RV-8 crash
Rvbldr3170
Hi all, just read about N58RV crash in California. No further details and don't
want to speculate but Van is on the scene to investigate.
Anyone with CONFIRMED info please post.
EAA chapter 325 Newsletter Editor
RV-4 Chevy V-6 builder
Tinkerer, motorhead, and general gizmo-freak
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
Regards,
Merle
David Munday
rvbld...@aol.com (Rvbldr3170) wrote:
>Hi all, just read about N58RV crash in California. No further details and don't
>want to speculate but Van is on the scene to investigate.
>Anyone with CONFIRMED info please post.
The Statement from Vans:
--------------------------<cut>-------------------------------------
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Benedict
<bi...@atheria.europa.com>
It is with regret that I write this note to inform the group that the
yellow RV-8 was destroyed on Sunday morning, taking John Morgan and
an acquaintance from Blythe California. John had borrowed the
aircraft to travel to Blythe and be with his family for the holiday.
Van was enroute to the area 6 hours after the accident but arrived
after the NTSB had removed the wreckage to Phoenix. Van and Andy
Hanna, our structural engineer are now in Phoenix but will not be
able to review the aircraft remains until Wednesday. They will be
helping the NTSB, FAA and Lycoming determine the cause of the
accident.
We would like to keep the rumors to a minimum and intend to inform
this group of any findings as soon as available. We would appreciate
people not speculating as to the cause of the accident.
I just talked to Van and there was at least one witness and his
comments along with the description of the failure as described by
John's son-in-law do not make sense, therefore we will wait until Van
returns for the details. Although the NTSB may take weeks or months
to reach a conclusion, Van should be able to provide some details by
the end of the week.
Our thoughts are with John's family and several of us will be out of
the office this week to attend the memorial service for John.
Bill Benedict
General Manager
Van's Aircraft, Inc.
-------------------------------<cut>----------------------------------------
--
David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
My email address is not noisy.
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
Mencken's Law: Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of
saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel
Thom Hamilton
Rvbldr3170 <rvbld...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805261127...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Hi all, just read about N58RV crash in California. No further details and
don't
> want to speculate but Van is on the scene to investigate.
> Anyone with CONFIRMED info please post.
>
> Merle
Sorry to post this news, haven't seen anyone else from the RV-List forward
this and it
hasn't shown up yet on my news server so, here is a note from Bill
Benedict:
---Begin Quote---
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Benedict <bi...@atheria.europa.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 (N58RV)
It is with regret that I write this note to inform the group that the
yellow
RV-8 was destroyed on Sunday morning, taking John Morgan and an
acquaintance from Blythe California. John had borrowed the aircraft to
travel to Blythe and be with his family for the holiday.
Van was enroute to the area 6 hours after the accident but arrived after
the
NTSB had removed the wreckage to Phoenix. Van and Andy Hanna, our
structural engineer are now in Phoenix but will not be able to review the
aircraft remains until Wednesday. They will be helping the NTSB, FAA and
Lycoming determine the cause of the accident.
We would like to keep the rumors to a minimum and intend to inform this
group of any findings as soon as available. We would appreciate people not
speculating as to the cause of the accident.
I just talked to Van and there was at least one witness and his comments
along with the description of the failure as described by John's son-in-law
do not make sense, therefore we will wait until Van returns for the
details. Although the NTSB may take weeks or months to reach a conclusion,
Van should be able to provide some details by the end of the week.
Our thoughts are with John's family and several of us will be out of the
office this week to attend the memorial service for John.
Bill Benedict
General Manager
Van's Aircraft, Inc.
---End Quote---
Sad news, and a real loss.
-----------------------------------------------
Thom Hamilton PP-ASEL
RV-8 Buying Tools
thom.h...@usa.xerox.com
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Campbell
The following data was received this morning... Our condolences to the family of
the deceased and the folks at Van's.
**** 05/27/98 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 1 ****
A. Type: Accident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 05/26/98
From: WESTERN PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg.No.: 58RV M/M: EXP Desc: EXP: VANS RV-8
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: ACFT CRASHED DUE TO IN-FLIGHT BREAK UP, THE 2 POB SUFFERED FATAL INJURIES,
THE ACFT WAS DESTROYED, RIPLEY, CA.
WX: METAR KBLH 241350Z 00000KT 40SM SKC 20/09 A2988 Damage: Destroyed
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:
D. Location City: RIPLEY State: CA
E. Occ Date: 05/24/98 Time: 14:00
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: KAPPA Reg/DO: WP21 DO CTY: RIVERSIDE
DO State: CA Others: NTSB (CRISPIN)
G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: UNKN Dep Date: / / Time:
Dest: UNKN Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: UNK
Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing:
Other:
--
Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.av8r.net
http://www.kindredspirit.com
http://www.sportplane.com
"To sin by silence when they should protest,
makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln
Marty Hammersmith
Wow!
This is ugly. What in the world could they have done? When I first
heard of the crash I assumed engine failure. I never dreamed of in
flight structural failure.
--
Marty Hammersmith
Marty Hammersmith
Relax Dave, I'm not latching onto anything. I simply commented that I
couldn't imagine in flight structural failure of an RV-8? Of all the
problems one might have in this aircraft, in flight structural failure
never would have crossed my mind. On the otherhand, I'm not really the
aerobatic sort so I might not be stressing it out. I didn't mean to
state anything as fact regarding the crash and don't believe I am
creating rumour.
