204 knots

jesse said:
Which product of theirs exactly?

I've looked at pictures of many different RV's with upper wheel fairings. I've also looked at the installation manuals for RV upper wheel fairings. No one is attaching these things with RTV Jay, they are attaching them with screws.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.
 
Depending on the specifics, he might be on the right track glueing the things on.

How are the stabilizer fairings held on a Cirrus?

The gear leg fairings on a Tiger?
 
Jay Honeck said:
Yep, RTV. I didn't want to drill rivnuts for screws, cuz the wing spar is right around where I would want to drill. Since these fairings don't come off for the annual inspection, I opted to install them with RTV, which makes them more or less permanent. Naturally, I was very happy to see them still attached after hitting 235 mph. :D

.
Click to expand...


Yeah, "more or less permanent" is probably good enough. Given that it is an "experimental", everybody else who is put in danger by your PepBoys Engineering should know the risk they are taking operating in the same air environments you are, or living in a house under any route of flight. That is why we have the "experimental" designation, so guys can "experiment" with differing ways to endanger bystanders.

SMH. :nonod:
 
Jay Honeck said:
You are wrong.
Click to expand...
About what? I checked VAF and see that people are either using screws of fiberglassing it onto one assembly. I also checked the installation manual for a RV upper fairing which recommended at least four screws.

I also asked which adhesive you used exactly. What was wrong about asking that?
 
bnt83 said:
:dunno: Ok? So there's nothing worth looking at in there?
Click to expand...

Just going by what the experts tell me.

When a guy who has built 31 RVs recommends a procedure, I listen. He is the one who suggested using Dow RTV over installing them with screws screwed into rivnuts.

If you've ever screwed through fiberglass into rivnuts, you know three things:

1. The rivnuts can eventually spin in the hole. (Slotted rivnuts help prevent this).
2. The screw heads will eventually strip.
3. The holes in the fiberglass will eventually wow out.

On a piece that needn't be removed regularly, RTV adhesive is a great alternative. I am very pleased with the results, both aerodynamically and aesthetically.

Oh, and using adhesive removed the risk inherent with drilling so near my wing spar.
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Depending on the specifics, he might be on the right track glueing the things on.

How are the stabilizer fairings held on a Cirrus?

The gear leg fairings on a Tiger?
Click to expand...

Right. The specifics matter quite a bit though. That's why I was just curious what he used.

It looks the the stabilier fairing on the Cirrus is held on by http://www.uline.com/BL_6073/3M-4951-VHB-Acrylic-Foam-Tape granted the loading of that is entirely different and the tape is doing very little.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Yeah, "more or less permanent" is probably good enough. Given that it is an "experimental", everybody else who is put in danger by your PepBoys Engineering should know the risk they are taking operating in the same air environments you are, or living in a house under any route of flight. That is why we have the "experimental" designation, so guys can "experiment" with differing ways to endanger bystanders.

SMH. :nonod:
Click to expand...

Are you really implying that my 5 ounce fiberglass fairings are a hazard to "bystanders"? Good grief.

Tell you what -- why don't you do a search on-line for some engineering test showing the adhesive strength of RTV versus four screws?

Better yet, go stick a 5 ounce piece of fiberglass to a piece of sheet metal, let it dry for three or four days, and report back on your efforts to pull them apart.

I can hardly wait... :rolleyes:
 
Skylane81E said:
Depending on the specifics, he might be on the right track glueing the things on.

How are the stabilizer fairings held on a Cirrus?

The gear leg fairings on a Tiger?
Click to expand...


I'm aware of those. My point on Jay "never need to come off" is kinda like the "we never looked above the headliner on this 1956 172 because it isn't required, turns out the plane is a corroded POS" kinda thing.

And I was harping all owners, don't fly with loose parts. You may think your the only one in the world who would be affected by **** departing your airplane, but at a busy airport, you could get someone killed.

If RTV holds the fairing fine. I've put door seals on Citations as required the OEM with a gray RTV of a part # I forget and its like welding the silicone seal on. In fact my first try at this ended with me doing it twice because I destroyed the silicone seal trying to adjust its position while the RTV was mostly cured.
 
