REBEL MTOW

[Walter Klatt]

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

[quote]-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Rick Harper
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:38 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: REBEL MTOW


G

[Jerry Purdom]

Hi Bob:
I have to disagree with your statement about higher gross weight if you read
Wayne post you will find all you have to do is phone the MOT to find out
that your info is incorrect including about the insurance???I sure don't
mean to step on you or anything but check with MOT and your insurer.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is NOT
in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified GW -
a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not to
pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

I know of several Rebels that flew for years at 2,000 lb gross
weight on amphibs, with no problems. Of course, they were always UNDER
the factory limit when landed ! ;-) ;-) :-)
As you say, the stall speed increases a bit, rate of climb goes down a

bit,

and it's a bit more solid in rough air - and you might want to fly a bit
slower when it's rough, beceause your G limits are reduced !

For the tail - if you've added the heavier piece joining the top
fuse bulkhead to the fin post, as Wayne suggests - and shown on Murphy
web site, that's about it. You might check that the extra tail spring
compressing doesn't change the trail angle of the tailwheel too much,
or you might get shimmy problems..... and adjust the tire (tyre ??)
pressures a bit, too.

Gord Mohr supplies some very nice fittings to beef up the gear
pivot points - I think photos are on Wayne's site, or here in the
archives. They're steel, with brass bushings - very nice ! Something
like the "Alaska" safety cables on the gear are a good idea, too !

I can almost see your smile now, when you fly it !!! :-)
You won't believe the climb angle with your new engine ! Enjoy !!!

.....bobp

----------------------------orig.-------------------
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:32 pm, you wrote:

I have the 1650 lb version .... But with Chrome - moly legs as per the

Super

Cub ... with coil compression springs ... landings are VERY soft &

smooooth

(bit bouncy if you really let it drop) , but the undercarriage really

soaks

it up. I am redesigning the pivot points, as I understand they were

never

really meant to "pivot that much".

Main things I need to know were what the stall characteristics at higher
weights were like, and if there were any particular weak points ... like

as

you said, the tail.

Did Daryl indicate exactly WHERE the tail could be beefed up ? IE:

stronger

strut design ?

Thanks !


Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of

Walter

Klatt
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 2:06 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Rick Harper
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:38 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: REBEL MTOW


G'day from HOT 'n' Sunny OZ !

OK you lot .... VH-REB has just passed it's
inspection today
....
After retro fitting an IO-320 ....
(somewhat modified ... 180 HP)

The plane only gained 10Kg in weight .... (Even after
moving the engine
FORWARD about 3") ...
BUT .. I had to add 10Kg of lead shot near the
tailpost to get the C of G
back to where I wanted it .. so she gained 20Kgs all
up ... I'm happy w
ith
that figure.

Now, ... I want to do my Stage 1 test flying / proving
period and test he
r out
at 850Kg MTOW ... (100 above the norm')... I have 230 lts
capacity in
the tanks
(55 US gal's) ....and I'm not small, so I want to keep
the "Utility
"
capability thing happening .... I do LOVE being able to
get in & out of
small/short/"difficult" strips :-) :-) :-)

I have spoken to several RV 6 owner builders who have
done the same ... a
nd
they are operating fine.

I KNOW the Rebel can handle the extra weight , no
problems .... But I'
d like
to hear some opinions and ideas from some of you out
there on this one.

Has any one "over/up there" put their Experimental
Certificate weight
at
850Kgs ?

Do we have any data on what to expect with the extra weight ?
(obviously it's going to have extra sink on flare and
a higher stall
figure) ... but I'd like to hear from some of you who
have done anythin
g
similar.

(If you are worried about "someone" ...IE: Government
types over ther
e or here
listening in on the chat page, please write to me direct at
rjwh@optusnet.com.au <mailto:rjwh@optusnet.com.au> )

What I'm proposing IS legal under the rules of the
EXPERIMENTAL CATEGOR
Y ....
But I'd like some feedback before I throw myself (&
plane) into the wil
d
blue yonder :-)

Thanks Guys !