Just visted a guy in the local EAA Chapter who took delivery of his
RV-6 tailkit. I'm interested enough in RV's to be anxiously awaiting the
facts.
Question: Doesn't it seem uncharacteristic that Zoom hasn't claimed to
have been on the scene, in the plane, a close personal friend of all
involved, or contacted at home by Van or the FAA to come help? Maybe
he's finally getting back to just reporting the facts. In all
seriousness Jim, that's what I've been hoping you'd get back to.
David Hyde wrote:
>
> Marty Hammersmith (bal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> >I never dreamed of in flight structural failure.
>
> Pleasepleaseplease can we not latch onto a preliminary finding? Lets let
> the experts (the NTSB, not self appointed 'experts') do their jobs.
> their will certainly be more to come, and Van's has always been very
> forthcoming with information regarding mishaps.
>
> Dave 'at least no one claimed they were tasked by the NTSB' Hyde
> na...@glue.umd.edu
> Charter Member, RAH15
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <6kigha$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Marty Hammersmith <bal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Relax Dave, I'm not latching onto anything. I simply commented that I
>couldn't imagine in flight structural failure of an RV-8? Of all the
>problems one might have in this aircraft, in flight structural failure
>never would have crossed my mind.
I may be reading too much into the Vans news release, but if you recall,
it makes a comment about some discrepancy in the eyewitness reports.
Perhaps the initial comment in the report is based on an observer who
may have been incorrect.
I, too, find it hard to believe structural failure in the case of the RV-8.
This is not an "experimenter doing cut-and-try in the basement"
situation; the -8 is professionally engineered. The past problems with the
RV-3 would serve to keep Van and his crew even more conservative.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
David Hyde
Marty Hammersmith
As they say in the FedEx commercial, "absolutely, positively sir". I
agree Ron, the RV-3 situation has probably long since been handled and
being professionally engineered the -8 SHOULD be conservatively designed
and over engineered. This is why I am very interested to hear the facts
which understandably can take some time. However, it shouldn't take long
to be able to relate WHAT happened. The WHY could take considerably
longer. I woudn't be as nearly concerned if this was a customer
airplane, there's all kinds of variables there. The factory plane
though...
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
> I, too, find it hard to believe structural failure in the case of the RV-8.
> This is not an "experimenter doing cut-and-try in the basement"
> situation; the -8 is professionally engineered. The past problems with the
> RV-3 would serve to keep Van and his crew even more conservative.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
--
Marty Hammersmith
David Hyde
Marty Hammersmith (bal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>being professionally engineered the -8 SHOULD be conservatively designed
>and over engineered.
Aside from the rest of the thread, 'professionally engineered'
_should_ imply that it's _not_ been overdesigned, but designed just to
the requirements.
Don't read too much into a preliminary report or an inflight breakup
causal factor. 1) Lots of things besides 'design flaws' can result in
overstress or other breakup-inducing problems - pilot error, turbulence,
control failure, flutter and 2) other failures can be masked as inflight
breakup - birdstrike, midair, flutter (no, not the f-word!). The
preliminary cause listing may be based on any of several different things
- eyewitness reports; which are often flawed, and wreckage patterns; which
might just mean that pieces were not 'collocated'.
Dave 'MIR' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Charter Member, RAH15
Badwater Bill
On Wed, 27 May 1998 22:03:32 -0400, Marty Hammersmith
<bal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Relax Dave, I'm not latching onto anything. I simply commented that I
>couldn't imagine in flight structural failure of an RV-8? Of all the
>problems one might have in this aircraft, in flight structural failure
>never would have crossed my mind. On the otherhand, I'm not really the
>aerobatic sort so I might not be stressing it out. I didn't mean to
>state anything as fact regarding the crash and don't believe I am
>creating rumour.
Who said it was a structural failure?
> Just visted a guy in the local EAA Chapter who took delivery of his
>RV-6 tailkit. I'm interested enough in RV's to be anxiously awaiting the
>facts.
I fly one everyday. I'm surely interested too but I'm not so sure it
was a structural failure. Is anyone else?
> Question: Doesn't it seem uncharacteristic that Zoom hasn't claimed to
>have been on the scene, in the plane, a close personal friend of all
>involved, or contacted at home by Van or the FAA to come help? Maybe
>he's finally getting back to just reporting the facts. In all
>seriousness Jim, that's what I've been hoping you'd get back to.
Nah! He just got too beat up last time over the Aero Comp crash.
He'll probably shoot off his big mouth somewhere over this thing, you
watch.
BWB
David Munday
bill...@ix.netcom.com (Badwater Bill) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 1998 22:03:32 -0400, Marty Hammersmith
><bal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Relax Dave, I'm not latching onto anything. I simply commented that I
>>couldn't imagine in flight structural failure of an RV-8? Of all the
>>problems one might have in this aircraft, in flight structural failure
>>never would have crossed my mind. On the otherhand, I'm not really the
>>aerobatic sort so I might not be stressing it out. I didn't mean to
>>state anything as fact regarding the crash and don't believe I am
>>creating rumour.
>
>Who said it was a structural failure?
The NTSB preliminary report that Campbell posted says:
Descr: ACFT CRASHED DUE TO IN-FLIGHT BREAK UP, THE 2 POB SUFFERED
FATAL INJURIES, THE ACFT WAS DESTROYED, RIPLEY, CA.
I usually think of structural failure and in flight breakup as
synonymous unless we're dealing with AAA, and I think that's unlikely.
Craig Wall
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
> I, too, find it hard to believe structural failure in the case of the RV-8.
