All quiet on the RV-8 crash front ...
JaKo
Hi all.
According to avweb, there was an accident last Sunday, involving an RV-8
prototype and there are no articles on RAH about it -- OR is it a taboo
subject?
JaKo.
Tony Spicer
The NTSB report was posted yesterday. The outboard wing panels folded.
David Hyde
Tony Spicer (spi...@wilmington.net) wrote:
>The NTSB report was posted yesterday. The outboard wing panels folded.
Read it carefully. One panel departed the airplane. Reason TBD.
'Folded' implies overstress, but the report leads some to believe
otherwise. There's more data out there, and Van's has always been
forthcoming. We'll here more, from reliable sources.
Dave 'silent suspicions' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Charter Member, RAH15
carle1
David Munday
Tony Spicer <spi...@wilmington.net> wrote:
>JaKo wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>> According to avweb, there was an accident last Sunday, involving an RV-8
>> prototype and there are no articles on RAH about it -- OR is it a taboo
>> subject?
>>
>> JaKo.
>
>The NTSB report was posted yesterday. The outboard wing panels folded.
Posted where?
--
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
Shawn Elliot Switenky
David Munday (mun...@muohio.noise.edu) wrote:
: Tony Spicer <spi...@wilmington.net> wrote:
: >JaKo wrote:
: >> Hi all.
: >> According to avweb, there was an accident last Sunday, involving an RV-8
: >> prototype and there are no articles on RAH about it -- OR is it a taboo
: >> subject?
: >>
: >> JaKo.
: >
: >The NTSB report was posted yesterday. The outboard wing panels folded.
: Posted where?
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/LAX/98A171.htm
: --
: David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
--
+ Shawn Switenky -------------------+-- Email: Shawn.S...@USask.CA -----+
| Network & Systems Management | Phone: (306) 966-4983 |
| Computing Services | Fax: (306) 966-4938 |
| University of Saskatchewan | URL: http://brain.usask.ca/ |
+-----------------------------------+-- ICBM: N52 07' 53.1" W106 37' 57.8" -+
Alan Staats
>On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 15:11:46 GMT, mun...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday) wrote:
>posted where
here is the NTSB take on the inccident, copied verbatim from their
site at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/LAX/98A171.htm
Accident occurred MAY-24-98 at RIPLEY, CA
Aircraft: Van's Aircraft, Inc. RV-8, registration: N58RV
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
On May 24, 1998, at 0630 hours Pacific daylight time, an experimental
RV-8, N58RV, experienced an in-flight structural separation and
crashed 1 mile south of Ripley, California. The aircraft was destroyed
and the pilot and pilot-rated passenger sustained fatal injuries. The
aircraft was being operated by Van's Aircraft, Inc., as a business
flight when the accident occurred. The flight originated from a
private agricultural strip in Blythe, California, at 0620. Visual
flight conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan had been
filed. A relative of the passenger reported that on departure the
pilot was seated in the front seat, while the passenger was in the
back. The aircraft is equipped with dual controls, however, the
throttle can only be operated from the front seat. An eyewitness,
about 1.5 miles northwest of the crash site, reported that he heard
the sound of an engine surging and looked to see where the sound was
originating. He saw a yellow aircraft flying straight and level, about
1,000 feet agl. The aircraft was on a southbound heading, about 1 mile
east of his location. He estimated that he watched the flight for over
a minute when he saw something fall from the aircraft. This was
followed almost immediately by a loud boom that he described as
sounding like a "shotgun." The aircraft's nose suddenly pitched up
about 45 degrees, then abruptly nosed over as it began to roll. The
aircraft entered a nose-down spin and continued in a vertical descent
until impact. A postaccident inspection of the aircraft by the Safety
Board found an outboard section of the left wing about 0.2 miles
northeast of the main wreckage. The main spar of the left wing was
fractured at a point inboard of the aileron and outboard of the flap.
The main spar of the right wing was also fractured about the same
location, but remained attached by the wing's outer skin. According to
the kit designer, the wing design had previously been statically
tested to failure, which had required in excess of 9 G's.
end transcipt
my most sincere condolences to all.
staats
Don McCall
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, JaKo wrote:
> Hi all.
> According to avweb, there was an accident last Sunday, involving an RV-8
> prototype and there are no articles on RAH about it -- OR is it a taboo
> subject?
>
> JaKo.
There's an update section at www.vansaircraft.com with the current "official"
news; basically nothing definitive is known yet, although there has been a
fair amount of speculation. Van's is certainly hard at work, along with the
NTSB, in trying to discover the source of the crash, and of course last week
would have been largely devoted to the sad and difficult task of saying
goodbye to their friend and colleague and assisting the families involved.
The known facts at this point are that both wing spars failed at precisely
the point where earlier destructive testing had shown they would if the wing
were subjected to loads far above the design limit, and that the pilot
involved was very experienced, very careful, very professional, and very
highly regarded.
One interesting scenario, supposedly consistent with eyewitness accounts, is
that a prop or engine-related problem resulted in destructive vibration which
separated the engine from the airframe, and the immediate resulting pitch-up
at cruise speed led to the massive wing loading and resulting spar failures.
I repeat, this is only a guess at this point.
Van's has a well-deserved reputation for absolute honesty and integrity, and
I'm sure they'll let everybody know once the problem has been positively
identified.
Don McCall
Rhwoodcock
As info. Saw this post on the Aerobatics NG. I don't want to encourage
uninformed, idle, speculation, but the author raises some interesting
questions, and draws no conclusions himself.
I offer as info, without editing or further comment:
rich
>>
Subject: Re: RV-8 crash report
From: Charles Woodson <woo...@soe.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 1998 13:19 EDT
Message-id: <3578288F...@soe.berkeley.edu>
> Reading the NTSB preliminary report, I have a few questions.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/LAX/98A171.htm
>
> 1) Is it physically possible to pull 9 G in an abrupt RV nose up at cruise?
>
> 2) How many G's would a typical rapid 45-degree nose up at cruise produce?
>
> 3) A mile and a half seems a long way to hear the breaking of a wing.
Further,
> the eyewitness description seems out of synchronization, as the sound would
take
> 8 or more seconds to reach him. He should see the break a long time before
he
> heard it. It seems to me, things of this magnitude that I have heard at that
> distance seemed quite faint.
>
> 4) Could the witness description be a reference to a shock wave caused by a
> military plane flying faster than the speed of sound? How close would such
> planes need to fly to a light plane to cause a 9+ G bump?
>
> This incident seems quite puzzling to me, but it reminds me of why I am
building
> an RV8. I am sure a detailed analysis will be provided for examination and
> discussion. I know there are hundreds of kits and planes out there being
> examined for possible weaknesses. "An airplane is a collection of
> compromises. RV"
>
>
>
Gregory Travis
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980605104038.20916A-100000@cayman>,
Don McCall <mcc...@cayman.ds.boeing.com> wrote:
>One interesting scenario, supposedly consistent with eyewitness accounts, is
>that a prop or engine-related problem resulted in destructive vibration which
>separated the engine from the airframe, and the immediate resulting pitch-up
>at cruise speed led to the massive wing loading and resulting spar failures.
>I repeat, this is only a guess at this point.
Was the engine then found some distance from the main wreckage?
greg
--
greg travis "The coffee shop piano plays toe-tapping jazz,
gr...@littlebear.com thanks to its Windows operating system."
http://www.prime-mover.org/ --- Microsoft, in "The Future is Today"
David Munday
swit...@duke.usask.ca (Shawn Elliot Switenky) wrote:
>David Munday (mun...@muohio.noise.edu) wrote:
>: Tony Spicer <spi...@wilmington.net> wrote:
>: >
>
>: Posted where?
I figure there's a lot of folks in R.A.H. who want to see this so I'll
save you the trip to the web browser. I left justified the header,
but otherwise it's straight from the NTSB.
------------------------------------------<cut>---------------------------------
NTSB Identification: LAX98FA171
--------------------------------------<cut>-------------------------------------
--
David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
David Munday
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980605104038.20916A-100000@cayman>,
>Don McCall <mcc...@cayman.ds.boeing.com> wrote:
>
>>One interesting scenario, supposedly consistent with eyewitness accounts, is
>>that a prop or engine-related problem resulted in destructive vibration which
>>separated the engine from the airframe, and the immediate resulting pitch-up
>>at cruise speed led to the massive wing loading and resulting spar failures.
>>I repeat, this is only a guess at this point.
>
>Was the engine then found some distance from the main wreckage?
>
>greg
I would expect such a fact to be stated in the NTSB report. Big bits
not found with the rest are a pretty strong sign.
Fatigue comes to mind as well as an acute over stress. I wonder how
hard that plane has been pulled while decontaminating it to numerous
customers. If fatigue caused a gradual crack, I suppose a detailed
examination of the face of the break would reveal oxidation over part
of the face.
I expect they might be looking at that now.
David Munday
mun...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday) wrote:
>Fatigue comes to mind as well as an acute over stress. I wonder how
>hard that plane has been pulled while decontaminating it
Um, that should have read "demonstrating it".
Damned spell checker!
David Munday
>NTSB Identification: LAX98FA171
>
>Accident occurred MAY-24-98 at RIPLEY, CA
>Aircraft: Van's Aircraft, Inc. RV-8, registration: N58RV
>Injuries: 2 Fatal.
>
>On May 24, 1998, at 0630 hours Pacific daylight time, an experimental
>RV-8, N58RV, experienced an in-flight structural
>separation and crashed 1 mile south of Ripley, California.
> A postaccident inspection of the
>aircraft by the Safety Board found an outboard section of the left
>wing about 0.2 miles northeast of the main wreckage. The
>main spar of the left wing was fractured at a point inboard of the
>aileron and outboard of the flap. The main spar of the right
>wing was also fractured about the same location, but remained attached
>by the wing's outer skin. According to the kit designer,
>the wing design had previously been statically tested to failure,
>which had required in excess of 9 G's.
Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
KJKimball
>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
Ronald James Wanttaja
In article <35886d99...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>,
Same basic wing, but the -8 has a lot simpler spar. About 30 parts on
an RV-6, 4 parts on an RV-8. IIRC, the primary component is an extrusion.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
Rhwoodcock
In answer to:
>>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
KJKimball wrote:
>Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
></PRE></HTML>
If the question was related to stress, I believe that the RV6's
are also stressed to 9 G's ultimate. The 3/4/6/8 wings are all slightly
different, but I can't be more specific.
rich
Russell Duffy
In article <199806052307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kjki...@aol.com
says...
>
>>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
>
True, but it's actually stronger than the previous wings.
Rusty
RV-8A
Marty Hammersmith
Well you were sold that it's stronger anyhow. I'd rather build up a
spar from flat stock and mechanically fasten it together with rivets.
This way it's cut from different bar and sheet, each piece of which can
be inspected. Maybe one of the bar stocks or sheets could be a tad off
spec. May not have a big effect on total strength. If that extrusion you
mentioned is off spec or contains a void, you could really have a
problem.
In no way am I speculating this was the cause of this incident. In
fact, it sounds like a simple matter of overstress applied by the pilot
or by allowing the passenger to over do it.
--
Marty Hammersmith
Lou Haas
Remember the Nat.Guard general who bought the farm hot-dogging in
a RV-3? Could this be a repeat of the same scenario?
Shanley Mark Stephen
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, David Munday wrote:
> I would expect such a fact to be stated in the NTSB report. Big bits
> not found with the rest are a pretty strong sign.