Rick

Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007




*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Jerry Purdom]

Hi Wayne
I agree with you there has to be a limit,the 3000 lber has to be typo
error,but in regards to inspectors in B.C. they used the formula for load
and square ft. of wing,and climb test,and from what I've been told their
within limits,and far as insurance goes totally legal with Certificate of
Registration. The inspectors here checked with MOT came up with the same
results you are getting,since it is up to builder,problem being their has to
be a limit. And to repeat myself I was not trying to step on anybody just
stating facts from B.C. end.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne G. O'Shea" <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

In defense of Bob, Jerry, what Bob stated was (and in some ways still is)
exact gospel here in Ontario...as to how Mfg Design weight and

modifications

has been handled for at least 10 years! BC and Alberta, that have only had
the Ministers Delegate inspection program for a couple years, have run
pretty much based on local inspectors personal interpretation of the rules
(well maybe it was the Ontario inspectors that had a personal

interpretation

in retrospect!!) for many years and was even offering gross weight

increases

to builders/flyers at a whim without taking in to consideration the "G"
factor, landing gear loads and what have you.

FWIW there is a Rebel in Alberta registered at just over 3000lbs! Sure

hope

it's a typo, but considering during a couple hours of scanning the files a
few months ago I found over 10 Rebels on the Western end of the country

with

registered Gross weights of 2100lb and up. Considering that the Elite,

with

it's beefed front leading edge and other fuselage modifications, is only
designed for 1800lbs something is amiss here!!

It is quite possible that the Western province inspectors have always been
correct in their interpretation of the regs, especially now considering

the

acting Chief of Standards is stating the kit designer need not be asked if

a

modification or weight increase is allowed...since the builder is totally
responsible for the construction of his airplane. In some ways this opens
the door to a little more freedom in what we do with our airplane, but it
sure isn't looking out for the poor SOB that goes along as an uninformed
passenger or subsequent owner after the builder sells.

Fly safe guys!
Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Purdom" <jerrygoneflying@shaw.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Bob:
I have to disagree with your statement about higher gross weight if you

read

Wayne post you will find all you have to do is phone the MOT to find

out

that your info is incorrect including about the insurance???I sure don't
mean to step on you or anything but check with MOT and your insurer.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is

NOT

in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified

GW -

a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not

to

pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

I know of several Rebels that flew for years at 2,000 lb gross
weight on amphibs, with no problems. Of course, they were always

UNDER

the factory limit when landed ! ;-) ;-) :-)
As you say, the stall speed increases a bit, rate of climb goes down a

bit,

and it's a bit more solid in rough air - and you might want to fly a

bit

slower when it's rough, beceause your G limits are reduced !

For the tail - if you've added the heavier piece joining the top
fuse bulkhead to the fin post, as Wayne suggests - and shown on Murphy
web site, that's about it. You might check that the extra tail spring
compressing doesn't change the trail angle of the tailwheel too much,
or you might get shimmy problems..... and adjust the tire (tyre ??)
pressures a bit, too.

Gord Mohr supplies some very nice fittings to beef up the gear
pivot points - I think photos are on Wayne's site, or here in the
archives. They're steel, with brass bushings - very nice ! Something
like the "Alaska" safety cables on the gear are a good idea, too !

I can almost see your smile now, when you fly it !!! :-)
You won't believe the climb angle with your new engine ! Enjoy !!!

.....bobp

----------------------------orig.-------------------
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:32 pm, you wrote:

the

Super

smooooth

really

soaks

never

higher

like

as

stronger

Walter

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rebflyer]

Hi Rick,
I too used the coil spring gear system, and I was very happy with it. (I'm
happier now on amphib floats but that's another story).
What I had on the pivot end of the gear was Gordon Mohrs bushed fittings.
They worked great, and after 150 hrs on wheels the removal showed no wear.
Mister Mohr still is on this page so give him a try, they will be worth it.
Curt N97MR



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Dave King]

Jerry

I think it might be possible to be legal at a hair over 3000lbs in a Rebel
if it would pass the rate of climb test. To start with you have two
limitations
one is allowable wing loading tempered with the G loading.

First thing is if the airframe is actually strong enough. This is a gross
calculation
but would be close enough to see if it might work. And yes I can do a proper
analysis of the wing and hand it to TC to watch their eyes roll back in
their heads
(and then not even look at it.)

You have a 6.6G airframe at 1650 so at 4.4G (Utility) you have 2450 lbs at
3075
you are good for 3.5g... All of which provide adequate margins.