> This is not an "experimenter doing cut-and-try in the basement"
> situation; the -8 is professionally engineered. The past problems with the
> RV-3 would serve to keep Van and his crew even more conservative.
I'm reminded (just reminded; I'm not drawing any conclusions)of the
SX-300 incident, where the Air Force version (I can't remember the
designator, but it was the one competing for the primary trainer
contract) was yanked apart in midair by two guys egging each other on
and probably relying on Swearingen's reputation for heavy equipment...
The fact is, any high performance airplane can be overstressed and
flown to pieces, either from maneuvering or from an unfortunate gust
while at high speed.
I expect we will see VanGrunsven (sp?) do a sober and professional
investigation and report the results fully. With no disrespect to the
pilots, it's also the case that flying high performance equipment can
sometimes lead to a loss of awareness of how many G's you're pulling;
the tendency is to become more sensitive to the deviations from the
*expected* loads than the loads themselves. I hope that is not what
happened here.
This is a tragedy, but let us make the most of it and advance the
aeronautical art through honest reflection and study of the
circumstances. I think all parties living and deceased would want it
that way. Meanwhile, speculation- including my own- is probably best
kept to a minimum. (I personally find that very difficult to do, but
perhaps it will serve more to increase the caution of someone going out
to fly today. Like me.)
Craig Wall
Peter S. Lert
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> > I, too, find it hard to believe structural failure in the case of the RV-8.
> > This is not an "experimenter doing cut-and-try in the basement"
> > situation; the -8 is professionally engineered. The past problems with the
> > RV-3 would serve to keep Van and his crew even more conservative.
>
> I'm reminded (just reminded; I'm not drawing any conclusions)of the
> SX-300 incident, where the Air Force version (I can't remember the
> designator, but it was the one competing for the primary trainer
> contract) was yanked apart in midair by two guys egging each other on
> and probably relying on Swearingen's reputation for heavy equipment...
A few words about the Forrest Mohlberg / SX-300 incident...
It may well be that "two guys were egging each other on," but that
hasn't necessarily been substantiated. The actual failure was _fatigue_
in one of the wing attach fittings; and if memory serves, that was the
only airplane in the series built with detachable wing panels.
I know this because all of my 650-odd hours ferrying and demoing the
final SA-32T military trainer prototype (beefed-up -300 airframe with
full bubble canopy and 450-hp Allison C250-B17D) began with a frantic
call from the firm _very_ shortly before the Paris Air Show in '89...and
that was because they'd suddenly found out that with the one-piece wing
the airplane was just barely too large, in all dimensions, to fit into a
747 for transport. Instead, over the next few years I had the chance to
see places as diverse as Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, Pakistan,
South Africa, Europe several times, and pretty well everywhere in
between from that excellent little airplane, and all under its own
steam, too.
Craig Wall
Peter S. Lert wrote:
>
> Craig Wall wrote:
> > I'm reminded (just reminded; I'm not drawing any conclusions)of the
> > SX-300 incident, where the Air Force version (I can't remember the
> > designator, but it was the one competing for the primary trainer
> > contract) was yanked apart in midair by two guys egging each other on
> > and probably relying on Swearingen's reputation for heavy equipment...
>
> A few words about the Forrest Mohlberg / SX-300 incident...
>
> It may well be that "two guys were egging each other on," but that
> hasn't necessarily been substantiated. The actual failure was _fatigue_
> in one of the wing attach fittings; and if memory serves, that was the
> only airplane in the series built with detachable wing panels.
Jeez, even worse! The fatique sounds like the result of *expecting*
that nuanced and compromised wing to behave like the one-piece version!
My point here is not that it was a bad airplane or that the pilots
were dumb- on the contrary; it's the sort of "snakebite" that is, in
*hindsight* almost predictable.
Not much to say, except "there but for the Grace..."
(BTW, the "winner" of that competition was the Slingsby T-3 Firefly,
dozens of which are parked next to my hangar at Hondo. They've been
grounded for months, due to *16* in-flight engine stoppages, including 2
fatalities. All due to a silly fuel pump location, done in England,
that practically *guarantees* vaporlocking in the Texas heat...)
Craig
BP II
>> 1) Is it physically possible to pull 9 G in an abrupt RV nose up at
cruise?
What is the cruising speed? If it's around 120 mph, and let's say that the
plane normally stalls at 50 mph. The plane would stall at around 6 g's or
120 mph. If the plane is rated for +6/-3 g's then 120 mph would be the
manuevering speed (Va) for a plane that stalls at 50mph. At 6 g's the
stalling speed increases 240 percent.
>> 2) How many G's would a typical rapid 45-degree nose up at cruise
produce?
For a loop a comfortable pullup would be 3 g's. a good competion pullup is
more in the neighborhood of 4+. Generally above 4 g's is to be avoided.
The plane may stall before the completion of the maneuver. Just refer to the
last question. The plane would experience an accelerated stall before onset
of 6 g's.
Bohdan Pywowarczuk
Larry -xlax- Lovisone
I'm quoting form RV-8 plans book section 15 page 24... Air Speed Indicator
Markings:
Stall speed without flaps 58 mph
Cruise speed 193 mph
Maneuvering full control defection speed 142 mph
Light turbulence speed 193-230 mph
Max speed 230 mph
Section 15 page 25 General Guidelines Starting Speeds Aerobatics Testing:
Loops, Horizontal Eights 140-190 mph
Immelman turns 150-190 mph
Aileron Rolls, Barrel rolls 120-190 mph
Snap Rolls 80-110 mph
Vertical rolls 180-190 mph
Split-S 100-110 mph
Please note that the recommended entry speed for snap rolls are relatively low.