JHW said:
the redline "dive" is the part of test flying a new homebuilt that i hate most. There have been 2 where I felt a buzzing in the stick i thought might be a hint of flutter. One was a lancair, the other an aeronca-champ knock off. It can happen over the whole spectrum of planes and in this context you can usually trace it to some sloppy connection in a trim tab linkage or something along those lines. the aeronca-like had some creative tail mods that, once undone, flew fine. The lancair, the builder could never find a reason for it and i refused to fly it again.
Click to expand...

You do this for a living, or a hobby?

Either way, it sounds, um, interesting. Sorta like diving with sharks sounds interesting. :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
Are you really implying that my 5 ounce fiberglass fairings are a hazard to "bystanders"? Good grief.
Click to expand...

Give me one and a ladder and I'll throw it at you. See if it's an enjoyable experience. ;)

No big deal. I've been bombing Colorado with stainless steel screws for years until the mechanic finally did the work to make them stay in the inspection plates under the vertical stabilizer this year.

Someone probably has a screw sized hole in the top of their head from the ten or so the other AI always signed off on after replacing them.
 
RTV seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate way to hold an upper gear leg fairing onto the belly skin. We're talking about a featherweight piece of thin fiberglass that weighs about 1 ounce. Lots of RVs have them attached simply with one or two #6 screws merely threaded into the bare aluminum of the extruded angle longeron behind the skin since it's next to impossible install a nutplate in that location unless you built the fuselage from a slow-build kit.

All that is needed is something to hold the fairing up against the fuselage, since its shape, and airflow around it does the lion's share of keeping it in place during flight. Three drops of RTV (front, left and right sides) would hold an upper gear leg fairing on pretty much forever until you cut the RTV to remove it, which you'll need to do annually on an RV-8/8A model anyway so you can inspect the gear mounting bolts.

The worst thing the RTV will do is make it darn near impossible for paint to stick to those spots in the future.
 
BTW: I am currently debating the best method of attaching my new GoPro Hero3 camera to the RV-8A.

This camera weighs more than my "gear fairings of death" (which they will be henceforth known as), and must be removable.

After much research I'm thinking of removing (gasp!) two of the wing tip attachment screws and replacing them with longer screws so that I can attach some sort of a camera mounting platform to the wing tip.

Do you think I should use RTV adhesive instead? Or how about the suction mount? :rolleyes:
 
Neal Howard said:
RTV seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate way to hold an upper gear leg fairing onto the belly skin. We're talking about a featherweight piece of thin fiberglass that weighs about 1 ounce. Lots of RVs have them attached simply with one or two #6 screws merely threaded into the bare aluminum of the extruded angle longeron behind the skin since it's next to impossible install a nutplate in that location unless you built the fuselage from a slow-build kit.

All that is needed is something to hold the fairing up against the fuselage, since its shape, and airflow around it does the lion's share of keeping it in place during flight. Three drops of RTV (front, left and right sides) would hold an upper gear leg fairing on pretty much forever until you cut the RTV to remove it, which you'll need to do annually on an RV-8/8A model anyway so you can inspect the gear mounting bolts.

The worst thing the RTV will do is make it darn near impossible for paint to stick to those spots in the future.
Click to expand...

Three drops? Damn, I used most of a 10-ounce tube!

And a continuous bead, all the way around the Fairings of Death.
 
Jay Honeck said:
BTW: I am currently debating the best method of attaching my new GoPro Hero3 camera to the RV-8A.

This camera weighs more than my "gear fairings of death" (which they will be henceforth known as), and must be removable.

After much research I'm thinking of removing (gasp!) two of the wing tip attachment screws and replacing them with longer screws so that I can attach some sort of a camera mounting platform to the wing tip.

Do you think I should use RTV adhesive instead? Or how about the suction mount? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The suction mount scares the life out of me.
 
Jay Honeck said:
After much research I'm thinking of removing (gasp!) two of the wing tip attachment screws and replacing them with longer screws so that I can attach some sort of a camera mounting platform to the wing tip.
Click to expand...

Lots of good ideas for the mount on the VAF forums, just search for "GoPro".

Two screws at the wingtip will hold it just fine. Here's one guy's example: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=670240&postcount=3

Prepare to expect a noticeable yaw affect with the camera hanging out there.

Lots of guys put them under the wing too, using a mount that threads into the tiedown ring hole. http://www.planearound.com/RV-Tie-Down-GPro-mount-GOMNT.htm
 
Jay Honeck said:
Three drops? Damn, I used most of a 10-ounce tube!

