banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 11:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 12:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Replacing a wing spar because of a bird strike?

That does not speak highly of the structural integrity of the RV.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 15:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/04/10
Posts: 14
Post Likes: +2
Aircraft: RV-9A
Username Protected wrote:
That does not speak highly of the structural integrity of the RV.


How so? Didn't we loose an instructor and a student a year or so ago due to a bird strike at night in a Seminole? The RV-10 cruises at the same speed or faster (depending on engine settings) than the Seminole. I think the fact that it hit a bird large enough to do that kind of damage and still land safely speaks quite well about its structural integrity.

Are you suggesting that the bird should have bounced off with the plane unscathed?


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 17:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
No. But I would have expected the wing spar to remain intact.

The RV clearly held up for the pilot to land safely and that's a good thing.

When I was learning to fly I had a 7am lesson on a Sunday morning. I went out to pre-flight the Piper Warrior II and noticed 2 large holes in the starboard wing. Both larger than that shown in the RV photo.

I walked back to the FBO and asked the instructor if this was some kind of test or joke?
:shrug:
It turns out a guy had gone out to practice night landings the previous evening. That airport back then had a 2800' strip with trees at each end.

On his initial circuit he forgot to click the mike button 5 times to reset the airport runway lights (on a timer). On short final the field went black.

The mike was on the center pedestal mount (common in Warriors). He reached for the mike, then dropped it.

He then leaned forward to reach the floor to pick up the mike. Without realizing it he shoved the yoke forward, the Warrior descended more rapidly.

As he picked up the mike he felt a bump and heard a noise but the plane flew okay, so he clicked on the lights and landed.

He proceeded to do 9 more circuits before retiring for the evening.

I was the first one to notice the damage. 2 monstrous holes in the starboard wing (I could literally fit my upper body inside one of them.

It's my understanding that despite significant damage due to flying through the top of the trees the aircraft was structurally sound and needed only sheet metal repairs to the wing (the spar was okay).

I'm not picking on RV's, have nothing against them. Don't know how big the bird was.

But bird strikes are not uncommon.

From this RV story, and my knowledge of the Warrior in the trees incident we know that airplanes can fly with significant damage to the leading edge of the wing.

But I don't think it's good that the wing spar was damaged and the wing needs to be replaced.

It would be interesting to learn how many certificated aircraft require wing replacement after a bird strike. I don't know, but I've not heard of that happening before.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 17:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/04/10
Posts: 14
Post Likes: +2
Aircraft: RV-9A
*snicker* was the warrior doing 150kts when it hit the trees? :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 17:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
*snicker* was the warrior doing 150kts when it hit the trees? :)


He pushed the yoke forwards, those Warriors pick up speed in a hurry if you do that :tongue:


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 18:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Username Protected wrote:
*snicker* was the warrior doing 150kts when it hit the trees? :)

John,

If the Warrior's wing had mulitple holes larger than that of the RV doesn't it stand to reason the impact was greater?

And while you may *snicker* I'm not the one who has to worry about a bird strike damaging my wing spar.

Hopefully you'll never have to find out how well your wing spar holds up in a bird strike. It didn't go well for your friend.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 20:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/04/10
Posts: 14
Post Likes: +2
Aircraft: RV-9A
Username Protected wrote:
If the Warrior's wing had mulitple holes larger than that of the RV doesn't it stand to reason the impact was greater?


No. That would depend on the construction of each aircraft, rib placement, gauge of the aluminum, amount of energy involved, point of impact, point of force, etc.

Quote:
And while you may *snicker* I'm not the one who has to worry about a bird strike damaging my wing spar.


I am not worried about a bird strike damaging a spar. I would be more worried about a bird strike killing me, not what I have to fix afterwards.

Quote:
Hopeully you'll never have to find out how well your wing spar holds up in a bird strike. It didn't go well for your friend.


I think it went fantastic for this gentleman, who btw is not my friend as I have never met him. If I hit a bird at all Ill be ecstatic to make it to the ground safely to have the privilage of dealing with a bent spar.