One definition of a snap roll is that it is an accelerated stall with heavy yaw
input. Because the RV's have good stall characteristics and good spin
resistance, they also resist easy snap roll entry. Entered at speeds below 100
mph, snap tend to be slow and wallowing. At above 100 mph, high G loads are
required. For this reason, most RV pilots avoid snap rolls...
Larry #80024 (building RV-8 powered by Moravia's Lom inline 6 cylinder engine)
David Munday
"BP II" <modr...@SPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> 1) Is it physically possible to pull 9 G in an abrupt RV nose up at
>cruise?
>
>What is the cruising speed? If it's around 120 mph, and let's say that the
>plane normally stalls at 50 mph. The plane would stall at around 6 g's or
>120 mph.
Would you mind running through that little rule of thumb with numbers.
I'm sure it's buried in Stinson somewhere, and makes some assumption
about the near linearity of the stall on the v-g plot, but I'd like to
see your argument in detail.
Rhwoodcock
I presume that he is talking about the G force varying with the square of the
velocity- i.e. doubling the speed over stall at 1 G would produce a stall at
4 G's, tripling would produce a stall at 9 G's, etc. Conversely, a plane
traveling at 4 times 1 G stall speed would stall at 16 G's.
I suspect that you knew that. What is "Stinson"?
rich
>
<HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: RV-8 crash report
>From: mun...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday)
>Date: Fri, Jun 12, 1998 19:24 EDT
>Message-id: <35b7a6be....@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>
></PRE></HTML>
Tamela R. Germano
In article <3580E1CB...@ns.net>, Larry -xlax- Lovisone
<nett...@ns.net> wrote:
> Larry #80024 (building RV-8 powered by Moravia's Lom inline 6 cylinder engine)
Tell us how you like the engine, and what you paid for it. We are all
friends here and WE won't tell anyone elese BIG :-) I think that a bunch
of nice pre WWII birds could be built up with that engine. Although it
would be nice if they (LOM) re-released the 500hp V-12 they did pre war.
Anyone for a 2/3 109 or Macchi 202?
Dino in Reno
Dave Sutton
Cannot speak for any homebuilt with this engine, but I
have been flying and fooling with Zlins for a while
and have owned or have flown behind both the Walter
engines that form the foundation for the Avia/LOM design
and behind Avia/LOM engines. Gems in every respect.
The LOM has a bunch of design improvements over the
earlier Walters, although you really need to see a Walter
apart to appreciate how finely it is crafted. I would go out
of my way to use these. Prices vary according to supplier.
In any case, they are nearly as expensive as a Lycoming, but
are of a different genre entirely. Beautifull machinery!
Just a techical point: it is not 'Moravia's" engine., They are
merely one importer. LOM was Avia, was Walter. The factory
built Argus engines during the Nazi occupation. Old company
and very competent.
If you want a V-12 of 500ish HP, I would recommend the
Renault/SNECMA 12, as found in the MD-312 Flamant, etc.
These are available in reasonable quantities, and are a French
manufactured improvement on the German Argus V-12. Air cooled
so systems installation is fairly simple. -This- would make for a killer
109 clone.
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
"There is no substitute for horsepower...."
Rhwoodcock
Latest from Van's:
N58RV INVESTIGATION UPDATE
Information regarding the investigation of N58RV will be posted here as it is
made available.
6-12-98
Following the loss of their #2 RV-8 prototype/demonstrator aircraft, Van's
Aircraft personnel inspected the wing and spar structures of their #1 RV-8 and
their RV-8A aircraft. They found no signs of cracking, deformation, or
distress. However, because of the yet undetermined cause of the accident,
pending further investigation, Van's has imposed a voluntary flight precaution
on these two aircraft, and has contacted operators of homebuilt RV-8s and
requested they do likewise.
:
Shaun
What foriegn aircraft engine would be best in an RV-8 replacing an
IO-360 (normal 200hp; up to 240hp) at 339 pounds if I remember right?
- Shaun.
Shaun
>because of the yet undetermined cause of the accident,
>pending further investigation, Van's has imposed a voluntary flight precaution
Lousmith
I was reccommended to me, to fly mine in the utility catagory (4.4positive and
1.76 negative) until the final cause of accident is determined.
Louis Smith
RV-8 N801RV
Flying
David Munday
rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) wrote:
>I presume that he is talking about the G force varying with the square of the
>velocity- i.e. doubling the speed over stall at 1 G would produce a stall at
>4 G's, tripling would produce a stall at 9 G's, etc. Conversely, a plane
>traveling at 4 times 1 G stall speed would stall at 16 G's.
>
>I suspect that you knew that. What is "Stinson"?
>
Knew it? No. Knew more or less where to look it up? Yes.
Darol Stinson (If I spelled that right) is an author of several books
on aircraft design.
Shaun
>Flying
How many hours now?
For us here at RAH do you like your new RV-8 compared to your old RV-4
taking engine/prop/instruments out of the equation (or can you)?
Hope you are having fun : ) - Shaun.
Tamela R. Germano
In article <6ltqfk$n...@jupiter.planet.net>, Dave Sutton
<nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
> Cannot speak for any homebuilt with this engine, but I
> have been flying and fooling with Zlins for a while
> and have owned or have flown behind both the Walter
> engines that form the foundation for the Avia/LOM design
> and behind Avia/LOM engines. Gems in every respect.