>
> Fatigue comes to mind as well as an acute over stress. I wonder how
> hard that plane has been pulled while decontaminating it to numerous
> customers. If fatigue caused a gradual crack, I suppose a detailed
> examination of the face of the break would reveal oxidation over part
> of the face.
>
Generally speaking the oxidation/corrsion will be at the surface and
will be one of the causal factors. These crack areas are usually viewed
under an electron microscope because of the need to see the grain
structure. The fatique cracks are generally transgranular and commonly
referred to as "beach marks" because of their rippled appearance. These
marks with the time-line involved in the cyclic load will allow them to
approximate the "life" of the fatique cracks before the reduction in cross
section area forced the part to suffer a catastrophic intergranular
"brittle" failure.
Shanley Mark Stephen
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Don McCall wrote:
> The known facts at this point are that both wing spars failed at precisely
> the point where earlier destructive testing had shown they would if the wing
> were subjected to loads far above the design limit, and that the pilot
> involved was very experienced, very careful, very professional, and very
> highly regarded.
>
> One interesting scenario, supposedly consistent with eyewitness accounts, is
> that a prop or engine-related problem resulted in destructive vibration which
> separated the engine from the airframe, and the immediate resulting pitch-up
> at cruise speed led to the massive wing loading and resulting spar failures.
> I repeat, this is only a guess at this point.
The engine does not have to separate from the acft to cause wing failures.
From the ntsb blurb it appears that the engine remained with the main
wreckage. Anyone remember the story of the
"chain-rattling-glass-wing-kamikaze" ?
Better known as the Lockheed Electra.
Ed Wischmeyer
There's been a lot of b***s*** speculation on causes of the RV-8 accident.
These sorts of rumors do nothing constructive for the investigation, for those
involved with the incident, or even for the newsgroup. Experience shows that
almost all pre-suppositions about such occurrences are way off base, and
eventually embarass the poster.
How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
Ed Wischmeyer
PS. Same for the Thunder Mustang...
Rich Ahrens
Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
> There's been a lot of b***s*** speculation on causes of the RV-8 accident.
> These sorts of rumors do nothing constructive for the investigation, for those
> involved with the incident, or even for the newsgroup.
I don't know that I agree with the last point. I know I've learned a
fair amount about accident investigation, materials, etc., from the
posts so far. Most posters are being careful to keep the discussion
somewhat distanced from the accident itself.
> How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
How about just skipping what you don't want to read?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl A. Johansson
Russell Duffy wrote:
>
> In article <199806052307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kjki...@aol.com
> says...
> >
> >>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
> >
> >Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
>
> True, but it's actually stronger than the previous wings.
>
> Rusty
> RV-8A
the 8 is one piece!! is this correct??? If so aren't lamminates
"stronger"?
--
Carl Johansson, Guardian of Yahoo Central
"J-3 frontseater, P-51 backseater"
Avid Mark IV N2114N
Russell Duffy
In article <357968...@byu.edu>, bird_...@byu.edu says...
>> True, but it's actually stronger than the previous wings.
>>
>> Rusty
>> RV-8A
>are you sure?? I havec been told that the RV-6 spar is a laminate white
>the 8 is one piece!! is this correct??? If so aren't lamminates
>"stronger"?
For some given size, weight, thickness, etc, laminates might be stronger. I
really don't know. I do know that Van's has tested both wings, and the RV-8 IS
stronger than the previous wings. Gross weight, aerobatic weight, and
maneuvering speed have been increased by using the new spar. The fact that the
new spar has few parts, and is pre-built makes it less likely to fail due to
builder errors. I built an RV-6 spar a couple years ago, and it really makes
me appreciate the new spar.
I hope they can find out why the plane pitched up, but we may never know. I'm
not at all concerned about the strength of the design. My RV-8A wing kit will
be here in a couple weeks, and in a couple years, I'll trust my life to it.
Rusty
David Hyde
Rich Ahrens (r...@visi.com) wrote:
>I don't know that I agree with the last point. I know I've learned a
>fair amount...
None of which had _anything_ to do with facts surrounding the -8 crash.
If you'd like to discuss investigative techniques or forensic engineering
let's start another, less speculative, thread.
>Most posters are being careful to keep the discussion
>somewhat distanced from the accident itself.
Too many (IMHO) are not, however.
>> How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
>How about just skipping what you don't want to read?
Because I have a stake in the outcome. Look at the number of people who
STILL think a BD-10 was lost due to flutter. If people who know bettter
simply ignore the discussion, the rumors will perpetuate, possibly causing
irreparable damage to the company. To not protest is to condone the
speculation, and I don't.
Dave 'blinders off' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Charter Member, RAH15
Terry Schell
Ed Wischmeyer <edw...@pacbell.net> writes:
>There's been a lot of b***s*** speculation on causes of the RV-8 accident.
>These sorts of rumors do nothing constructive for the investigation, for those
>involved with the incident, or even for the newsgroup. Experience shows that
>almost all pre-suppositions about such occurrences are way off base, and
>eventually embarass the poster.
>How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
>Ed Wischmeyer
>PS. Same for the Thunder Mustang...
I disagree with your advice. No one is even attempting
to do something "constructive for the investigation." We are
discussing what types of dangers might plausibly kill pilots. It
almost doesn't matter if that is the actually cause in a particular
crash; what matters is that were are thinking out loud about things
that could impact flight safety. We are then critically evaluating
these potential dangers with respect to a particular design. These
crashes are merely the catalyst for the discussion.
I agree that news organizations that publish "theories" to the general
public are not providing a useful service to anyone. However, we are
all involved in aviation and can profit from thinking about and
discussing possible failure modes of aircraft.
No one is acting like they are a FAA investigator. We all recognize
that the posted theories are speculation. Discussing theories about
failures is an important part of the education process. If some
theories don't hold water, someone will point that out. When the FAA
report finally comes out, we will revisit the discussion and
re-evaluate our theories.
I think most people who want to stifle discussion of air accidents are
people who think we should protect the reputations of the people
involved at the expense of the safety education of the newsgroup's
participants. In the end, any negative reflection on the
pilot/builder/designer will be determine by the contents of the
NTSB report... not by the clearly-labeled speculation of this
newsgroup's participants.
If you can discredit or otherwise evaluate a theory, I urge you to
chime in. If you don't want to see our speculation and discussion
of aviation accidents because we *might* be proven wrong... then
stop reading these threads.
Rich Ahrens
David Hyde wrote:
> None of which had _anything_ to do with facts surrounding the -8 crash.
> If you'd like to discuss investigative techniques or forensic engineering
> let's start another, less speculative, thread.
In other words, your complaint is with the subject line? Fine, change
it. But significant portions of the discussion have addressed specific
characteristics of the RV-8, like the wing construction and previous
testing thereof.
> >How about just skipping what you don't want to read?
> Because I have a stake in the outcome. Look at the number of people who
> STILL think a BD-10 was lost due to flutter. If people who know bettter
> simply ignore the discussion, the rumors will perpetuate, possibly causing
> irreparable damage to the company. To not protest is to condone the
> speculation, and I don't.
Then protest the misinformation, argue with the logic, participate in
the discussion, keep it on track. But don't suppress it.
David Munday
Ed Wischmeyer <edw...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>There's been a lot of b***s*** speculation on causes of the RV-8 accident.
>These sorts of rumors do nothing constructive for the investigation, for those
>involved with the incident, or even for the newsgroup. Experience shows that
>almost all pre-suppositions about such occurrences are way off base, and
>eventually embarass the poster.
>
>How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
I agree, but disagree. Discussion of what sorts of failure modes
might have occurred may not be a useful discussion in determining the
cause of this crash, but they are a useful general education in
thinking about failure modes and how to avoid them. This is an
important part of the design of experimental aircraft.
It bears keeping in mind however, the distinction between speculation
and theorizing on the one hand, and determination of cause on the
other. The NTSB guys are doing a bit of theorizing themselves. The
distinction is that when they come up with a theory, they have some
means of testing it, by examining the wreckage.
I understand there's a desire to protect the reputation of the
aircraft designer, and to protect the reputation of and respect the
memory of the dead pilot, but this airplane business is potentially
deadly, and a cold eyed examination of accidents, and thought about
what did or might cause them is healthy and just might keep another
pilot alive.
Say for example, it is determined that the switch from a laminated
spar to an extruded one (or probably more precisely one with extruded
components) has no bearing on the cause of THIS accident. Discussion
of how spars fail, what the relative merits of the two approaches are,
and why, is as apropos to a newsgroup on experimental aircraft as you
can get. It is a facet of design that I wouldn't have thought much
about before, but will certainly consider carefully now.
This is the base of all engineering. You build a bridge and it falls
down. You build another one making the part that broke stronger.
Eventually experience teaches how strong different bits of the bridge
need to be, and you get rules of design. Every time a design fails
however is an opportunity to learn more, whatever the other (even
dire) consequences.
David Munday
"Carl A. Johansson" <bird_...@byu.edu> wrote:
>Russell Duffy wrote:
>>
>> In article <199806052307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kjki...@aol.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
>> >
>> >Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
>>
>> True, but it's actually stronger than the previous wings.
>>
>> Rusty
>> RV-8A
>are you sure?? I havec been told that the RV-6 spar is a laminate white
>the 8 is one piece!! is this correct??? If so aren't lamminates
>"stronger"?
Often yes, but not necessarily. It depends on the thickness
distribution and material properties of the metal. What Marty said
about the materials flaws sounds suggestive of a reason why one might
choose a laminated structure over an extruded one even if they both
work out to the same strength and weight. Materials flaws will creep
through any manufacturing and inspection process occasionally.
Shaun
>>>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
>>Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
wing. The wing spars on each side of the -8 are stepped and one one
piece of solid machined aluminum (rounded at steps). The center is
aluminum solid bar with a bend in the middle. The -8 wing spars
attach outside the cockpit on each side (like many certified
aircraft).
The -4 and -6 wing spars on each side are a sandwich of steel/aluminum
riveted together with fewer layers the farther you go out (like a leaf
spring in a car). The -4 and -6 spar is a nonconventional proven
design where you install both wings at the same time and bolt them
together under the seat resulting in a two piece spar.
>If the question was related to stress, I believe that the RV6's
>are also stressed to 9 G's ultimate. The 3/4/6/8 wings are all slightly
>different, but I can't be more specific.
> rich
Wings are tested through static sandbag loading to failure. This is a
standard practice at other aircraft manufactures I've talked with and
Van's. Sometimes I wish aircraft wings were dynamically loaded and
flexed to simulate actual flight before people fly a design. Aluminum
only flexes a limited amount of times/distance before a sudden
fracture. Aircraft manufactures don't flex test a wing before flown.
This should be fixed before people put lives on the line but is
standard practice in the industry.
Now that N58RV is gone there are no high time RV-8s out there as the
origional teal prototype was not kit-built and hasn't been flying as
Van's new RV-8A has its motor. Van's RV-8A was flying yesterday and
so was N801RV in NC. Anyone else know of any other -8s flying out
there (I'm sure there must be others)? What kitbuilt -8 has the
highest time now?
In the mean time I'm watching www.vansaircraft.com for information.
- Shaun
RV-8 #80496 Tail
Tom Nalevanko
Russell,
Do you know if a flutter analysis and a GVA (ground vibration analysi
) was ever done on the wing/aircraft. The wing can be statically stron
but dynamic considerations can cause it to self destruct.
