subject:
[RV10]
> > > Re: RV10 update on Vans website
> > > > 03/10/2003
> > > 10:03
> > > PM
> > >
> > > > Please respond
> > > to
> > > RV10
> > > > Yes, I thought just as everyone else about this
particular 'chute -
> > > -
> > > > looks like a temporary arrangement. . . I also have a
problem with
> > > > an airplane where the recovery procedure from a spin is to
pull
> > > > the 'chute. . .
> > > > To be honest, though, I have to admit that I think I'd much
rather
> > > > fly than build. That being the case, I have concerns about
my
> > > > abilities as a builder (maybe not many would admit that).
What if
> > > I
> > > > make a mistake early on, and some years down the road, the
elevator
> > > > departs the airframe?
> > > > My options are 1)don't be foolish enough to build a plane 2)
build
> > > > one and add a BRS 3)get lots and lots of help building, and
make
> > > > sure I've total confidence in the work before I fly.
> > > >
> > > > --- In RV10@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ervin <n57wc@y...> wrote:
> > > > > If you look at the design, its attached to the out
> > > > > side the airframe below the vertical Stab. Its
> > > > > suppose to stop a normally unrecoverable spin and then
> > > > > be cut away from its attachments so the plane and
> > > > > pilot land back home to fly again another day. Smart
> > > > > thinking on Vans part!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure its not going to part of the
> > > > > production RV-10 ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Larry R <_lr_@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Ditto.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sure the pilot will have a chute per the
> > > > > > regulations - this is to
> > > > > > increase the likelihood of the airframe surviving an
> > > > > > unpredictable
> > > > > > event, too, and not setting the project back a year
> > > > > > or so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -lr
> > > > > > --- John Jessen <jjessen@n...> wrote:
> > > > > > > My take, too. The chute is for spin testing, and
> > > > > > therefore the spin
> > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > is being done correctly.
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Chris [mailto:chrisw3@c...]
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:42 PM
> > > > > > > To: RV10@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [RV10] Re: RV10 update on Vans
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > Steve Mustaikis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have no problem with an airplane that has a
> > > > > > chute, but I do have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > problem with the cirrus design. The cirrus is
> > > > > > designed that the
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > possible recovery method from a spin is pull the
> > > > > > chute. I don't
> > > > > > > > believe that this is a good design practice. I
> > > > > > can accept bad spin
> > > > > > > > charecteristics, and a spins prohibited placard.
> > > > > > But the plane
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be able to recover from a spin entry without
> > > > > > totaling the aircraft.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm sure Vans would fix this problem before
> > > > > > manufacturing aircraft,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think there is an actual "problem". I'm
> > > > > > sure that Vans is
> > > > > > > confident that the plane will recover from an
> > > > > > accidental spin just
> > > > > > > fine. But as he has done in the past, I'm sure he
> > > > > > will be pushing
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > testing to the limit and entering spins for
> > > > > > several turns and just in
> > > > > > > case the plane won't recover from a fully
> > > > > > developed spin he decided
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > put the chute on. I am sure the chute is just for
> > > > > > that "in case"
> > > > > > > scenario during testing and there is no plan to
> > > > > > sell the plane that
> > > > > > > way. But that is just my take on what I read on
> > > > > > the update page.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Chris Woodhouse
> > > > > > > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > > > > > > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > > > > > > 405-691-5206
> > > > > > > chrisw@p...
> > > > > > > N35° 20.492'
> > > > > > > W97° 34.342'
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1
> > > > 7053400
85:HM/A=1481646/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_flak
> > > > e/g22lp
> > > > > > > ?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> > > > > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
> > > > M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
> > > > > > > l/S=:HM/A=1481646/rand=323138751>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > > > > Terms of Service
> > > > > > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > > > > removed]
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > > > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> > http://webhosting.yahoo.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > RV10-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/