> The LOM has a bunch of design improvements over the
> earlier Walters, although you really need to see a Walter
> apart to appreciate how finely it is crafted. I would go out
> of my way to use these. Prices vary according to supplier.
> In any case, they are nearly as expensive as a Lycoming, but
> are of a different genre entirely. Beautifull machinery!
>
..............snip...................
>
> If you want a V-12 of 500ish HP, I would recommend the
> Renault/SNECMA 12, as found in the MD-312 Flamant, etc.
> These are available in reasonable quantities, and are a French
> manufactured improvement on the German Argus V-12. Air cooled
> so systems installation is fairly simple. -This- would make for a killer
> 109 clone.
Thanks for the engine info Dave. As you may have noticed, while I have
not built anything yet, I have big (read dream-like) ideas for that day
"when I get the time and money" :-)
How about a full size WWII Italian Ambrosini (sp?) lightweight wood
fighter? With no guns, no armor, lighter electronics, and better Q.C. due
to no time pressure it should be al least as good as the real thing. The
S.A.I.107 did 350mph on 500hp. If a heaver 207 or 403 Dardo was built with
500 or so hp I would think that 300-325mph could be done. A 3/4 scale P-38
or P-40?
>
>
>
> Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
>
> Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
> "There is no substitute for horsepower...."
Dino Germano
'43 MB jeep "or a good transfer case with REALY low gears" :-)
Dino in Reno
Larry -xlax- Lovisone
Hiya Tamela
I like the engine for it's
100% aircraft design...
Direct drive
Super charged fuel injection
Over head cam shaft design
Angled valved heads
Magnesium engine cases
Lots of bearing surface
Cylinders are inline
It's not a stinky opposed engine
http://www.moraviation.com/ Ask Emil J David for a deal...
List price for a M337A is $21.224 dollars... We worked out a deal to engineer RV-8
- Lom interface and have been offered a new M337A in the crate with pair parts and
a tool kit for $14.500 dollars... C ya at Oshkosh 98... I'll be working in the TM
technologies tent for Kent White (the tinman)...
http://www.tinmantech.com/html/products.html
stop on by and see the drawings... Larry out
Tamela R. Germano wrote:
> In article <3580E1CB...@ns.net>, Larry -xlax- Lovisone
> <nett...@ns.net> wrote:
>
> > Larry #80024 (building RV-8 powered by Moravia's Lom inline 6 cylinder engine)
>
> Tell us how you like the engine, and what you paid for it. We are all
> friends here and WE won't tell anyone elese BIG :-) I think that a bunch
> of nice pre WWII birds could be built up with that engine. Although it
> would be nice if they (LOM) re-released the 500hp V-12 they did pre war.
> Anyone for a 2/3 109 or Macchi 202?
>
> Dino in Reno
Shaun
How much weight? How much horsepower? - Shaun.
highflyer
David Munday wrote:
>
> rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) wrote:
>
> >I presume that he is talking about the G force varying with the square of the
> >velocity- i.e. doubling the speed over stall at 1 G would produce a stall at
> >4 G's, tripling would produce a stall at 9 G's, etc. Conversely, a plane
> >traveling at 4 times 1 G stall speed would stall at 16 G's.
> >
> >I suspect that you knew that. What is "Stinson"?
> >
> Knew it? No. Knew more or less where to look it up? Yes.
>
> Darol Stinson (If I spelled that right) is an author of several books
> on aircraft design.
A Stinson is many things. There were a brother and sister, Eddy and
Katharine Stinson, who started an aircraft company. Katharine Stinson
was one of the first women to fly an airplane. The Stinsons built
some really great airplanes, culminating in the Stinson Reliant series.
Unfortunately, Eddie flew a Stinson Reliant into a house in Chicago
while demonstrating the airplane. Katharine sold the company to
Consolidated Aircraft Company. It later became part of the Vultee
Aircraft Group. They built about 500 Stinson Reliants during WWII
as Army Air Corps AT-19's. The Army then lend leased all five hundred
to Britain where they joined the RAF as Stinson Reliants.
They all flew to Britain on their own wings in 1943. After the war
they flew back. They were quite highly sought after as personal
airplanes, being one of the more useful of the "Warbirds."
Unfortunately, they had never type certified the AT-19. After the
war they applied for a type certificate as V-77 ( Vultee design number
77 ) and they were "remanufactured." The remanufacture consisted of
throwing away the military logbooks, painting over the British roundels,
and putting in a back seat, if there wasn't one! Several of these
are still flying.
After the war Consolidated-Vultee ( Note the name change ) brought out
another series of Stinsons based on the earlier Stinson 10 and the
military Stinson L-5 aircraft. This was the famous Stinson 108 series,
which had several models. Shortly after it came out, and was successful
in the marketplace, Consolidated-Vultee decided to get out of General
Aviation and go for the growing transport market pioneered by Donald
Douglas and Boeing. They sold the Stinson company and name to Piper,
who promptly sold all the ones that were already built and dropped
the entire line because it was providing serious competition to their
own Pacer series of Piper aircraft.
Consolidated-Vultee went on to change their name to ConVair and
produced one of the first successful jet transports, the ConVair
series.
Oh yes, the fellow who wrote the excellent books is a British Test
Pilot with a flair for clear technical exposition named Darrol
StinTon.
highflyer
David Munday wrote:
>
> "BP II" <modr...@SPAMworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>> 1) Is it physically possible to pull 9 G in an abrupt RV nose up at
> >cruise?