Tom (Stallion Builder)Ä
Craig Wall
David Munday wrote:
> Often yes, but not necessarily. It depends on the thickness
> distribution and material properties of the metal. What Marty said
> about the materials flaws sounds suggestive of a reason why one might
> choose a laminated structure over an extruded one even if they both
> work out to the same strength and weight. Materials flaws will creep
> through any manufacturing and inspection process occasionally.
Now, wait a minute, Dave- think logically. The report said BOTH wings
showed spar damage, even though only one separated. It also said that
the witness's attention was drawn by the sound of the engine surging.
IF that is accurate (and that's a BIG *if*), there's a straightforward
conclusion here: the witness looked AFTER the completion of a high
stress maneuver (because sound takes several seconds to get to the
observer), and the pilots knew they had damage. They held it straight
and level, and then a few seconds later, the panel separated and caused
the pitch-up.
This is, on the face of it, a no-brainer. It's NOT likely to be a case
of inadequate structure, or you wouldn't get spar damage on both sides
simultaneously. It SURE AS HELL ain't a materials flaw!
Craig wall
Jerry Springer
N329DF wrote:
>
> NO, John Morgan was not showing off, read the NTSB report
> Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA
> EAA Warbirds of America, GWRRA
> Head Crew Chief of the Cactus Squadron Flight Team,
> Flying the North American T-6 Texan
> owning and Flying a Dragonfly Tri-Gear
> Piper Colt project underway
Matthew
John was a friend he kept his RV-4 in a hanger next to mine at
Hillsboro, OR. While I will not speculate on what happened to the RV-8
I find the strong statement you made above about the NTSB report
interesting that you could know that from the report.
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsf...@ix.netcom.com
David Munday
Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net> wrote:
I didn't say the prototype RV-8 did go down due to a materials flaw
Craig. I didn't speculate on the cause of this crash directly. I
posted the comment you quoted above which suggests indirectly that a
laminated spar would be more tolerant of materials flaws, and that
might be a reason to choose lamination over extrusion.
You are quite correct that the fracture of both spars argues against a
materials flaw as a cause.
As to it being a "no-brainer" I think your confidence in the
obviousness of the cause is unjustified.
N329DF
Marty Hammersmith
Ed, I gotta tell you this is exactly the sort of thing I've been
expecting from the RV guys. I think Van was shown a lot of respect by
how little was mentioned about this incident for nearly a week. I don't
think any of us are beating on Van's reputation or that of the aircraft.
I do think we are entitled to our opinions and in fact much of the
discussion we are having in this thread are not necessarily even
regarding speculation as to the cause of this accident. Regarding being
wildly off base, early on it was suggested John Denver ran out of gas
and became preoccupied with changing tanks. That seems to have been
pretty much on target.
Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
>
> There's been a lot of b***s*** speculation on causes of the RV-8 accident.
> These sorts of rumors do nothing constructive for the investigation, for those
> involved with the incident, or even for the newsgroup. Experience shows that
> almost all pre-suppositions about such occurrences are way off base, and
> eventually embarass the poster.
>
> How 'bout we put a lid on the non-factual stuff?
>
> Ed Wischmeyer
>
> PS. Same for the Thunder Mustang...
--
Marty Hammersmith
Marty Hammersmith
Craig Wall wrote:
We absolutely agree on this one Craig but the discussion Dave referred
to that I was mentioned in had to do with the question about an extruded
spar vs. a built up mechanically fastened one. I was not referring to
the crash. Someone stated they assumed the RV-8 spar was extruded and
stronger than a riveted together spar. It was to that I had responded.
> This is, on the face of it, a no-brainer. It's NOT likely to be a case
> of inadequate structure, or you wouldn't get spar damage on both sides
> simultaneously. It SURE AS HELL ain't a materials flaw!
>
> Craig wall
Craig Wall
David Munday wrote:
>
> Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > IF that is accurate (and that's a BIG *if*), there's a straightforward
> >conclusion here: the witness looked AFTER the completion of a high
> >stress maneuver (because sound takes several seconds to get to the
> >observer), and the pilots knew they had damage. They held it straight
> >and level, and then a few seconds later, the panel separated and caused
> >the pitch-up.
> >
> > This is, on the face of it, a no-brainer. It's NOT likely to be a case
> >of inadequate structure, or you wouldn't get spar damage on both sides
> >simultaneously. It SURE AS HELL ain't a materials flaw!
> >
> I didn't say the prototype RV-8 did go down due to a materials flaw
> Craig. I didn't speculate on the cause of this crash directly. I
> posted the comment you quoted above which suggests indirectly that a
> laminated spar would be more tolerant of materials flaws, and that
> might be a reason to choose lamination over extrusion.
No, I know you didn't say it was a materials flaw. But it was raised
by others.
> You are quite correct that the fracture of both spars argues against a
> materials flaw as a cause.
>
> As to it being a "no-brainer" I think your confidence in the
> obviousness of the cause is unjustified.
Well, first off, remember that I hold all eye-witness reports in
question- we know they are notoriously UN-reliable.
BUT! *Given* that they are somehow correct in *this* case, give me an
alternate explanation. I think it damn well IS a no-brainer, *IF* the
witness is accurate. The airplane would have had to have been
overstressed in flight BEFORE the witness saw it depart both level
flight and the wing panel.
Give me a plausible alternate explanation.
Craig Wall
Craig Wall
Marty Hammersmith wrote:
>
> Craig Wall wrote:
>
> We absolutely agree on this one Craig but the discussion Dave referred
> to that I was mentioned in had to do with the question about an extruded
> spar vs. a built up mechanically fastened one. I was not referring to
> the crash. Someone stated they assumed the RV-8 spar was extruded and
> stronger than a riveted together spar. It was to that I had responded.
>
> > of inadequate structure, or you wouldn't get spar damage on both sides
> > simultaneously. It SURE AS HELL ain't a materials flaw!
Hi, Marty.
I wasn't actually directly attributing that or challanging you
directly; I read the entire pile of posts on the RV-8 crash and there
were, I believe, several that brought up the question of materials
flaws. Some guys seemed to be worrying needlessly that some sort of bad
aluminum might have crept into the equation. In my usual
shoot-from-the-hip style, I didn't spend time worrying about attribution
but simple pounced on THAT one.
I see a lot of denial in this sort of disaster. Not wanting to speak
ill of the dead is usually manifested in all sorts of "they were
professionals, calm, careful,
*perfect-in-every-way-and-would-never-yank-the-wings-off..."
hand-wringing. I hope like hell that isn't happening here, and as I
said before, eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. I know; I
myself have witnessed things and COMPLETELY mis-remembered them.
But we'll see. Like anyone else, I can't keep from turning these
things over in my mind- no good pilot ignores accident reports. And we
may never really know, and be forced to finally assume an explanation.
But breaking the spars in an aerobatic airplane is damned hard to do
from level flight. The same isn't true while finishing a loop in a
clean airplane when you've accidently left a touch of power on. And
throw TWO aces into the equation, and you've got a real wild card to
deal with.
Craig Wall
Craig Wall
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> N329DF wrote:
> >
> > NO, John Morgan was not showing off, read the NTSB report
>
Are we now arguing whether or not "hot dogging" is the same as
"showing off"?
Anyone can overstress an airplane, and any airplane can be
overstressed.
Calling it "hot dogging" or "showing off" may reflect an
"attitude-about-an-attitude", but in any case it's *after the fact*.
This postmortem of the pilot's motives for G-ing up the machine is a
psychological assessment, and even harder to do objectively than
examining the wreckage. And potentially uglier. And probably not
exactly productive, and possibly needlessly defamatory. (Not that
anyone here had those motives.)
(Incidently, I find it a given that people think I'm "showing off"
when I fly my gyrocopter, no matter what I'm doing, simply because they
associate ALL low flight with "hot dogging". So now I often fly while
nobody is around. If I stuff it in, and they find me a couple days
later, at least they can't say I was "showing off". I'm sure they'll
STILL say I was "hot dogging", however...)
Craig Wall
KJKimball
> BUT! *Given* that they are somehow correct in *this* case, give me >an
alternate explanation. I think it damn well IS a no-brainer, *IF* >the witness
is accurate. The airplane would have had to have been >overstressed in flight
a plausible alternate >explanation.
A good point is raised here. No one knows during which of the 400 previouse
flight hours these wings may have been overstressed. The assumption thus far
in this group seems to have been that the overstress occured on this flight.
Who's to know when it occured. Many people all over the country have flown the
plane from what I understand. Purhaps these guys were just the unlucky ones to
be holding it when it broke.
Jerry Springer
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
> >
> > N329DF wrote:
> > >
> > > NO, John Morgan was not showing off, read the NTSB report
> >
>
> Are we now arguing whether or not "hot dogging" is the same as
> "showing off"?
>
> Anyone can overstress an airplane, and any airplane can be
> overstressed.
>
> Calling it "hot dogging" or "showing off" may reflect an
> "attitude-about-an-attitude", but in any case it's *after the fact*.
> This postmortem of the pilot's motives for G-ing up the machine is a
> psychological assessment, and even harder to do objectively than
> examining the wreckage. And potentially uglier. And probably not
> exactly productive, and possibly needlessly defamatory. (Not that
> anyone here had those motives.)
>
You should probably watch how you edit a little better as you start a
post with my name at the top and then proceed with stuff that I did not
write.
Bob U.
>Ed, I gotta tell you this is exactly the sort of thing I've been
>expecting from the RV guys. I think Van was shown a lot of respect by
>how little was mentioned about this incident for nearly a week. I don't
>think any of us are beating on Van's reputation or that of the aircraft.
>I do think we are entitled to our opinions and in fact much of the
>discussion we are having in this thread are not necessarily even
>regarding speculation as to the cause of this accident. Regarding being
>wildly off base, early on it was suggested John Denver ran out of gas
>and became preoccupied with changing tanks. That seems to have been
>pretty much on target.
Hey, Marty,
What is on target that is factual in regard to Mr. Denver's accident?
Quote the reliable sources.
Bob U.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Marty Hammersmith
Crud Craig this has gotta stop. I can't keep agreeing with you like
this. This is a good post. It wouldn't be prudent to ignore that an
RV-8, a factory built RV-8 has crashed and has apprently in one way or
another been overstressed. If not direct speculation on the cause of the
crash since the factory doesn't have much to say after more than a week
of waiting, you gotta be asking yourself "what happened" and hope you
figure it out before it gets you.
Craig Wall wrote:
Some guys seemed to be worrying needlessly that some sort of bad
> aluminum might have crept into the equation. In my usual
> shoot-from-the-hip style, I didn't spend time worrying about attribution
> but simple pounced on THAT one.
>
> I see a lot of denial in this sort of disaster. Not wanting to speak
> ill of the dead is usually manifested in all sorts of "they were
> professionals, calm, careful,
> *perfect-in-every-way-and-would-never-yank-the-wings-off..."
> hand-wringing. I hope like hell that isn't happening here, and as I
> said before, eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. I know; I
> myself have witnessed things and COMPLETELY mis-remembered them.
>
> But we'll see. Like anyone else, I can't keep from turning these
> things over in my mind- no good pilot ignores accident reports. And we
> may never really know, and be forced to finally assume an explanation.
> But breaking the spars in an aerobatic airplane is damned hard to do
> from level flight. The same isn't true while finishing a loop in a
> clean airplane when you've accidently left a touch of power on. And
> throw TWO aces into the equation, and you've got a real wild card to
> deal with.