And a continuous bead, all the way around the Fairings of Death.
Click to expand...

Total overkill... have fun removing them! ;)

Also, I guess inspecting the main gear mounting bolts annually on a nosedragger -8A may not be all that necessary (and you can access them from inside the cockpit too), but it's mandatory on the taildragger -8 model... completely different mounting scheme of the upper gear leg bolts though.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
SS screws. A bunch of them, with little recessed washers.
Click to expand...

That's the upper fairing, what about the one glued to the leg itself?

Even on the nose with nothing to hold it on the bottom
Nose_Strut.JPG


And yes, the bit at the top is screwed on,
 
Jay Honeck said:
You do this for a living, or a hobby?

Either way, it sounds, um, interesting. Sorta like diving with sharks sounds interesting. :D
Click to expand...
Hobby. And it has to be done on every homebuilt during the initial fly-off, along with all the other tests. It should have been done on yours. Check the notes in the builder's log section on the test flights.
 
Skylane81E said:
That's the upper fairing, what about the one glued to the leg itself?

Even on the nose with nothing to hold it on the bottom
Nose_Strut.JPG


And yes, the bit at the top is screwed on,
Click to expand...

Um, same location as the OPs glued on area. Nose gear fairing is again - Screws. I've only done three planes, found no glue anywhere. Maybe it was missing on the one's I did?

Nose fairing PN 5702002-3

Main fairing(sump cover) PN 5701050-9

Screws PN AN526C632R8 about 40 of them total.

<edited to correct screw PN, don't want to be caught out being wrong again>
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Um, same location as the OPs glued on area. Nose gear fairing is again - Screws. I've only done three planes, found no glue anywhere. Maybe it was missing on the one's I did?

Nose fairing PN 5702002-3

Main fairing(sump cover) PN 5701050-9

Screws PN AN526C632R8 about 40 of them total.

<edited to correct screw PN, don't want to be caught out being wrong again>
Click to expand...

Our nose gear to fuselage fairing is held on with screws. I've had to add timmerman washers to them, as the holes were already wowed out. This happened in just 370 hours.
 
JHW said:
Hobby. And it has to be done on every homebuilt during the initial fly-off, along with all the other tests. It should have been done on yours. Check the notes in the builder's log section on the test flights.
Click to expand...

Will do. I've got what looks like a set of Brittanica's from the builder. Haven't delved into them in any depth yet.

That's the kind of stuff I used to do in winter. Now, dang it, we live and fly where the weather is always great. :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
Our nose gear to fuselage fairing is held on with screws. I've had to add timmerman washers to them, as the holes were already wowed out. This happened in just 370 hours.
Click to expand...

Uh -- sorry? I didn't sneak in and fly it.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Oh, Lord -- here we go again? Really?

Dow Corning RTV silicone adhesive -- the real stuff, not the crap you'd buy at Pep Boys -- will hold a fiberglass gear fairing on more securely than the four sheet metal screws most people use by a factor of ten.

In fact, it's basically permanent. If I ever want to remove it, I'm in for hours of careful cutting with a sharp blade and fishing line.
Click to expand...

like that voltage regulator fix you did? :D
 
Jay Honeck said:
Oh, Lord -- here we go again? Really?
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly. you can do whatever you please, Jay but RTV, Jay, was never approved for structural adhesion. You can argue that the that fairings are just fairings....but when they leave the airplane, I hope you still have a horizontal stab.

Part 43 exists for a reason, even though you are not bound by it.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
:thumbsup:

Never ceases to amaze me the "creative" ways some try to maintain their aircraft. :nonod:
Click to expand...

While I was an Inspector I got to go out in the field and observe some interesting things.

One that comes to mind was the EAB that lost the propeller in flight. This fellows prop departed the airplane and he made a forced landing in a field.

We went to his backyard shed where his hangar and workshop were to look at the damage and interview him. Sure enough, the bolts sheared. We asked him who installed the prop and he stated he did everything to the airplane building it. I asked where he found the torque values for the prop bolts and he replied " I didn't need to". Upon further questioning he showed me a breaker bar and a piece of steel pipe and said he used that to "snug the bolts up real tight".

The wings were off and I looked at the wing attach points on the fuselage, the holes were worn egg shape (this was a high wing). I asked to see the bolts and they too were jogged.