> >
> >What is the cruising speed? If it's around 120 mph, and let's say that the
> >plane normally stalls at 50 mph. The plane would stall at around 6 g's or
> >120 mph.
>
> Would you mind running through that little rule of thumb with numbers.
> I'm sure it's buried in Stinson somewhere, and makes some assumption
> about the near linearity of the stall on the v-g plot, but I'd like to
> see your argument in detail.
>
Actually, David, the stall always occurs at the same angle of attack.
Since the lift is a function of the angle of attack and the speed
squared, we see that the lift produced by the wing and any given
angle of attack goes up with the square of the speed.
In an RV the level flight, unaccellerated stall speed if under fifty
miles per hour. The cruise speed is in the neighborhood of 180 mph.
That is something between three and four times the stall speed.
That says the G loading ( lift/weight ) experienced when the airplane
stalls at cruise speed in somewhere between nine and sixteen G's.
Probably enough to break me, if not the airplane!
Oh, and that is Darrol Stinton, The Design of the Aeroplane. An
excellent book. And, yes, it is in there! :-)
Marc Ramsey
Miles Mccallum wrote in message <6maaqk$l45$1...@supernews.com>...
>Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
>around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
>caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
>was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
Did
you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
find out when the spar was later inspected?
Bob U.
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:10:51 -0500, highflyer <high...@alt.net>
wrote:
<Lotsa snip>
>Consolidated-Vultee went on to change their name to ConVair and
>produced one of the first successful jet transports, the ConVair
>series.
>
These Convair series were built at Lindberg Field in San Diego and
called the 880 and 990 and about 1960 were called General Dynamics GD
880's and GD 990's.
Some retired TWA captains here at our local field really brag on the
early 880's for speed and handling.... a real pilot's airplane!
I got to make a whopping $2.00 an hour installing electrical harnesses
in the mid section from wingtip to wingtip in the early 60's.
General Dynamics also built nuclear subs in Groton, Connecticut.
Bob 'history is my middle name' U.
bob-...@att.net
Miles Mccallum
Larry -xlax- Lovisone <nett...@ns.net> wrote:
>Snap Rolls 80-110 mph
>Please note that the recommended entry speed for snap rolls are relatively low.
>One definition of a snap roll is that it is an accelerated stall with heavy yaw
>input. Because the RV's have good stall characteristics and good spin
>resistance, they also resist easy snap roll entry. Entered at speeds below 100
>mph, snap tend to be slow and wallowing. At above 100 mph, high G loads are
>required. For this reason, most RV pilots avoid snap rolls...
Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
His advice was to start a coordinated turn in the direction of the
snap, and once established (say 20° of bank) smoothly center the
ailerons and bring the stick back -of course, in a luscombe, to get
maximum roll rate into a turn, you pretty much lead with full rudder.
It worked a treat, and reduced the G quite noticeably.
Miles.
Miles Mccallum
>These Convair series were built at Lindberg Field in San Diego and
>called the 880 and 990 and about 1960 were called General Dynamics GD
>880's and GD 990's.
>Some retired TWA captains here at our local field really brag on the
>early 880's for speed and handling.... a real pilot's airplane!
My father -now retired, infirm, but still sharp, and full of gems from
33,000 hours in the cockpit, flew both in the middle East for quite a
while. Says they were the closest thing to a 4 engine fighter he ever
flew, and a real pilots aeroplane. It didn't have gear or flap
extension speeds (they were the same as Vne or Mmo) and reckons you
could cross the outer marker at 400 kt, put it all out at once, and
make the numbers bang on speed. Said it was less than comfortable for
the passengers, so generally didn't do it (unless he was showing off).
Miles
Jeffry Stetson
In article <6madfs$q26$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, ma...@ranlog.com says...
>
>I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
>aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
Sorry to say (since it's not true today), back in those days most
airplanes were certificated and stressed for acro. Can't remember
whether snaps were on the list of approved maneuvers for Luscombes,
though. Actually, if I recall, none of that applies to planes certificated
under the very old rules (CAR 4?). Aerobatic category is a modern (~1965)
invention.
The stall speed goes up as the square root of the loading, (eg, if normal
stall is 50 mph, then a 4g stall would occur at 100 mph.), so as long as
the entry speed is low, the G loading will be low. One could do a
(very sloppy) snap roll at 1 g. Or less even; I've done snaps while
"floating" over the top of loops, and on down lines that were below 1G.
--
Jeffry Stetson ... now: Mooney M20E Super 21, Salto H-101
then: Mooney M20C Mark 21, Citabria 7ECA
David Munday
"Marc Ramsey" <ma...@ranlog.com> wrote:
>Miles Mccallum wrote in message <6maaqk$l45$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
>>around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
>>caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
>>was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
>
>
>I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
>aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
>Did
>you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
>find out when the spar was later inspected?
Weren't Luscombes certified under CAR-3? Under CAR-3 there was no
distinction between aerobatic and non aerobatic aircraft. Wasn't the
G rating under CAR-3 4.5? It was definitely more that today's general
category.
These old planes were built for aviators, not milk truck drivers. The
world is safer today . . . from a regulatory standpoint. Just ask a
regulator.
Bill Hale
Marc Ramsey (ma...@ranlog.com) wrote:
: Miles Mccallum wrote in message <6maaqk$l45$1...@supernews.com>...
: >Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
: >around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
: >caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
: >was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
: I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
: aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
: Did
: you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
: find out when the spar was later inspected?
If I'm not mistaken, this type is not marked against aerobatics...
nor is it in aerobatic category. Gray area. True for 8E anyway.