>
> Craig Wall
--
Marty Hammersmith
Craig Wall
Jerry Springer wrote:
> Craig
> You should probably watch how you edit a little better as you start a
> post with my name at the top and then proceed with stuff that I did not
> write.
Yeah, I know. But this has been a rapidly developing thread, and I
tend to just hit reply where I finally decide to jump in, knowing that
MOST will have followed the "conversation" up to that point. I also know
that not everyone gets the posts in the same order, so I'm being lazy
and probably not being clear that I'm actually replying to several posts
in sequence.
I apologize for any impression that I was attributing all of that to
you; usually I name the person if I'm specifically taking issue with a
single individual. But I was being lazy, and I do apologize.
I must say that I've been haunted all morning by the report, and so I
will now post what I think must have happened. But a few caveats first:
1) I'm going by the preliminary report- which may be rendered
inaccurate later. Still, I am taking a few personal lessons away from
what we have so far, and I'm simply sharing them, because I think they
harm no one.
2) Please notice that my "explanation" does not necessarily reflect
badly on either the pilots or the designer of the RV-8. I think this
was an accident that could have happened to anyone, so there but for the
grace, etc...
Here's the way I see it:
There were two pilots in a tandem aircraft, both aerobatic flyers.
There was, however, only one throttle.
I suspect the pilot in the rear did a loop, and somewhere down the
backside realized that the pilot in the front wasn't going to retard the
throttle for him. A few seconds of power left in put the machine in a
rapidly accelerating condition, and the choice was to tread a fine line
between folding them up from G's while trying to prevent the airspeed
from building, or tearing them off backwards from going way past
redline. At this point, I'm sure someone was yelling to get the
goddamned power *OFF*.
They almost got away with it. IF the rear pilot had realized it soon
enough, he could have rolled out. But once past about 35 degrees nose
down, it was moot.
I doubt very seriously that previous flights had damaged the
airplane. What I see here is a variation on "two pilots and no one
flying", something I've experienced myself, and which has taken the
lives of, sadly, more than one of my friends.
Here are the lessons I'm taking away from this, even if later my
hypothesis is shown to be wrong:
1) Wear a damned parachute in high performance airplanes. I get
slightly nauseous when I see pilots climb into Glasairs without them.
2) *Especially* in high performance airplanes, DO NOT provide
incomplete control stations. If you provide airspeed controls (a
STICK), provide power controls as well.
I think this could have happened to anyone. I KNOW it could have
happened to me and my best flying buddy. I'd like to think we'd have
been wearing parachutes, but the fact is I'm more likely to wear mine
solo than two up. I'll try to change that in the future.
Craig Wall
Craig Wall
Marty Hammersmith wrote:
>
> Crud Craig this has gotta stop. I can't keep agreeing with you like
> this. This is a good post. It wouldn't be prudent to ignore that an
> RV-8, a factory built RV-8 has crashed and has apprently in one way or
> another been overstressed. If not direct speculation on the cause of the
> crash since the factory doesn't have much to say after more than a week
> of waiting, you gotta be asking yourself "what happened" and hope you
> figure it out before it gets you.
Well, I have to admit to being a little obsessed with crashes;
yesterday morning we got the news that a friend's son was found in the
wreckage of his cropduster 300 ft short of the runway. Apparently it
happened at night; I'm not sure who found the wreckage, but it might
well have been the father. You have to really stuff a Snow Commander
hard to kill yourself; this kid had survived at least one previous crash
this past year. I have no idea what he was doing out at night. I'm
dreading going out there today; this kid always sold me my 100LL and was
always gracious and respectful, even though the trouble I put him
through for my measley 5 gallons at a time often meant more trouble than
it was probably worth. His father let me take engines apart in his
hangar and make huge messes and would never take a penny for rent. I
hate things like this. I really do.
Craig Wall
David Munday
Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net> wrote:
>David Munday wrote:
>> As to it being a "no-brainer" I think your confidence in the
>> obviousness of the cause is unjustified.
>
> Well, first off, remember that I hold all eye-witness reports in
>question- we know they are notoriously UN-reliable.
>
> BUT! *Given* that they are somehow correct in *this* case, give me an
>alternate explanation. I think it damn well IS a no-brainer, *IF* the
>witness is accurate. The airplane would have had to have been
>overstressed in flight BEFORE the witness saw it depart both level
>flight and the wing panel.
>
> Give me a plausible alternate explanation.
Fatigue cracking. followed by a stress within the G envelope.
One would have to examine the face of the crack to determine if the
break was all fresh.
See:
From: Shanley Mark Stephen <qu...@sol.acs.unt.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: All quiet on the RV-8 crash front ...
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 10:10:59 -0500
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980606...@sol.acs.unt.edu>
it might have ben an acute over stress just prior to the crash or it
might not have been. It might have been a partial engine mount
failure leading to that sudden pitch-up, and consequent over stress.
It could have been several things, but we don't have the wreckage at
our disposal to examine and test theories.
Shaun
The Papa51 and RV-8 situations cause me to think about parachutes.
Most parachute accidents are on takeoff and landing so they don't
always help. Still would it be impossible to always want to wear a
parachute just in case it may help and design a lock-open cockpit
latch to help in exit. How much do parachutes cost to have - initial
cost and maintinance? Many planes are designed for the 170 pound man,
how much does a parachute weigh? Are there other practical reasons
why you can't wear a parachute always? Extreme hang gliders attach a
parachute to the whole craft for safety ... could this ever be possibe
in a RV-8 or similar sport aircraft? How about a parachuted people
pod as high performance boats use to save lives (person separates from
craft in a crash situation)?
Chasmo
There is a Russian seat firm ZDSU or something like that. That sells a
rocket extraction system ,demostrated in Omaha? I believe it's a 0\0
seat. The Russian tester ejected from the back cockpit of a Sukhoi Su-27?
unlimited aerobatic two-seater, low and slow. There is a site , which I've
lost, that shows this, it worked perfectly! Unfortunately I believe the
cost is $35,000, but it does give us a glimse of whats possible. What
about BRI (BSI?) whole plane recovery systems?
David A. Barnhart
Creag Wall, co...@concentric.net says...
> Here's the way I see it:
>
> There were two pilots in a tandem aircraft, both aerobatic flyers.
>There was, however, only one throttle.
>
> I suspect the pilot in the rear did a loop, and somewhere down the
>backside realized that the pilot in the front wasn't going to retard the
>throttle for him. A few seconds of power left in put the machine in a
>rapidly accelerating condition, and the choice was to tread a fine line
>between folding them up from G's while trying to prevent the airspeed
>from building, or tearing them off backwards from going way past
>redline. At this point, I'm sure someone was yelling to get the
I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you, but this only leads me to the next
question: First, I undertand that Van has a company policy "Thou shall not do
acro in company aircraft with non-employees on board." If this is true, and if
your theory is true, then a cautious pilot with good judgement (at least that's
my opionion of John Morgan) broke that rule.
Second, I don't know what the aerobatic gross weight of the -8 is, but I do
know that -4 and -6 aerobatic gross weights virtually prevent acro with two on
board. If THAT is true, then John made the contious and deliberate
decision to break not one but two rules
So, the $64M question is: what events led John down the primrose path?
Could it be that John was letting the pax fly, and without warning the pax
decided to do a loop?
There but for the grace of God go I...
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744 N601DB
Flying
Rhwoodcock
Craig Wall wrote:
> I doubt very seriously that previous flights had damaged the
>airplane. What I see here is a variation on "two pilots and no one
>flying", something I've experienced myself, and which has taken the
>lives of, sadly, more than one of my friends.
>
Craig:
Firstly- I am not, and I hope no one else is either, trying to reach any
conclusions about what happened. I would prefer to leave that to the experts.
I do find the discussion informative, and perhaps conducive to other's safety.
(I wonder if I've overstressed any of the rental planes I've flown?).
It seems to me unlikely that a normal loop cold be completed at high enough G's
to simultaineously snap the struts on both sides
simultaineously. If one strut broke, would that not relieve the other? It
seems that an extremely high "G" level must have been abruptly reached before
the weaker strut collaped. That seems inconsistant with a design or material
flaw.
Also, the NTSB report says that it happened from level flight, and the witness
had been watching the plane for some time (as I recall). That dosen't seem
like a botched loop. (even though eyewitnesses can be wrong they are more
likely to be right than non-eyewitnesses like us) .
Does the above seem reasonable?
I am curious and rather inexperienced in such matters, but how many G's would
you expect to pull with full control deflection from cruise flight in a -6?
rich woodcock
Terry Schell
rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) writes:
<snip>
>It seems to me unlikely that a normal loop cold be completed at high enough G's
>to simultaineously snap the struts on both sides
>simultaineously. If one strut broke, would that not relieve the other? It
>seems that an extremely high "G" level must have been abruptly reached before
>the weaker strut collaped. That seems inconsistant with a design or material
>flaw.
This is what was bothering me with Craig's hypothesis as well. If
both spars broke "up" (rather than one being ripped off in the dive), it
would point to some problem other than pilot error. Some massive
failure of control surfaces or shift of CG could cause a pitch up
moment that would be large enough to continue rotation even after one
spar broke.
highflyer
Or shedding a piece of propellor blade would set up a severe vibration.
If it happened to be a harmonic of the natural vibration frequency of
the wing spar, one way or the other, an "induced flutter" could be
set up in the wing that could quickly cause catastrophic failure?
Craig Wall
You guys have obviously never flown a really slick airplane.
It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
power off.
Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
I take no pleasure in being right about this, but people are just in
denial here.
Craig Wall
Dave DeWinter
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> You guys have obviously never flown a really slick airplane.
>
> It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
> power off.
>
> Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
Where did you get that information? I didn't think Van has come out
with anything yet. Just checked his home page and there is nothing
there as to the cause.
> I take no pleasure in being right about this, but people are just in
> denial here.
Everything right now in this NG is pure speculation. You may have
guessed right and you may have guessed wrong. I don't have an
explanation or even want to theorize on what happened. I think it
better to wait for a message from Van on what happened.
--
Keep em Spinning,
Dave DeWinter
*******************************************************
Visit my Web Page here http://www.mindspring.com/~rv6dd
John Ammeter
In article <357C6F38...@concentric.net> Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net> writes:
>From: Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net>
>Subject: Re: All quiet on the RV-8 crash front ...
> You guys have obviously never flown a really slick airplane.
> It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
>power off.
> Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
> I take no pleasure in being right about this, but people are just in
>denial here.
> Craig Wall
Craig,
I'm not doubting you have good intentions but where did you see or hear that
Van has come to the conclusion that a loop caused the wing to come off?
I recall that a witness had watched the -8 for some time before the incident
and that the aircraft had been flying straight and level.
I'm not denying that something happened; I just don't see where anyone said
there was a loop or other aerobatics involved.
John Ammeter
Craig Hiers
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> highflyer wrote:
> >
> > Terry Schell wrote:
> > >
> > > rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) writes:
> > > <snip>
> > > >It seems to me unlikely that a normal loop cold be completed at high enough G's
> > > >to simultaineously snap the struts on both sides
> > > >simultaineously. If one strut broke, would that not relieve the other? It
> > > >seems that an extremely high "G" level must have been abruptly reached before
> > > >the weaker strut collaped. That seems inconsistant with a design or material
> > > >flaw.