At the higher rate you will have more wear , more loose rivets and
accelerated aging all of which
you can inspect for. Ie the smokers around the airplane. Some are normal
pull rivet
probs and other are just going to be hard landings at higher weight. If you
were truly
playing in dangerous grounds you would be seeing a lot more or that and all
the time.
And it would start and continue around any high stress point such as
attachments and fittings.
Performing inspections would alert you to where any problems start. That is
half of it.

The other half is the wing loading. With flaps you could have up to 20.5
lbs per sqr foot
as per CH549. It's actually a formula that takes into account the flaps but
put it this way
without flaps you are limited to about 13.3 lbs per square foot.

Except for high performance amateur-built aeroplanes, the wing loading M/S
(W/S) shall not be greater than:
(i) For wings without flaps, M/S = 65 Kg/m2 (W/S=13.3 lb/ft2); or
(ii) For wings with flaps, the value calculated using the method of
Appendix A of this Chapter, but not exceeding 100 Kg/m2 (20.4 lb/ft2).

So without flaps and 150 square feet of wing on a rebel you can LEGALLY fly
away at 1995 lbs or 905kgs

Since it has flaps you can fly away LEGALLY at 3075lbs or 1395kgs

As long as you can pass the minimum rate of climb test at that weight you
are legal.

The above is right off of the page of Transport Canada and Chapter 549. So
it is Good info.
So even the 3000lb guy in Alberta is PERFECTLY legal if he passed the climb
test.

Dave

I agree with you there has to be a limit,the 3000 lber has to be typo
error,but in regards to inspectors in B.C. they used the formula for load
and square ft. of wing,and climb test,and from what I've been told their
within limits,and far as insurance goes totally legal with Certificate of
Registration. The inspectors here checked with MOT came up with the same
results you are getting,since it is up to builder,problem being their has to
be a limit. And to repeat myself I was not trying to step on anybody just
stating facts from B.C. end.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne G. O'Shea" <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

In defense of Bob, Jerry, what Bob stated was (and in some ways still is)
exact gospel here in Ontario...as to how Mfg Design weight and

modifications

has been handled for at least 10 years! BC and Alberta, that have only had
the Ministers Delegate inspection program for a couple years, have run
pretty much based on local inspectors personal interpretation of the rules
(well maybe it was the Ontario inspectors that had a personal

interpretation

in retrospect!!) for many years and was even offering gross weight

increases

to builders/flyers at a whim without taking in to consideration the "G"
factor, landing gear loads and what have you.

FWIW there is a Rebel in Alberta registered at just over 3000lbs! Sure

hope

it's a typo, but considering during a couple hours of scanning the files a
few months ago I found over 10 Rebels on the Western end of the country

with

registered Gross weights of 2100lb and up. Considering that the Elite,

with

it's beefed front leading edge and other fuselage modifications, is only
designed for 1800lbs something is amiss here!!

It is quite possible that the Western province inspectors have always been
correct in their interpretation of the regs, especially now considering

the

acting Chief of Standards is stating the kit designer need not be asked if

a

modification or weight increase is allowed...since the builder is totally
responsible for the construction of his airplane. In some ways this opens
the door to a little more freedom in what we do with our airplane, but it
sure isn't looking out for the poor SOB that goes along as an uninformed
passenger or subsequent owner after the builder sells.

Fly safe guys!
Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Purdom" <jerrygoneflying@shaw.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Bob:
I have to disagree with your statement about higher gross weight if you

read

Wayne post you will find all you have to do is phone the MOT to find

out

that your info is incorrect including about the insurance???I sure don't
mean to step on you or anything but check with MOT and your insurer.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

NOT

GW -

to

UNDER

bit,

bit

the

Super smooooth

really

soaks never

higher

like

as stronger Walter

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the
friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes

\|/ ____ \|/
~@-/ oO \-@~
/_( \__/ )_\
\__U_/

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail...but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"




*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*







-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Bob Patterson]

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is NOT
in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified GW -
a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not to
pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

I know of several Rebels that flew for years at 2,000 lb gross
weight on amphibs, with no problems. Of course, they were always UNDER
the factory limit when landed ! ;-) ;-) :-)
As you say, the stall speed increases a bit, rate of climb goes down a bit,
and it's a bit more solid in rough air - and you might want to fly a bit
slower when it's rough, beceause your G limits are reduced !