Bill Hale
Marc Ramsey
Bill Hale wrote in message <6mc4lv$r...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
OK, my apologies to Miles. I made assumptions based on shopping
around for Luscombes in the past, and one thing that a number of people
warned me to watch out for was ones that show signs of having been
subject to (probably ham-fisted) aerobatics. Apparently, there have been
at least a couple of instances of later spar failures...
Marc
Roger Ritter
On 18 Jun 1998 22:34:39 GMT, ha...@fc.hp.com (Bill Hale) wrote:
>Marc Ramsey (ma...@ranlog.com) wrote:
>: I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
>: aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
>: Did
>: you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
>: find out when the spar was later inspected?
>
>If I'm not mistaken, this type is not marked against aerobatics...
>nor is it in aerobatic category. Gray area. True for 8E anyway.
I think I got the attributions right, above. The Luscombe was
certified before an 'aerobatic category' existed, so is not placarded
against (or for) any aerobatic maneuvers. In the 40s, the CAA
responded to a question with a letter describing a whole slew of
aerobatic routines that a Luscombe could perform, separating them into
categories separated by pilot skill (e.g., skilled pilots only vs. any
pilot).
Now, of course, those planes are fifty years older, and some of the
maneuvers (snap rolls, for example) are known to put fairly high
stress on parts of the airplane (vertical stabilizer mounts, for
example). I consider it safe to do nice, easy loops, rolls, and
spins, but that's about it. I've only spun Rocky, since I don't have
any aerobatic time or training.
--
Roger and Chachi Ritter (rri...@io.com)
1946 Luscombe 8A "Rocky"
3 Whippets, 1 Greyhound, 1 Saluki, 1 cat. Virtual Irish Wolfhound.
"8 dogs are no more trouble than 6 -- Really!"
Craig Wall
Roger Ritter wrote:
>
> On 18 Jun 1998 22:34:39 GMT, ha...@fc.hp.com (Bill Hale) wrote:
>
> >Marc Ramsey (ma...@ranlog.com) wrote:
> >: I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
> >: aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
> >: Did
> >: you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
> >: find out when the spar was later inspected?
> >
> >If I'm not mistaken, this type is not marked against aerobatics...
> >nor is it in aerobatic category. Gray area. True for 8E anyway.
>
> I think I got the attributions right, above. The Luscombe was
> certified before an 'aerobatic category' existed, so is not placarded
> against (or for) any aerobatic maneuvers. In the 40s, the CAA
> responded to a question with a letter describing a whole slew of
> aerobatic routines that a Luscombe could perform, separating them into
> categories separated by pilot skill (e.g., skilled pilots only vs. any
> pilot).
>
> Now, of course, those planes are fifty years older, and some of the
> maneuvers (snap rolls, for example) are known to put fairly high
> stress on parts of the airplane (vertical stabilizer mounts, for
> example). I consider it safe to do nice, easy loops, rolls, and
> spins, but that's about it. I've only spun Rocky, since I don't have
> any aerobatic time or training.
Interesting to see this thread, because (having cut my teeth on these
old taildraggers) I was taught aerobatics in just such airplanes.
The problem is not aerobatics per se; we knew enough to not try
competition style maneuvers, but to keep everything low stress.
The problems always came when someone *blew* a maneuver, the most
common killer being falling out of a loop, getting distracted, and
forgeting to pull the power off during recovery.
I never did this myself- but my brother (who is well known for being
accident prone) did, and damn near destroyed the airplane. He popped an
entire row of rivets down the side of the fuselage and put a distinct
kink in the tail cone. (It wasn't a Luscombe, but it's the same dumb
mistake that lots of others have made.)
Aerobatic *trainers* are stout enough and slow enough to let you make
a mistake like this and live. A high performance airplane, almost *by
definition*, is not.
The RV-8 is not a trainer. And this need not have been a dumb
mistake, because *any* mistake will do....
Craig Wall
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <6mkfie$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Capt.Doug <Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The old-timers tell me that dispatch would flight plan the 990's at mach
>.092 but the plane couldn't hold enough fuel to reach the destination at
>that speed.
Isn't that a coincidence! I flight plan the Fly Baby at Mach .092!
Or did you mean Mach .92...? :-)
Ron "One lousy order of magnitude" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Chasmo
What a coincidence, the 880/990 stall speed and your cruise speed are
identical.
I was looking at a 990 a few years ago, was the fuselage smaller than a
Boeing or Douglas 4 eng? I had nothing near-by to compare it to, but it
seemed smaller, which would help account for the speed.
Chasmo
Capt.Doug
The old-timers tell me that dispatch would flight plan the 990's at mach
.092 but the plane couldn't hold enough fuel to reach the destination at
that speed.
D.
Miles Mccallum <mil...@avnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<6macs6$1dg$1...@supernews.com>...
B25flyer
Back in the good ole days,( gosh I never thought I would say that), when I was
flying for Airmidwest. TWA had an 8:00 Am departure out of ICT for LAX. It was
an 880 and on those very still mornings they would depart on 19 at ICT (yes
that was before they had a 19 R&L, this was 68 & 69) and when the did they left
a smoke trail that was unreal. It almost made the runway IFR and you could
still follow the smoke trail to the west for about 20 miles. Heck they did not
have the EPA nor had they even thought about Stage 1, 2, or 3. Also Modern Air
came in to ICT with 990s flying charters, God that airplane looked sexy.
