It just occurred to me when I woke up this morning that the RV4 is only certified for single person aerobatic operations. Perhaps the earlier suggesting of a loading issue was relevant.

Where is it written that the RV-4 is "only certified for single person aerobatic operations"?

All I can find is the aerobatics MTOW is 1372.69 lbs.

Interestingly though - remarks on Nolan Law Group (NLG) "Air Accident Digest" as follows:

23 Feb. 1740LClyde, Victoria
Van’s RV4Reg: VH-ZGH (tbc)
Seen in an unstable spiral shedding tailpieces in the local "aerobatics box"
2 dead/2 onboard
RV4 with two 116lb people and >22US gals exceeds the aerobatics weight limit.


I understand occupant's combined weight might have been more like 418 lbs - ie: 190 kgs

Makes you wonder!

Di :sad:


PS: Interesting Weight and Balance Calculator here:

http://www.rvproject.com/wab/wab.jsp...craftModelId=2

It's implied.

Single person, or 2 midgets.

Sounds right though, 116 pounds is 52 kilos x 2 and it's still overweight with > 22 us gals.

You have poached Andy_RR's comments, but I guess that's ok.

Since the subject has been raised, NLG has quoted the same thing I was told although I deleted my earlier post on the 25th on it. I believe I understand that the fuel dockets confirm.

Very sad.

Sadly, I can confirm that the pilot was more than 52kgs & his close friend seemed of similar weight.:(

RIP fellas.

'tis a very sad story, indeed.

It's a worry when such an august organisation will quote the bollox I write here on PPRuNe though... :eek:

Didn't realise the ATSB report was out. Confirms a lot of things for me...true to character as well...:(

Makes for an interesting (sad) read, especially for those who think of flying as a fad & don't give it the respect it deserves.

And might I add complete with photo's from yours truly as posted earlier in this thread (since removed), WITHOUT photo credit! Doh!

I take issue with the paragraph included in the report as follows:

"On the morning of 22 February 2007, the pilot was observed by a flying instructor flying VH-ZGH into Hamilton Airport in weather assessed as being below the minimum visual metrological conditions(VMC)."

Whilst in theory this may be correct, who reported this information? An RA-Aus instructor, grade 3, grade 1, and IFR pilot, were they in the air at the time? etc etc etc.... I've flown in conditions that are VFR and had "instructors" tell the tower that its' not suitable for VFR, but yet the tower have taken this as gospel when it was clearly not correct.

I wonder if there were several of these reports that go towards the pilot's character, would the ATSB cut short the investigation and just say in essence "the guy is a :mad:-head, used to do this all the time, he probably just did it again and crashed?"

Either way, without the anecdotal evidence, the reported facts do not look good do they:ooh:.

J

Fuel Docket told the full story the next day. Everyone already knew.

there is a chance, just maybe that the one who dobbed him in was a grade 1 IFR instructor

Am at a loss as to why a pilot would go outside so many of the parameters of safe flight knowingly/willingly? I'm learning fast from others mistakes but that comea at a cost. I hope that some if not all who reads these sad series of events can benifit.

FG

I think it's called testosterone

Interestingly if you talk to *experienced* aerobatic pilots they will suggest that the crash was not caused by the overweight condition or C of G (which realistically may have made stuff-all difference), but rather the pilots inability to control the aircraft and exit the developing spin - this is of course mentioned in the report too (as in the lack of experience / training). Overloading an aircraft, putting the C of G too far rearward won't necessarily result in this outcome. Interestingly many of the RV aircraft have weight limitations due to a number of reasons such as export requirements and limitations on wing-spar's etc, so one could almost draw a conclusion that the aircraft may have been capable of safe flight at this weight. I'd like to hear more from an RV expert.

With all due respect I would suggest VH-XXX that either you misunderstood the "experienced aerobatic pilots" or they are talking through their collective hats and need more experience. The RV4 is designed to the aerobatic limits of +6/-3 at a weight of 1375 pounds. Go one pound over that 1375 and you are no longer flying an aerobatic aircraft because the g limit it is able to sustain is less than the mandated. To be more than 22% overweight and have the CofG nearly 4 inches outside the aft limit and not expect a sad outcome is a little optimistic to say the least. The RV has had fatal spin accidents in the past with some one in the back seat - an aft CofG tends to flatten the spin, and knowledgeable RV pilots are aware and abide by the limits. They are there for a reason and once you go outside them you become your own test pilot.

What the manufacturer has to say about spinning the RV4
Spin tests of the prototype RV4 were performed up to the limit load (1375 lbs. Aerobatic gross) and CG (27% aft of leading edge) with satisfactory recoveries being easily affected. With the CG more forward and power at idle, the RV-4 would not remain in a spin for more than about two turns, even with full pro spin control input. With the CG aft it could be held in a spin but would recover as soon as the controls were returned to neutral. Inverted spins were not tested since the prototype RV-4 was not equipped for inverted fight. In general the RV-4 spins nose low and has very positive spin recovery qualities.
Even though the prototype has good spin recovery characteristics, each airplane is unique and should be individually tested. Small variations can have surprisingly large affects on spin and spin recovery characteristics. This is particularly true of any additional surfaces forward of the aircraft CG. For example, spin recovery was better when the landing gear leg fairings were removed. They reduce directional stability. Vans Aircraft does not consider spins to be a recreational aerobatic manoeuvre, and does not recommend they be casually undertaken in the RV-4. My bolding.

From an RV4 flight manual
Because of the range between VNE and VA the RV-4 is more susceptible to pilot induced overstresses than most contemporary aerobatic aeroplanes. Cruise speeds are often well above VA. THEREFORE, THE PILOT CAN EASILY IMPOSE DESTRUCTIVE LOADS ON THE AIRFRAME at speeds ABOVE THE RELATIVELY LOW MANOEUVRING SPEED. NOTE LIMITATIONS, EXERCISE CAUTION AND FLY ACCORDINGLY.”

If the CG is too far aft, longitudinal stability is reduced leading to inadvertent stalls and spins; spin recovery maybe difficult or impossible with the CG aft of approved limits.My bolding

All you can do is get the message out there :(

This is interesting!

When I did aerobatics (last century!), with an ex-WWII instructor, I was told that if I screwed up an aerobactic manoevre(?) I would likely end up in a spiral-dive or a spin. Consequently, we did spins until he was confident that I could recover from all (well .... most!) eventualities!

I am surprised that someone can get signed off on stall-turns etc without (apparently!) having done appropriate spin training.

Quote:

---

The pilot did not complete a full aerobatic training course that would have included vertical rolls and spins due to inclement weather

---

Dr :8

Agreed!
ALL pilots should do spins before getting a licence, let alone an aero rating.:ugh:

FTDK etc., It IS a requirement for the issue of an aerobatics endorsement that the person is also endorsed on upright spins according to the current CAR/CAO.