For the tail - if you've added the heavier piece joining the top
fuse bulkhead to the fin post, as Wayne suggests - and shown on Murphy
web site, that's about it. You might check that the extra tail spring
compressing doesn't change the trail angle of the tailwheel too much,
or you might get shimmy problems..... and adjust the tire (tyre ??)
pressures a bit, too.

Gord Mohr supplies some very nice fittings to beef up the gear
pivot points - I think photos are on Wayne's site, or here in the
archives. They're steel, with brass bushings - very nice ! Something
like the "Alaska" safety cables on the gear are a good idea, too !

I can almost see your smile now, when you fly it !!! :-)
You won't believe the climb angle with your new engine ! Enjoy !!!

.....bobp

----------------------------orig.-------------------
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:32 pm, you wrote:

I have the 1650 lb version .... But with Chrome - moly legs as per the Super
Cub ... with coil compression springs ... landings are VERY soft & smooooth
(bit bouncy if you really let it drop) , but the undercarriage really soaks
it up. I am redesigning the pivot points, as I understand they were never
really meant to "pivot that much".

Main things I need to know were what the stall characteristics at higher
weights were like, and if there were any particular weak points ... like as
you said, the tail.

Did Daryl indicate exactly WHERE the tail could be beefed up ? IE: stronger
strut design ?

Thanks !


Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of Walter
Klatt
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 2:06 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Rick Harper
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:38 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: REBEL MTOW


G'day from HOT 'n' Sunny OZ !

OK you lot .... VH-REB has just passed it's
inspection today
....
After retro fitting an IO-320 ....
(somewhat modified ... 180 HP)

The plane only gained 10Kg in weight .... (Even after
moving the engine
FORWARD about 3") ...
BUT .. I had to add 10Kg of lead shot near the
tailpost to get the C of G
back to where I wanted it .. so she gained 20Kgs all
up ... I'm happy w
ith
that figure.

Now, ... I want to do my Stage 1 test flying / proving
period and test he
r out
at 850Kg MTOW ... (100 above the norm')... I have 230 lts
capacity in
the tanks
(55 US gal's) ....and I'm not small, so I want to keep
the "Utility
"
capability thing happening .... I do LOVE being able to
get in & out of
small/short/"difficult" strips :-) :-) :-)

I have spoken to several RV 6 owner builders who have
done the same ... a
nd
they are operating fine.

I KNOW the Rebel can handle the extra weight , no
problems .... But I'
d like
to hear some opinions and ideas from some of you out
there on this one.

Has any one "over/up there" put their Experimental
Certificate weight
at
850Kgs ?

Do we have any data on what to expect with the extra weight ?
(obviously it's going to have extra sink on flare and
a higher stall
figure) ... but I'd like to hear from some of you who
have done anythin
g
similar.

(If you are worried about "someone" ...IE: Government
types over ther
e or here
listening in on the chat page, please write to me direct at
rjwh@optusnet.com.au <mailto:rjwh@optusnet.com.au> )

What I'm proposing IS legal under the rules of the
EXPERIMENTAL CATEGOR
Y ....
But I'd like some feedback before I throw myself (&
plane) into the wil
d
blue yonder :-)

Thanks Guys !

Rick

Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007




*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*




*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

Bob, the first paragraph used to be the accepted fact, in at least Ontario,
where it was beat into us that you can't change the Designers gross weight
or modify the design with out their permission unless you call it a Jack
Flash special. No longer fact... as the builder is (and always has been)
responsible for end design/construction and TC doesn't want to know what has
been changed etc as it would be construed that they reviewed and agreed with
your changes. I don't go along with this logic to the full extent it can be
taken...like putting 3000lb gross on a Rebel if you so chose..and think
anyone that wants to play too much should at least cut the kit mfg/plans
supplier some slack and change the model name. Even I added a L.E. on mine
to call it a Rebel L.E. to hint there were a few changes performed when I
put mine together.

I have an actual letter from the Acting Chief of Standards from Transport
Canada (Federal Level) in Ottawa that states just this (ie: the builder does
not need the permission of a kit manufacturer to change the gross weight or
design) but promised I would never post it on a public forum. Didn't promise
I wouldn't talk about it!