My only contention is that without knowing any of the factual data from a physics perspective making any claims about the structural integrity of any aircraft is at best conjecture.

The guy hit a bird at cruise speed in a fast and potentially heavy aircraft. He was blessed and didnt die. That doesn't say anything to me other than his aircraft held up and got him down to the ground.

Both of them pluses in my book.


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2010, 20:55 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/19/10
Posts: 2719
Post Likes: +1155
Company: Keller Williams Realty
Location: Madison, WI (91C)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Username Protected wrote:
*snicker* was the warrior doing 150kts when it hit the trees? :)

If the Warrior's wing had mulitple holes larger than that of the RV doesn't it stand to reason the impact was greater?

Not at all.
That would be true only if it was another RV-10.
Size of the damage shows only that the result of breaking forces vs. wing strength yielded the same result. Both sides of this equation can be adjusted to give you the same damage.

Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 00:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
To what G loading has the RV-10 wing been tested?

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 00:54 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 09/13/08
Posts: 2418
Post Likes: +648
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Aircraft: 260B Comanche
Username Protected wrote:
To what G loading has the RV-10 wing been tested?


Jim, you can read about the design and testing of the wing for the RV-10 at this link.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 04:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/29/10
Posts: 3897
Post Likes: +1030
Company: Advanced Pilot Seminars Aust.
Location: Brisbane Qld Australia
Aircraft: RV-10....ssshhh!
Spar Damage........... some fo you guys speak as if the spar has failed. In the photo's it looks pretty good to me, however being punched mid span and web it is quite likely bent a fraction. I bet many a Bonanza/Archer/C182 etc have had dodgy repairs done on their spars from bird strikes or corrossion and you guys are flying them! :eek:

In fact I know of some :bugeye:

I have seen an RV7 wing after it took out a runway sign when ground looped, the wing looked worse than that, but the spar was OK. Why??? Remember Ek=1/2MV2 so when you compare strikes at 110knots to 160+knots remember the Velocity Squared makes a big difference to the impact.

So lets look at spar damage shall we............. what about this one? :omg:
http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h39 ... 1289854067

and

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h390/saffernz/6.jpg

Now that is spar damage, along with a loss of leading edge devices, a hydraulic system, a bunch of electrics and engine controls, several tonnes of fuel (not jettisoned either)

_________________
David Brown

The two best investments you can make, by any financial test, an EMS and APS!


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 10:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/15/08
Posts: 1427
Post Likes: +254
Location: KUES Waukesha, WI
Aircraft: Pieces of N121VP
It's funny how we all take offense when someone says something we can construe as being even in the least bit deragatory of our brand of airplane. :box:

I've watched my best friend build his RV10 over the past 3 years. It is a beautiful aircraft, and yes, it is fast. But he will be the first to admit that compared to other aircraft we have flown/owned, including Pipers, Cessnas, Cirri and Van's, the Bonanza is noticeably more robust.

That isn't a slam at any other aircraft. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

(OK, overall, the Bonanza is just better than any other.) :duck:

_________________
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground......"


Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 13:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Bryan,

I read that info., thanks. Let's assume that all of their testing and design was done in accordance with the FAA procedures and that their 3.8 G figure is accurate. [I say assume because it's my understanding that the FAA isn't required to review and approve or certify the aircraft because it is experimental].

My A36 is certificated at 4.4 G's (utility category) at max. factory GW of 3,600 lbs.
:thumbup:

_________________
ABS Life Member


Last edited on 18 Nov 2010, 01:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: RV 10 vs bird
PostPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 13:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7399
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
Username Protected wrote:
I've watched my best friend build his RV10 over the past 3 years. It is a beautiful aircraft, and yes, it is fast. But he will be the first to admit that compared to other aircraft we have flown/owned, including Pipers, Cessnas, Cirri and Van's, the Bonanza is noticeably more robust.

Hi Randy,

I've got nothing against the RV crowd either. And I agree, the Bonanza is more robust.

This incident hasn't done anything to change that perception.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.