> > >
> > > This is what was bothering me with Craig's hypothesis as well. If
> > > both spars broke "up" (rather than one being ripped off in the dive), it
> > > would point to some problem other than pilot error. Some massive
> > > failure of control surfaces or shift of CG could cause a pitch up
> > > moment that would be large enough to continue rotation even after one
> > > spar broke.
> >
> > Or shedding a piece of propellor blade would set up a severe vibration.
> > If it happened to be a harmonic of the natural vibration frequency of
> > the wing spar, one way or the other, an "induced flutter" could be
> > set up in the wing that could quickly cause catastrophic failure?
>
>
> It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
> power off.
>
> Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
>
> I take no pleasure in being right about this, but people are just in
> denial here.
>
> Craig Wall
Craig
Van has not come to this conclusion. There has been no information
at all from Van's Aircraft.
If you would have read the NTSB report it stated- an eyewitness said
the plane was straight and level at approx 1000 feet, he saw something
fall from the plane and then heard a loud pop, the plane then nosed
over and went into the ground.
There could be a thousand diffrent reason's why this plane crashed.
I think we should all wait and see what Van does have to say about
the crash.
By the way, the pilot John Morgan had some where around 10,000 hours
and was a damn good pilot,person, and friend.
Craig Hiers
RV-4 N143CH
Tallahassee,FL
No denial here
Craig Wall
Dave DeWinter wrote:
>
> Craig Wall wrote:
> >
> > You guys have obviously never flown a really slick airplane.
> >
> > It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
> > power off.
> >
> > Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
>
> with anything yet. Just checked his home page and there is nothing
> there as to the cause.
>
>
> > denial here.
>
> guessed right and you may have guessed wrong. I don't have an
> explanation or even want to theorize on what happened. I think it
> better to wait for a message from Van on what happened.
Well, Dave, here's a private email I received yesterday. I've removed
the person's name, since he was requesting that I stop saying anything
about this accident.
Craig
As you may see from my sig. line I am from RV country and know the
factory people well and a lot of them are my personal friends.
your summery of what happened is what the factory thinks happened.
I would ask that you not post this in public as I think you would
agree Van's is being very prudent in not speculating until more
information is available from the NTSB findings. While the factory is
taking some heat for not speculating on the cause, it would be
irresponsible of them to make a statement of cause and later find this
not to be the case.
I to WANT to know the cause of this when two people I know personally
and are friends pull the wings off RV's in a three year period, what
makes me think I am better than they were when I am flying my RV-6?
In both cases the pilots had more experience than me.
--
Number One; I don't like being told to shut up, no matter how nicely
it's put.
And Number Two; it pisses me off to have it _implied_ that I think I'm
somehow "better" than these dead pilots. I've said it before: it could
have been any of us, *myself included*. Don't tell me he said *I*
instead of *you*- the implication is clear.
And finally, Number Three; I don't give a shit how much experience
you've had- if you screw up, WE DON'T AVOID TALKING ABOUT IT. Hero
worship sucks.
This person that emailed me didn't intend to insult me, and I don't
intend to insult him. But the fact is that pussyfooting around when the
facts speak for themselves is lame. Wings don't get broken like this
from "fatigue', "previous abuse", "resonance" or "materials flaw". The
get broken like this from screaming pullouts with the power still on.
Period. And *probably* it was because of simple confusion over who was
responsible for power management. I don't think we need to speculate
about "stuck throttles".
I think we *should* speculate about how easy it would be for each and
every one of us to make exactly the same mistake.
Craig (...not feeling too much like participating in "polite
silence"..) Wall
Craig Wall
Craig Hiers wrote:
> If you would have read the NTSB report it stated- an eyewitness said
> the plane was straight and level at approx 1000 feet, he saw something
> fall from the plane and then heard a loud pop, the plane then nosed
> over and went into the ground.
Look, fool, I *DID* read it-go back and read what *I* said:
The witness was alerted by abnormal engine sounds, and THEN looked.
Sound takes time to propagate.
The high stress maneuver was completed BEFORE the witness looked.
The airplane pitched up BECAUSE the wing broke off. NOT THE REVERSE.
The wing didn't break off because the airplane pitched up.
Is this clear enough? The airplane was damaged BEFORE the witness
looked at it.
("Saw something fall and THEN heard a loud pop"...Jeez, if the
airplane was directly *overhead* there'd have been a _full second_ of
sound delay!)
Craig (...if it isn't denial, then it's just the inability to read an
accident report and make sense of a *classic* accident sequence...) Wall
Steven L Estergreen
Carl A. Johansson wrote:
>
> Russell Duffy wrote:
> >
> > In article <199806052307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kjki...@aol.com
> > says...
> > >
> > >>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
> > >
> > >Nope. I understand the RV-8 has a new wing design.
> >
> > True, but it's actually stronger than the previous wings.
> >
> > Rusty
> > RV-8A
> are you sure?? I havec been told that the RV-6 spar is a laminate white
> the 8 is one piece!! is this correct??? If so aren't lamminates
> "stronger"?
> --
> Carl Johansson, Guardian of Yahoo Central
> "J-3 frontseater, P-51 backseater"
> Avid Mark IV N2114N
Boy, there's a generalization you'd be wise not to bet your life on!
Steven Estergreen
Professional Engineer, Amateur Pilot
3 Young Eagles flown
Steven L Estergreen
Rhwoodcock wrote:
>
> As info. Saw this post on the Aerobatics NG. I don't want to encourage
> uninformed, idle, speculation, but the author raises some interesting
> questions, and draws no conclusions himself.
>
> I offer as info, without editing or further comment:
> rich
> >>
> Subject: Re: RV-8 crash report
> From: Charles Woodson <woo...@soe.berkeley.edu>
> Date: Fri, Jun 5, 1998 13:19 EDT
> Message-id: <3578288F...@soe.berkeley.edu>
>
> > Reading the NTSB preliminary report, I have a few questions.
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/LAX/98A171.htm
> >
> > 1) Is it physically possible to pull 9 G in an abrupt RV nose up at cruise?
Certainly, since the RV planes are nice and efficient and cruise at more
than 3 times their stall speed(3 squared is 9).
> >
> > 2) How many G's would a typical rapid 45-degree nose up at cruise produce?
> >
> > 3) A mile and a half seems a long way to hear the breaking of a wing.
> Further,
> > the eyewitness description seems out of synchronization, as the sound would
> take
> > 8 or more seconds to reach him. He should see the break a long time before
> he
> > heard it. It seems to me, things of this magnitude that I have heard at that
> > distance seemed quite faint.
> >
> > 4) Could the witness description be a reference to a shock wave caused by a
> > military plane flying faster than the speed of sound? How close would such
> > planes need to fly to a light plane to cause a 9+ G bump?
> >
> > This incident seems quite puzzling to me, but it reminds me of why I am
> building
> > an RV8. I am sure a detailed analysis will be provided for examination and
> > discussion. I know there are hundreds of kits and planes out there being
> > examined for possible weaknesses. "An airplane is a collection of
> > compromises. RV"
> >
> >
> >
David Munday
Craig Wall <co...@concentric.net> wrote:
> It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
>power off.
>
> Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
This isn't up on the Van's aircraft info page as of 22:05 Monday.
Do you know what Van thinks or knows? Did you have coffee with him
this morning?
Glenn Scherer
On 8 Jun 1998 02:51:35 GMT, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell)
wrote:
>rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) writes:
><snip>
>>It seems to me unlikely that a normal loop cold be completed at high enough G's
>>to simultaineously snap the struts on both sides
>>simultaineously. If one strut broke, would that not relieve the other? It
>>seems that an extremely high "G" level must have been abruptly reached before
>>the weaker strut collaped. That seems inconsistant with a design or material
>>flaw.
>
>This is what was bothering me with Craig's hypothesis as well. If
>both spars broke "up" (rather than one being ripped off in the dive), it
>would point to some problem other than pilot error. Some massive
>failure of control surfaces or shift of CG could cause a pitch up
>moment that would be large enough to continue rotation even after one
>spar broke.
I don't know, Terry. Many years ago, I woke up just in time to catch
an evening news report (I was working nights) of a crash at a local
airport. The pilot was demonstrating a new airplane from a European
manufacturer intended as a light transport. The pilot looped it, the
video showed the entire manuever. At the bottom of the loop, *both*
wings snapped off at virtually the same time, I remember seeing both
panels fluttering past the tail. The maneuver was very smooth, no
hinking or jinking, just *boom*, both wings gone.
Turns out the plane was not designed or approved for *any* aerobatics,
the pilot just thought it was such a good design, he could get away
with anything. He had looped it at several previous demos. *Really*
ugly, especially as his wife was announcing the demo and screamed
along with him all the way down.
Glenn "Gee, I wish I hadn't remembered that" Scherer
Craig Hiers
Craig
All you are doing is guessing. You may be right, but as it stands
right now no one knows.
Craig Hiers
David Hyde
Craig Wall (co...@concentric.net) wrote:
>But the fact is that pussyfooting around when the
>facts speak for themselves is lame.
Let us know when you get those facts and recognize them. Your speculation
and leaping to a conclusion would amuse me if you weren't broadcasting it
so widely.
> Wings don't get broken like this from "fatigue', "previous abuse",
>"resonance" or "materials flaw". The
>get broken like this from screaming pullouts with the power still on.
>Period.
Nope.
Wings get broken in nearly identical scenarios for all the reasons you
listed (with the possible exception of resonance - haven't seen an MIR
that listed that one). Fatigue, previous abuse, materials flaws, and
others have been listed as causal factors in some cases that read
very much like the NTSB preliminary report. Even to extrapolate a simple
overstress into a pilot-induced overstress is misguided with the sparse
information that's been provided.
To latch onto any of these or another unlisted cause at this point is
foolish.
Dave 'hardover' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Charter Member, RAH15
highflyer
Craig Wall wrote:
>
> You guys have obviously never flown a really slick airplane.
>
> It's pretty clear: they got it going downhill and failed to get the
> power off.
>
> Apparently VanGrunsven has come to the same conclusion.
>
> I take no pleasure in being right about this, but people are just in
> denial here.
>
> Craig Wall
Oh I don't know, Craig. I have flown many aircraft that build up
speed REAL fast when you put the nose down, even with the power off!
Even with a stogy Cessna 150, you have to be a bit careful in spin
recoveries. There is a balance you have to strike with excessive
G's and excessive speed buildup!
However, I can well understand how a RV could be broken by letting
the nose down doing something as simple as split essing out of the
top of a barrel roll will quickly let speed get dangerously high.
An airplane, such as the RV, with a relatively low pounds per G
stick force requirement could be jerked into failure by a panicky
student before the experienced instructor/demonstration pilot could
stop him. It is something I have often worried about during
instruction. It is amazing how many students, on their first roll,
STOP rolling when they get upside down, but continue to pull!
Even a C-150 can get going pretty darned fast is you do that to it.
Pulling out without rolling out can put some pretty high stresses
on an airframe pretty easily.
Cboitan
The word from Oregon- The RV8 had a wing failure outboard of the fuel tank. The
factory pilot was aboard with another person.
Doesn't look good. More to come--
RV4
....DUH !Where the hell have you been for the last 2 weeks ??
Shanley Mark Stephen
On 7 Jun 1998, Craig Wall wrote:
>
> I suspect the pilot in the rear did a loop, and somewhere down the
> backside realized that the pilot in the front wasn't going to retard the
> throttle for him. A few seconds of power left in put the machine in a
> rapidly accelerating condition, and the choice was to tread a fine line
> between folding them up from G's while trying to prevent the airspeed
> from building, or tearing them off backwards from going way past
> redline. At this point, I'm sure someone was yelling to get the
> goddamned power *OFF*.