And the list went on. :nonod:
 
wabower said:
He consulted with his experts.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember the virtues of having an Experimental/HB airplane because you could x-acto the back off a voltage regulator and "fix" it.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61727&highlight=voltage+regulator

Then, shortly after, another story about an in flight electrical failure due to a voltage regulator.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62247

which is awesome because you call it "stealth mode"

then another one about buying a certified voltage regulator setup.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62247
 
JHW said:
Hobby. And it has to be done on every homebuilt during the initial fly-off, along with all the other tests. It should have been done on yours. Check the notes in the builder's log section on the test flights.
Click to expand...

On occasion those logs have been known to be, well, not accurate. (I really don't like using the word forged, but sometimes :nonod: )
 
RotorAndWing said:
While I was an Inspector I got to go out in the field and observe some interesting things.

One that comes to mind was the EAB that lost the propeller in flight. This fellows prop departed the airplane and he made a forced landing in a field.

We went to his backyard shed where his hangar and workshop were to look at the damage and interview him. Sure enough, the bolts sheared. We asked him who installed the prop and he stated he did everything to the airplane building it. I asked where he found the torque values for the prop bolts and he replied " I didn't need to". Upon further questioning he showed me a breaker bar and a piece of steel pipe and said he used that to "snug the bolts up real tight".

The wings were off and I looked at the wing attach points on the fuselage, the holes were worn egg shape (this was a high wing). I asked to see the bolts and they too were jogged.

And the list went on. :nonod:
Click to expand...

That's a major problem with people who are used to working on Fords and Chevys. On cars, the bolts are bigger since weight is less of a concern, and can handle overtorquing. In aviation, things are what they need to be, and torque specs really matter.

A number of times the engineering that went into a particular piece isn't obvious. It has been shown that improvised procedures seldom are better than factory specified procedures.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's a major problem with people who are used to working on Fords and Chevys. On cars, the bolts are bigger since weight is less of a concern, and can handle overtorquing. In aviation, things are what they need to be, and torque specs really matter.

A number of times the engineering that went into a particular piece isn't obvious. It has been shown that improvised procedures seldom are better than factory specified procedures.
Click to expand...

I know of another guy that rebuilt his EAB engine (Lycoming) and reused the connecting rod bolts and nuts. Argued up and down that it was "nonsense" not to reuse them and that the only real reason Lycoming specified it was "to sell more parts". :nonod:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I know of another guy that rebuilt his EAB engine (Lycoming) and reused the connecting rod bolts and nuts. Argued up and down that it was "nonsense" not to reuse them and that the only real reason Lycoming specified it was "to sell more parts". :nonod:
Click to expand...

When I was in engineering school, one of my professors told of a similar story. Torque-to-yield bolts were being used in a military installation of some sort (something large and very significant). Anyway, some media was there for some reason as they were performing maintenance, which required the bolts to be thrown away since, as torque-to-yield bolts, they would not have sufficient strength if used a second time. The idiot from the media was going on about government waste because they were throwing away "perfectly good bolts." My professor gave her a lecture on why exactly there was no waste involved. I doubt it stuck.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I know of another guy that rebuilt his EAB engine (Lycoming) and reused the connecting rod bolts and nuts. Argued up and down that it was "nonsense" not to reuse them and that the only real reason Lycoming specified it was "to sell more parts". :nonod:
Click to expand...

You and I both know that people love to convince themselves of this type of bull**** because they wanna save money and feel good about it. Like running an O-320 a zillion hours passed TBO. It may be legal on paper but stupid in practice.
 
Jay Honeck said:
You are wrong.
Click to expand...

I've been extremely active in the online and airborne RV community for almost 19 years. I've done the Tech Counselor bit on quite a few airplanes. I have never heard of anyone attaching fairings with RTV. In particular, attaching these particular fairings with RTV seems like a poor choice.

Those fairings get knocked around every time the gear flexes and are also in the propwash where they get buffeted a fair amount. When one comes loose, it is gonna beat the hell out of the paint on your gear leg fairings and wheelpants and that's gonna cost you when you have to repaint it.
 
Why? Busch is a strong advocate of on-condition overhauls. Is he wrong?

bnt83 said:
You and I both know that people love to convince themselves of this type of bull**** because they wanna save money and feel good about it. Like running an O-320 a zillion hours passed TBO. It may be legal on paper but stupid in practice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top