But back then I was happy to be a Capt. on a Beech 99, and I thought that was a
BIG airplane. My how ones perspective changes over the years.
Speaking of smoke trails. Still remember the old 707-320s taking off from MKC
(the old one) on those long hauls. The 320 was the "water wagon" with
water/meth injection that would last for 45 seconds to a minute. Man talk about
BLACK smoke on takeoff. You could tell when the water/meth ran out. The smoke
got MUCH lighter.
Walt
highflyer
Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> In article <6mkfie$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Capt.Doug <Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >.092 but the plane couldn't hold enough fuel to reach the destination at
> >that speed.
>
>
> Or did you mean Mach .92...? :-)
>
> Ron "One lousy order of magnitude" Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Wow. I can bust Mach .1
Ray Jarvis
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:27:55 -0500, highflyer <high...@alt.net>
wrote:
Hey, keep the hair on your head though guy's!!!
highflyer
Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>
> OK, my apologies to Miles. I made assumptions based on shopping
> around for Luscombes in the past, and one thing that a number of people
> warned me to watch out for was ones that show signs of having been
> subject to (probably ham-fisted) aerobatics. Apparently, there have been
> at least a couple of instances of later spar failures...
>
> Marc
There was an AD to prevent the spar failures. It calls for some
access holes to be made so that the spar center section can be
adequately inspected for corrosion. I suspect the "spar failures"
you refer to were due more to rust than to previous aerobatics.
That said, I have seen a number of Luscombes with the fin "kinked"
from an overly enthusiastic snap roll. :-)
highflyer
Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> Miles Mccallum wrote in message <6maaqk$l45$1...@supernews.com>...
> >Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
> >around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
> >caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
> >was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
>
> aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
> Did
> you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
> find out when the spar was later inspected?
I would suggest that you not talk out of class. Who told you the
Luscombe was not stressed for aerobatics? The factory approved a
number of maneuvers in the Luscombe that are nowadays considered
to be aerobatic maneuvers.
For what it is worth, there was no such thing as an "aerobatic"
certification when the Luscombe was certified.
My airplane is NOT an aerobatic airplane. However, the original
owners manual gives the entry speeds for snap rolls, barrel rolls,
loops, Cuban eights, and several other maneuvers that some folks
call "aerobatic."
Capt.Doug
Uh, Yeah, Must be the spell checker acting up again. Glad to see you guys
are staying so sharp considering.....
There's a 990 parked next to a B-720 (short B-707) at one of my old
domiciles. The 990 appears smaller but they hold about the same number of
pax.
D.
Chasmo <chasm...@gte.net> wrote in article <6mkjcs$q1h$2...@news-2.news>...
> What a coincidence, the 880/990 stall speed and your cruise speed are
> identical.
> I was looking at a 990 a few years ago, was the fuselage smaller than a
> Boeing or Douglas 4 eng? I had nothing near-by to compare it to, but it
> seemed smaller, which would help account for the speed.
> Chasmo
>
Thomas A. LaPointe
In article <6mn0j4$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Capt.Doug"
<Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Uh, Yeah, Must be the spell checker acting up again. Glad to see you guys
> are staying so sharp considering.....
>
> There's a 990 parked next to a B-720 (short B-707) at one of my old
> domiciles. The 990 appears smaller but they hold about the same number of
> pax.
>
> I do believe there are TWO in Colorado.
One is at the east end of the old Stapleton airport. they used it for fire
and evacuation training.
the other is north of denver somwhere on a pylon. engine gone and pigeons
moved in. it was used for a resturant and failed...
for what it's worth
tom
--
EnerDome West
Purveyors Of Earth Shelter and
progressive Recycled building
Solutions
Howard Sweeney
Thomas A. LaPointe wrote in message ...
>the other is north of denver somwhere on a pylon. engine gone and pigeons
>moved in. it was used for a resturant and failed...
>for what it's worth
Erie Airpark was the site. The pigeons had to move. The property owners
took the Convair down last year and shredded it into little pieces.
Miles Mccallum
"Marc Ramsey" <ma...@ranlog.com> wrote:
>Miles Mccallum wrote in message <6maaqk$l45$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Bob Herendeen -truely one of nature's gentlemen- showed me how to get
>>around this when I was renting a hangar off him at Torrance... He
>>caught me one day contemplating the Luscombe, trying to decide what
>>was and wasn't acceptable in terms of aerobatics in the old girl.
>I'd argue that a true gentleman would not give advice on how to perform
>aerobatics in an aircraft that is neither certified nor stressed for it.
>Did
>you advise the subsequent purchaser of your experiments, or let them
>find out when the spar was later inspected?
Gulp... Just to reassure Marc.... I'm a confirmed coward (as well as
an A&P) -and the Luscombe had been completely rebuilt by the previous
owner, which included about 40% new skins in the wings, 90% in the
fuselage, and so on -and I eventually sold the aeroplane on to a
friend, and still fly it occasionally -and yes, I do regret selling
it.
As to the strength of these aircraft, no one really knows what their
limits are, other than (given the components are in good condition)
that they are strong enough -from experience. Being older and a little
wiser, I wouldn't do snaps in one now (I only did a few to satisfy my
curiosity) but I do know someone who lost it big time in an 8E -he
allowed the nose to drop too much in a roll, and brain in neutral,
pulled insead of pushed: the result was Vne + 40 mph (around 180 mph
if my memory serves me) and 8G on the meter. He was white when he
(very carefully) landed, but an extensive inspection revealed no
damage. Even by today's standards, Luscombes are a very fine aeroplane
indeed.
Miles