>
> They almost got away with it. IF the rear pilot had realized it soon
> enough, he could have rolled out. But once past about 35 degrees nose
> down, it was moot.
>
A couple of questions for your theory, Craig.
Why a Loop? The report said the witness heard SURGING. Then he
looked upward to the aircraft which was flying straight and level. Surging
would not be the sounds which I would normally relate to a loop. Power on
to start and power off to finish. Rotational type maneuvers such as spins
and snap rolls come to mind as making of the sounds of an engine surging.
Not a loop. Widebody RVs don't appear to like spins so why would he do one
vertical or horzontal. What is the aerobatic weight of the RV8? Most RV's
are very limited with two people on board and a good load of fuel. With
all these known negatives why would the pilot choose a high g loop instead
of more gentle maneuvers?
Could it be he was aware of a vibration and may have been attempting to
determine if it's source was engine or airframe related? It could account
for the surging sound from the engine.
How could they exceed 9-g which would fail the wings and continue to fly
on straight and level for more than a minute without the wings departing
the aircraft? So it appears reguardless of the maneuver they performed and
how many times they performed it, the event was over without catastrophic
failure prior to the witness viewing the aircraft flying straight and
level.
This "fact" of the aircraft breaking up in straight and level flight
removes the need for any high g maneuver and brings us into the
grey area of the dynamic yield strength of the wing and its related
fatigue qualities.
> 1) Wear a damned parachute in high performance airplanes. I get
> slightly nauseous when I see pilots climb into Glasairs without them.
Right, @150mph, 1000agl, left wing snaps off in level flight followed by a
pitch up followed by a (very short and high g) vetical spin into the
ground. Hmmm... In this RV8 case what in gods world would that parachute
do for you?
Kevin Riley
Click-Lurker Mode Off-Click
Shanley Mark Stephen wrote:
> How could they exceed 9-g which would fail the wings and continue to fly
> on straight and level for more than a minute without the wings departing
> the aircraft? So it appears reguardless of the maneuver they performed and
> how many times they performed it, the event was over without catastrophic
> failure prior to the witness viewing the aircraft flying straight and
> level.
If I may,I was working at Naval Research Labs during the period that the high
time A-6Es an KA-6Ds had a problem with wing failures.
The wings were failing inside the wing fold point close to the wing root.
My then girl friend and a close friend of mine were the principal
investigators on the problem. I helped with some of the test fixtures
It was found through their research that almost without exemption the wings
would fail after a high g maneuver was competed and in strait and level
flight. Sometimes 30-45 seconds after the completion of the maneuver.
Although the reason for the failure of the wings was found I don't think there
ever was found an explanation for this type of failure mode.(After the Gs)
We also studied tapes of failures including the aforementioned Italian twin.
It's wings also failed in strait and level flight after the loop was competed.
> This "fact" of the aircraft breaking up in straight and level flight
> removes the need for any high g maneuver.
Stress is accumulative and an aircraft can fail without a recent high g
maneuver but the above adds another possibility
--
Kevin Riley Remove "nospam" to reply
S.A.M.
The Pentagon
Washington DC
http://www.sam.pentagon.mil/
airf...@no.spam
>Why a Loop? The report said the witness heard SURGING. Then he
>looked upward to the aircraft which was flying straight and level. Surging
>would not be the sounds which I would normally relate to a loop. Power on
>to start and power off to finish.
(Trying my hardest to stay out of this discussion, really, but I
thought I had something useful to say)
I actually wouldn't be surprised to hear a 'surge' of power after the
completion of a loop. Throttle open on the upside, throttle closed or
to idle coming down the backside, pull out level, and as the speed
starts to bleed off, throttle in to cruise power... Now the question
is, would that sound like a 'surging' from the ground? Not sure. But
if it did, and the person looked up when he heard 'surging', he would
see an aircraft flying straight and level... Wouldn't he?
That scenario still begs the question of how the wings could both be
stressed so far as to crack the spars, yet still be able to fly
straight and level for a little bit before failing...
>> 1) Wear a damned parachute in high performance airplanes. I get
>> slightly nauseous when I see pilots climb into Glasairs without them.
>
>Right, @150mph, 1000agl, left wing snaps off in level flight followed by a
>pitch up followed by a (very short and high g) vetical spin into the
>ground. Hmmm... In this RV8 case what in gods world would that parachute
>do for you?
Give you something to do to take your mind off your impending death?
8-|
-RB4
Rob Prior
AirFrame Aircraft Portraits
http://home.istar.ca/~AirFrame
mailto:airf...@istar.ca
Creo Products Inc.
http://www.creo.com/
mailto:rpr...@creo.com
highflyer
Rhwoodcock wrote:
>
> Craig:
> Firstly- I am not, and I hope no one else is either, trying to reach any
> conclusions about what happened. I would prefer to leave that to the experts.
>
> I do find the discussion informative, and perhaps conducive to other's safety.
> (I wonder if I've overstressed any of the rental planes I've flown?).
>
> It seems to me unlikely that a normal loop cold be completed at high enough G's
> to simultaineously snap the struts on both sides
> simultaineously. If one strut broke, would that not relieve the other? It
> seems that an extremely high "G" level must have been abruptly reached before
> the weaker strut collaped. That seems inconsistant with a design or material
> flaw.
>
Particularly since none of the RV series HAVE struts! It does not have
to have been a loop. It is not hard to split ess out of a barrel roll,
and if the factory pilot WAS following the rules, but allowing the
passenger to fly the airplane, he could have flipped it into a roll
before he could counter it. BWB flipped one on me, and before I could
SAY roll, we did one! The attempt to counter it, might have been just
sufficient to halt it inverted and convert a barrel roll into a split
ess. Unfortunately the airspeed at the top of a barrel roll is much
too high for a split ess entry. A clean airplane, dropping in a zero
lift descent, nose low inverted, can pick up airspeed unbelieveably
fast. Then, whether you roll back upright or pull through, it does
not make much difference. They could have been well above Vne in
a steep descent and low altitude. You can either pull back and pray
or fly into the ground. The worlds best pilot is in the lap of the
gods at that instant.
It doesn't require foolishness on anyones part. It doesn't even
really require much in the way of an error. An exuberant passenger
at the controls in a fast, slippery, CONTROLLABLE airplane and a
split seconds inattention on the part of the demonstration pilot and
presto, an untenable position for all.
As Craig said .. . " There, but for the grace ...."
Craig Wall
Shanley Mark Stephen wrote:
>
> On 7 Jun 1998, Craig Wall wrote:
>
> >
> > I suspect the pilot in the rear did a loop, and somewhere down the
> > backside realized that the pilot in the front wasn't going to retard the
> > throttle for him. A few seconds of power left in put the machine in a
> > rapidly accelerating condition, and the choice was to tread a fine line
> > between folding them up from G's while trying to prevent the airspeed
> > from building, or tearing them off backwards from going way past
> > redline. At this point, I'm sure someone was yelling to get the
> > goddamned power *OFF*.
> >
> > They almost got away with it. IF the rear pilot had realized it soon
> > enough, he could have rolled out. But once past about 35 degrees nose
> > down, it was moot.
> >
>
> A couple of questions for your theory, Craig.
>
> Why a Loop?
Don't get hung up on words. "The second half of a loop". "Split
esse". "Vertical dive". I just picked "loop" because it's the most
likely casual maneuver that would produce a bad outcome here.
Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick. The point is,
they got gravity working past the point of good sense; got it? Sheesh.
>The report said the witness heard SURGING.
Jeez, this is typical dumbass. SURGING is a term used to mean
ANYTHING abnormal. It means, usually, "not sounding steady". Since most
RVs don't have constant speed props, the most likely explanation is NOT
someone cycling the prop control. A dive with the power left on too long
and then chopped IS.
>Then he
> looked upward to the aircraft which was flying straight and level. Surging
> would not be the sounds which I would normally relate to a loop.
IT WASN'T NORMAL, *DUMBFUCK*.
>Power on
> to start and power off to finish. Rotational type maneuvers such as spins
> and snap rolls come to mind as making of the sounds of an engine surging.
> Not a loop. Widebody RVs don't appear to like spins so why would he do one
> vertical or horzontal. What is the aerobatic weight of the RV8? Most RV's
> are very limited with two people on board and a good load of fuel. With
> all these known negatives why would the pilot choose a high g loop instead
> of more gentle maneuvers?
Jesus Christ are you dumb. He didn't *CHOOSE* high Gs at all! It
chose him!
> Could it be he was aware of a vibration and may have been attempting to
> determine if it's source was engine or airframe related? It could account
> for the surging sound from the engine.
>
> How could they exceed 9-g which would fail the wings and continue to fly
> on straight and level for more than a minute without the wings departing
> the aircraft? So it appears reguardless of the maneuver they performed and
> how many times they performed it, the event was over without catastrophic
> failure prior to the witness viewing the aircraft flying straight and
> level.
Yeah, you just go right on believing that, Bud.
> This "fact" of the aircraft breaking up in straight and level flight
> removes the need for any high g maneuver and brings us into the
> grey area of the dynamic yield strength of the wing and its related
> fatigue qualities.
>
> > 1) Wear a damned parachute in high performance airplanes. I get
> > slightly nauseous when I see pilots climb into Glasairs without them.
>
> Right, @150mph, 1000agl, left wing snaps off in level flight followed by a
> pitch up followed by a (very short and high g) vetical spin into the
> ground. Hmmm... In this RV8 case what in gods world would that parachute
> do for you?
My parachute will save your butt if you can get out at 200 ft. And I
need a dumbass like *you* to argue that I shouldn't wear it?
Furthermore, most pilots fly LOWER when they DON'T wear parachutes.
Less time to embarrass themselves screaming...
Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
Wall
Rich Ahrens
Craig Wall wrote:
<snip>
> Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick. The point is,
> they got gravity working past the point of good sense; got it? Sheesh.
> Jeez, this is typical dumbass.
> IT WASN'T NORMAL, *DUMBFUCK*.
> Jesus Christ are you dumb. He didn't *CHOOSE* high Gs at all! It
> chose him!
> Wall
Another graduate of the Robert Bass School of Charm, it would appear...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Campbell
In article <357DD0CD...@visi.com>, Rich Ahrens <r...@visi.com> wrote:
>Craig Wall wrote:
><snip>
>> Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick. The point is,
>> they got gravity working past the point of good sense; got it? Sheesh.
><snip>
>> Jeez, this is typical dumbass.
><snip>
>> IT WASN'T NORMAL, *DUMBFUCK*.
><snip>
>> Jesus Christ are you dumb. He didn't *CHOOSE* high Gs at all! It
>> chose him!
><snip>
>> Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
>> Wall
>
>Another graduate of the Robert Bass School of Charm, it would appear...
I have never seen Bass use language like that. While in the Navy for 20 years
I saw those that could not express themselves without resorting to that type of
language, I saw it but I never understood why they talked that way in public.
Then again a ship is not as much in public as what this is.
David Hyde
Kevin Riley ("rileyk\"nospam\""@comm.hq.af.mil) wrote:
>If I may,I was working at Naval Research Labs during the period that the high
>time A-6Es an KA-6Ds had a problem with wing failures.
>The wings were failing inside the wing fold point close to the wing root.
There is some irony that comes with the introduction of the A-6 to the
thread. At least one A-6 overstressed and was lost from straight and
level flight when a part not associated with the wings and not attributed
to pilot-induced failure let go in flight. It was not a result of any
single event in the airplane's history and was not caused by anything the
crew did during the flight. Yet here we've extrapolated 'coulda's into a
whole scenario involving a chain of pilot errors without any shred of
evidence.
Dave 'respecting privileged info all the way' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
Charter Member, RAH15
Shanley Mark Stephen
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Kevin Riley wrote:
> Click-Lurker Mode Off-Click ...
> If I may,I was working at Naval Research Labs during the period that the high
> time A-6Es an KA-6Ds had a problem with wing failures.
> The wings were failing inside the wing fold point close to the wing root.
> My then girl friend and a close friend of mine were the principal
> investigators on the problem. I helped with some of the test fixtures
> It was found through their research that almost without exemption the wings
> would fail after a high g maneuver was competed and in strait and level
> flight. Sometimes 30-45 seconds after the completion of the maneuver.
> Although the reason for the failure of the wings was found I don't think there
> ever was found an explanation for this type of failure mode.(After the Gs)
>...
A very interesting point. I think that a delay of 45 seconds places this
within a very realistic time period of what the witness heard. Just how
high of a g load are we talking 75% 85% 95% of ultimate design load? Or
just normal high g load well within the normal envelope? The few failures
that I remember seeing on video failed when the aircraft overload occured
such as the bottom of a loop, but I don't remember that much of a time
delay.
Shanley Mark Stephen
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 airframe@[no.spam].istar.ca wrote:
> I actually wouldn't be surprised to hear a 'surge' of power after the
> completion of a loop. Throttle open on the upside, throttle closed or
> to idle coming down the backside, pull out level, and as the speed
> starts to bleed off, throttle in to cruise power... Now the question
> is, would that sound like a 'surging' from the ground? Not sure. But
> if it did, and the person looked up when he heard 'surging', he would
> see an aircraft flying straight and level... Wouldn't he?
Right, I am thinking the same way a surge, could be a loop. If the
investigator wrote up surging perhaps he did mean what he typed. This
surging could also mean another problem, a botched maneuver, ...etc. I
just doubt that a good pilot like this guy was would try a high g maneuver
such as a loop at such a low altitude with two folks on board...etc.
Shanley Mark Stephen
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Don Campbell wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
> >> Wall
> >
> >Another graduate of the Robert Bass School of Charm, it would appear...
>
> I have never seen Bass use language like that. While in the Navy for 20 years
> I saw those that could not express themselves without resorting to that type of
> language, I saw it but I never understood why they talked that way in public.
> Then again a ship is not as much in public as what this is.
>
>
People attack other people with vulgar words because of the lack of any
real ability to respond with inteligent thought to a differing opinion.
Shanley Mark Stephen
On 9 Jun 1998, Craig Wall wrote:
> Don't get hung up on words.
Sure, why let those mean old words get in the way of a good flight of
fancy.
> I just picked "loop" because it's the most likely casual maneuver that
> would produce a bad outcome here.
Most likely? chuckle
> Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick.
Intellectually dishonest? bigger chuckle
> SURGING is a term used to mean ANYTHING abnormal.
Let's not let those words get in the way, it means ANYTHING. Okay, If you
say so.
> RVs don't have constant speed props, the most likely explanation is NOT
> someone cycling the prop control.
But, it is my understanding that most RV8s' (and RV8s' are what we are
talking about right?) do have a controllable prop. Why do you bring this
controllable prop in do you think someone on the ground could not hear a
fixed pitch prop change a power setting?
> High g's chose him.
How can wing loading "choose" to take the control from a pilot. That's a
real good one. What's next devil planes?
Don't look now but Mr. Van's added more discredit to your so-called theory
by setting the record straight. 6-9-98 "There was a throttle installed
in the rear cockpit." Wasn't part of your "theory" based on the missing
throttle in the rear seat that lead to confusion and the inability to
reduce power until it was too late in that loop? I know don't nit-pick.
> Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
> Wall
may I sugest...
Craig (..*&#$@!...there goes another theory..) Wall
You need not reply, because once I removed all your temper tanrum four
letter words there really wasn't much left to discuss.
Rvbldr3170
In article <35886d99...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>, mun...@muohio.noise.edu
(David Munday) writes:
>Do the RV-6 and RV-8 share the same wing?
>
Not the spar. The spar on the -6 is laminaterd from aluminum strips with a
c-channel, the one on the -8 is a one pice extrusion.
> I'd rather build up a
>spar from flat stock and mechanically fasten it together with rivets.
>This way it's cut from different bar and sheet, each piece of which can
>be inspected. Maybe one of the bar stocks or sheets could be a tad
I agree.Also, you tend to foil the dreaded harmonics with a laminated spar
because each piece has it's own critical frequency and you are less likely to
get them all at the critical point at the same time.
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
Rvbldr3170
In article <357DCCC8...@concentric.net>, Craig Wall
<co...@concentric.net> writes:
>Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
>Wall
>
Getting thoroughly disgusted with someone opinionated enough to think HIS is
the only plausible explanation!!!!
If you expect anyone to listen to you you need to present your OPINIONS in a
civil and concise manner and not demean anyone who doesn't happen to agree with
you. Of course intelligent people already know that............
......and have a nice day and note that I didn't resort to name calling!
highflyer
Don Campbell wrote:
>
> In article <357DD0CD...@visi.com>, Rich Ahrens <r...@visi.com> wrote:
> >Craig Wall wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick. The point is,
> >> they got gravity working past the point of good sense; got it? Sheesh.
> ><snip>
> >> Jeez, this is typical dumbass.
> ><snip>
> >> IT WASN'T NORMAL, *DUMBFUCK*.
> ><snip>
> >> Jesus Christ are you dumb. He didn't *CHOOSE* high Gs at all! It
> >> chose him!
> ><snip>
> >> Wall
> >
>
> I have never seen Bass use language like that. While in the Navy for 20 years
> I saw those that could not express themselves without resorting to that type of
> language, I saw it but I never understood why they talked that way in public.
> Then again a ship is not as much in public as what this is.
Many of the posts Bass has made in the past year or so used language
that makes Craigs look polite. However, Craig is NOT a Bass. Bass
has done nothing and knows nothing. Craig has done MANY things, and
does know what he is talking about. Bass lacks everything of value.
Craig only lacks TACT. Actually he does have TACT, but he does not
suffer fools gladly! :-)
highflyer
Shanley Mark Stephen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998, Don Campbell wrote:
>
> > >> Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
> > >> Wall
> > >
> > >Another graduate of the Robert Bass School of Charm, it would appear...
> >
> > I have never seen Bass use language like that. While in the Navy for 20 years
> > I saw those that could not express themselves without resorting to that type of
> > language, I saw it but I never understood why they talked that way in public.
> > Then again a ship is not as much in public as what this is.
> >
> >
>
> real ability to respond with inteligent thought to a differing opinion.
>
Sometimes people attack other people with vulgar words because of the
lack of an real ability of the people tu understand intelligent thought.
One is forced to retreat to the level of their understanding.
Pity it is so.
Don Campbell
In article <6lmcjn$e1a$9...@dosa.alt.net>, highflyer <"\"highflyer"@alt.net(highflyer.inc)\"> wrote:
>Many of the posts Bass has made in the past year or so used language
>that makes Craigs look polite. However, Craig is NOT a Bass. Bass
>has done nothing and knows nothing. Craig has done MANY things, and
>does know what he is talking about. Bass lacks everything of value.
>Craig only lacks TACT. Actually he does have TACT, but he does not
>suffer fools gladly! :-)
I have not seen those messages. I have not compared what type of person Craig
to what type of person Bass is. What I did say is that I do not believe that
type of language is right for a public area. It not just him or just that
message that I have seen people in this area use such language. The only
reason that I picked that message was that someone else had pointed out that
Craig as you pointed out, did not use much tack.
Don
David Munday
Rich Ahrens <r...@visi.com> wrote:
>Craig Wall wrote:
><snip>
>> Don't be intellectually dishonest- and don't nitpick. The point is,
>> they got gravity working past the point of good sense; got it? Sheesh.
><snip>
>> Jeez, this is typical dumbass.
><snip>
>> IT WASN'T NORMAL, *DUMBFUCK*.
><snip>
>> Jesus Christ are you dumb. He didn't *CHOOSE* high Gs at all! It
>> chose him!
><snip>
>> Craig (..getting thoroughly disgusted with idiots who can't *think*..)
>> Wall
>
>Another graduate of the Robert Bass School of Charm, it would appear...
And he seems equally mystified as to why he experiences such negative
reactions.
Shaun
>highflyer <"\"highflyer"@alt.net(highflyer.inc)\"> wrote:
>... if the factory pilot WAS following the rules, but allowing the
>passenger to fly the airplane, he could have flipped it into a roll
>before he could counter it. BWB flipped one on me, and before I could
>SAY roll, we did one!
Van wrote about a good Pitts pilot in and old RVator article who while
flying tandem with him in a demo ride jerked the stick before he knew
what had happened even though he had told the guy not to. Pitts
controls move around more with less flight effect and the
passenger-pilot was just doing what seemed normal.
- Shaun
Shaun
>rhwoo...@aol.com (Rhwoodcock) wrote:
>I am curious and rather inexperienced in such matters, but how many G's would
>you expect to pull with full control deflection from cruise flight in a -6?
> rich woodcock
Asking a couple RV pilots this question I found they were all scared
what would happen. The controls are light and one told me of flying
with his forearm resting on his leg and just lightly moving his wrist.
When I asked him to explain more he told me landing flares are some
part of and inch he thinks (and after flying with him this guy lands
steep compared to most others. When I asked why his brother with
military training has instructed him to at all times when landing be
able to glide in). My impression is I would not want to be in an RV
with full control deflection from cruise.
- Shaun.
Craig Wall
Shanley Mark Stephen wrote:
>
> On 9 Jun 1998, Craig Wall wrote:
>
> > Don't get hung up on words.
>
> Sure, why let those mean old words get in the way of a good flight of
> fancy.
Here's what we KNOW, jerk:
here is the NTSB take on the inccident, copied verbatim from their
site at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/LAX/98A171.htm
Accident occurred MAY-24-98 at RIPLEY, CA
Aircraft: Van's Aircraft, Inc. RV-8, registration: N58RV
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
On May 24, 1998, at 0630 hours Pacific daylight time, an experimental
RV-8, N58RV, experienced an in-flight structural separation and
crashed 1 mile south of Ripley, California. The aircraft was destroyed
and the pilot and pilot-rated passenger sustained fatal injuries. The
aircraft was being operated by Van's Aircraft, Inc., as a business
flight when the accident occurred. The flight originated from a
private agricultural strip in Blythe, California, at 0620. Visual
flight conditions prevailed at the time and no flight plan had been
filed. A relative of the passenger reported that on departure the
pilot was seated in the front seat, while the passenger was in the
back. The aircraft is equipped with dual controls, however, the
throttle can only be operated from the front seat. An eyewitness,
about 1.5 miles northwest of the crash site, reported that he heard
the sound of an engine surging and looked to see where the sound was
originating. He saw a yellow aircraft flying straight and level, about
1,000 feet agl. The aircraft was on a southbound heading, about 1 mile
east of his location. He estimated that he watched the flight for over
a minute when he saw something fall from the aircraft. This was
followed almost immediately by a loud boom that he described as
sounding like a "shotgun." The aircraft's nose suddenly pitched up
about 45 degrees, then abruptly nosed over as it began to roll. The
aircraft entered a nose-down spin and continued in a vertical descent
until impact. A postaccident inspection of the aircraft by the Safety
Board found an outboard section of the left wing about 0.2 miles
northeast of the main wreckage. The main spar of the left wing was
fractured at a point inboard of the aileron and outboard of the flap.
The main spar of the right wing was also fractured about the same
location, but remained attached by the wing's outer skin. According to
the kit designer, the wing design had previously been statically
tested to failure, which had required in excess of 9 G's.
end transcipt
Now, it's clear from the NTSB report that the wings failed. That's not
speculation.
The question is why.
My theory about the missing back seat throttle was based on this
report, and perhaps that's in error. I never said it was anything other
than a theory, but I DID say I was convinced that the pilots mishandled
the airplane, and I still am.
But YOU and several others are talking bullshit.
IF you believe the eyewitness, then I fail to see how the airplane
could have been above maneuvering speed in level flight before the wing
came off. At 1000 ft, an improbably altitude anyway, 1 minute would
have put them too far away to see any sort of detail. If it wasn't
moving fast, it would have stalled before it broke if the stick got
yanked.
It's just an OPINION, but it's clear to *me* that those engine noises
were related to a high stress maneuver that the witness did NOT see.
I've heard a lot of nonsense that is trying to pass for logic here,
and *your* posts aren't even aimed at figuring out what happened- you
just want dick with me.
Well, you're an idiot. And a dishonest one, because you've strayed
from the known facts willingly. And you've knowingly misinterpreted my
statements for the sake of defending what you know is bullshit.
The men that died deserved to have their deaths *mean* something, and
unfortunately about all we can do is try to learn from their mistake and
not make it ourselves. That's all I'm trying to do here; if I'm wrong
about my theory about the missing throttle, fine- I was going on the
report, which was NOT a piece of information I generated. But I still
defend my position that it was mishandling that broke that airplane, and
your stupid and shallow comments haven't contributed towards any worthy
goal that I can see.
Craig (..and you're gonna relieve me from the need to reply? Get
real...) Wall
Jeffrey Lo
My aerobatic chute was about $1400 new from Silver Parachute Sales. The
periodic repack (every 120 days) is about $30-40. I've forgotten exactly
what the typical life of a chute is, but I think it is in the range of 20
years. Allen Silver at Silver Parachute Sales can give you more info. He's
on the web at: http://www.pia.com/silver/ BTW, he is located in Hayward,
CA. I am only a satisfied customer, no other affiliation to Allen.
It's been a while since I've flown, but I think the chute is in the
neighborhood of 15 pounds or so. It's a bit more weight, but I feel it is
worth a bit of climb and a bit of speed to wear it (even when I'm racing).
As far as practical reasons to not wear a chute, if you have a really small
cockpit, wearing a chute can become problematic, same with helmets. They
can make passengers nervous (not a problem for me with my single seater).
They can be uncomfortable on a long flight. It adds time to getting in and
out of the plane. Each person will have to weigh the additional
inconvenience against the added safety, unless they are flying the aircraft
in a manner that the FARs require a chute.
Jeffrey Lo
1988 Pitts Special S1S N230MP, Reno race #6
j...@pacbell.net
Shaun wrote in message <6lelmb$hif$1...@supernews.com>...
>The Papa51 and RV-8 situations cause me to think about parachutes.
>Most parachute accidents are on takeoff and landing so they don't
>always help. Still would it be impossible to always want to wear a
>parachute just in case it may help and design a lock-open cockpit
>latch to help in exit. How much do parachutes cost to have - initial
>cost and maintinance? Many planes are designed for the 170 pound man,
>how much does a parachute weigh? Are there other practical reasons
>why you can't wear a parachute always? Extreme hang gliders attach a
>parachute to the whole craft for safety ... could this ever be possibe
>in a RV-8 or similar sport aircraft? How about a parachuted people
>pod as high performance boats use to save lives (person separates from
>craft in a crash situation)?
>
Craig Wall
KJKimball wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> Just curious what your background is. Pilot, engineer, designer, builder, any
> or all? Your frustration with the common defense of the RV8 pilot is
> understood. Are you trying to be the Howard Stern of RAH or what?
I've lost more than one friend to the "I thought *you* had it!"
syndrome, and had a few close moments under similar circumstances
myself.
I've been involved with experimental aircraft for 35 years now. And
I'm still seeing the same mistakes being made, and for the same reasons.
And so my frustration goes beyond this accident.
Craig Wall
Rhwoodcock
Shaun:
I wouldn't want to try full control deflection at full cruise, either.
But if he was cruising at 180 MPH, roughly 3 times stall, the wings couldn't
get more than 9 times the 1 G load. And a similar set was destructively tested
at over 9 G's. Isn't that right? (more or less)
The botched loop theory requires that the eyewitness didn't see the plane
until after it had completed the loop and stressed the wings with high g's
(which broke both wigs to the point that they would not withstand 1 g. After
they didn't break at the high g's. Both of them.)
Looking for vibration explains the "surging" the best of any,
pulled loose lower motor mounts presumably could allow the engine to tilt and
cause a nose-up attitude enough to cause both wings to snap, maybe. That, or
complete engine separation, may be appearant from the wreakage.
I don't want to disparage anyones pet theories, but I don't see any that are
overwhelmingly compelling. I also don't feel comfortable speculating in
public, except in a negative sense, so
I won't be adding my 2-cents worth any more. I will respond to private
E-mails, if anyine is interested.
rich
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: All quiet on the RV-8 crash front ...
>From: airc...@TopHire.com (Shaun)
>Date: Wed, Jun 10, 1998 15:03 EDT
>Message-id: <6lm4ls$r14$1...@supernews.com>
></PRE></HTML>
KJKimball
Chris Hinch
For what it's worth...
I've found Craig's contribution to be, for the most part, rational and
intelligent. I'm an RV-8 builder and pilot to be, and I have found no
offense or scare-mongering in his comments, in fact I have taken some
comfort in them - in part, he is reminding us that pilots, no matter how
skilled or experienced, can screw up. We DON'T know what happened here, and
may NEVER know, but whenever a pilot or pilots are lost, we owe it to them
to learn whatever lessons can be learnt. Along that line, there *are*
lessons to be learnt from frank, open "what if" discussions, *even* if they
bear no relation at all to what really happened in a particular situation.
But there have to be some rules. We must be extra careful to be respectful
of other people and their abilities as pilots or builders or designers. We
must also remember that careless and destructive speculation about a
particular kit has the potential to hurt a lot of people, in all sorts of
ways.
To date, I personally have seen nothing careless or destructive in Craigs
hypothesis - in fact, quite the opposite. Even if he is completely off base
as to the cause of **this specific accident**, his presenting and discussing
this possible scenario has resulted in my giving careful consideration to
putting dual engine controls in #80630 - she will have two pilots on board
most times, and I can see how the situation could arise in an aircraft as
quick as the RV-8. In addition, the discussion on parachutes that also
developed as a result of these tragedies might well save a life one day. It
might even be mine - if that's the case, I'll thank everyone in advance,
right now *grin*.
Just my 2c worth. I love my RV-8 to be, and I'm gonna love flying her.
Chris
___________________________________
Chris Hinch Phone: +64-3-477-2995
Animation Research Ltd Fax: +64-3-479-9751
442 Moray Place, PO Box 5580, Dunedin, New Zealand
RV-8 Builder #80630 - http://www.arl.co.nz/chinch/rvlog/kiwi8.htm
Rvbldr3170
In article <357f5658.0@mulder>, "Chris Hinch" <chi...@arl.co.nz> writes:
>But there have to be some rules. We must be extra careful to be respectful
>of other people and their abilities as pilots or builders or designers. We
>must also remember that careless and destructive speculation about a
>particular kit has the potential to hurt a lot of people, in all sorts of
>ways.
.......And I think that more than anything is what everyone is up in arms
about. Mr. Wall didn't show any respect for anyone else, so how can he expect
it in return. As I said, if you respond in a civil manner.... 9 times out of 10
you'll recieve the same in return.
Regardless of his background, expertise, or knowledge, he is STILL just
speculating.
.........and again- have a nice day
Jeffry Stetson
In article <357F4475...@concentric.net>, co...@concentric.net says...
>
>
> I've lost more than one friend to the "I thought *you* had it!"
>syndrome, and had a few close moments under similar circumstances
>myself.
>
How about the two most-feared words in aviation (at least they should
be)?
"WATCH THIS!"
Last words for a number of pilots I've known.
--
Jeffry Stetson ... now: Mooney M20E Super 21, Salto H-101
then: Mooney M20C Mark 21, Citabria 7ECA
Larry -xlax- Lovisone
All Reeeeeeeeeeeeet... this thread is still alive... BUT!!! why all the problems???
Any internet discussion should be open & free without restrictions and done in a
polite manner as if we were all face to face in a good ole hanger bull session...
I say...if one knows how to conduct one's self face to face in a hanger bull
session then one knows how to conduct one's self in the rec. aviation homebuilt
newsgroups... Person to person pilots get along like family... as pilots have since
pilot one... shessssh... why should the internet be any different??? How about it
pilots???
Larry call sign -xlax- CO Yeager's Yanks... check your 6 pudknocker... hehehe
http://www.icigames.com
CanardMan
Do you see the difference between what you wrote
"I've found Craig's contribution to be, for the most part, rational and
intelligent. I'm an RV-8 builder and pilot to be, and I have found no
offense or scare-mongering in his comments, in fact I have taken some
comfort in them - in part, he is reminding us that pilots, no matter how
skilled or experienced, can screw up. "
AND
"F***ing morons. I've found Craig's contribution to be, for the most part,
rational and intelligent. If only you had the brains to think and some
intelligence to go with it, you would see that too. Blithering idiots. I'm an
RV-8 builder and pilot to be, you s***heads, and I have found no offense or
scare-mongering in his comments, in fact I have taken some comfort in them -
in part, he is reminding us that pilots, no matter how skilled or experienced,
can screw up. If only you weren't a fool, you would see it."
<<But there have to be some rules. We must be extra careful to be respectful
of other people and their abilities as pilots or builders or designers. >>
Curious that you suggest respect for pilots, builders, designers (of RVs), and
yet find the complete lack of courtesy or respect for people in this group to
be a non-issue.
<<To date, I personally have seen nothing careless or destructive in Craigs
hypothesis - in fact, quite the opposite. Even if he is completely off base
as to the cause of **this specific accident**,>>
The danger in his juvenile attitude results in the situation where his opinion
if completely off-base may still go unchallenged just because people find it
not worthwhile to disagree and argue about it without getting into an abusive
thread.
That can perpetuate myths and half-boiled theories as fact.
As someone pointed out a very long time ago, discussing an issue with Craig
amidst a group is like having a discussion in a hangar where Craig continues to
piss on people's feet while the discussion is going on. I suppose one could
say one ought to tolerate that behavior if the discussion is important. Would
you stand around in such a group in a hangar?
Even though I am not a psychologist, I find Craig's defensive mechanisms and
his over-reaction to disagreements (which he apparently equates to people
asking him to shut-up) quite amusing. So Craig does have some value for me in
this group but not as a fellow aviation enthusiast. I suspect he was ignored a
lot or told to shut up a lot while he was even younger.
Craig, by any chance, did you grow up with this kid in Sprigfield, OR that had
a similar intolerance and temper for people around him? :-)