I am in a closed door - invite only - meeting all day tomorrow at
Buttonville with Ontario Region TC on the "pro builder" debate and hope to
find time to throw this issue across the table as well. Will post the
outcome of the meeting if it's worth posting. Lawn ornaments are immanent in
Ontario as the Exemption to 549 to allow professional construction is being
construed to NOT allow someone to completely build an aircraft for you, and
you the "builder of record" is expected to fully understand the construction
and function of EVERYTHING. Think they are going to (try and) make the first
lawn ornament example out of 4 pressurized/turbine Lancairs in Lindsay! (or
possibly someone's Legacy that's currently having a Rebel done for him at
PH!).

Cheers,
Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is NOT
in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified GW -
a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not to
pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

In defense of Bob, Jerry, what Bob stated was (and in some ways still is)
exact gospel here in Ontario...as to how Mfg Design weight and modifications
has been handled for at least 10 years! BC and Alberta, that have only had
the Ministers Delegate inspection program for a couple years, have run
pretty much based on local inspectors personal interpretation of the rules
(well maybe it was the Ontario inspectors that had a personal interpretation
in retrospect!!) for many years and was even offering gross weight increases
to builders/flyers at a whim without taking in to consideration the "G"
factor, landing gear loads and what have you.

FWIW there is a Rebel in Alberta registered at just over 3000lbs! Sure hope
it's a typo, but considering during a couple hours of scanning the files a
few months ago I found over 10 Rebels on the Western end of the country with
registered Gross weights of 2100lb and up. Considering that the Elite, with
it's beefed front leading edge and other fuselage modifications, is only
designed for 1800lbs something is amiss here!!

It is quite possible that the Western province inspectors have always been
correct in their interpretation of the regs, especially now considering the
acting Chief of Standards is stating the kit designer need not be asked if a
modification or weight increase is allowed...since the builder is totally
responsible for the construction of his airplane. In some ways this opens
the door to a little more freedom in what we do with our airplane, but it
sure isn't looking out for the poor SOB that goes along as an uninformed
passenger or subsequent owner after the builder sells.

Fly safe guys!
Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Purdom" <jerrygoneflying@shaw.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Bob:
I have to disagree with your statement about higher gross weight if you

read

Wayne post you will find all you have to do is phone the MOT to find out
that your info is incorrect including about the insurance???I sure don't
mean to step on you or anything but check with MOT and your insurer.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is NOT
in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified GW -
a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not to
pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

I know of several Rebels that flew for years at 2,000 lb gross
weight on amphibs, with no problems. Of course, they were always UNDER
the factory limit when landed ! ;-) ;-) :-)
As you say, the stall speed increases a bit, rate of climb goes down a

bit,

and it's a bit more solid in rough air - and you might want to fly a bit
slower when it's rough, beceause your G limits are reduced !

For the tail - if you've added the heavier piece joining the top
fuse bulkhead to the fin post, as Wayne suggests - and shown on Murphy
web site, that's about it. You might check that the extra tail spring
compressing doesn't change the trail angle of the tailwheel too much,
or you might get shimmy problems..... and adjust the tire (tyre ??)
pressures a bit, too.

Gord Mohr supplies some very nice fittings to beef up the gear
pivot points - I think photos are on Wayne's site, or here in the
archives. They're steel, with brass bushings - very nice ! Something
like the "Alaska" safety cables on the gear are a good idea, too !

I can almost see your smile now, when you fly it !!! :-)
You won't believe the climb angle with your new engine ! Enjoy !!!

.....bobp

----------------------------orig.-------------------
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:32 pm, you wrote:

I have the 1650 lb version .... But with Chrome - moly legs as per the

Super

Cub ... with coil compression springs ... landings are VERY soft &

smooooth

(bit bouncy if you really let it drop) , but the undercarriage really

soaks

it up. I am redesigning the pivot points, as I understand they were

never

really meant to "pivot that much".

Main things I need to know were what the stall characteristics at

higher

weights were like, and if there were any particular weak points ...

like

as

you said, the tail.

Did Daryl indicate exactly WHERE the tail could be beefed up ? IE:

stronger

strut design ?

Thanks !


Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of

Walter

Klatt
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 2:06 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

I should also add that if Bob did indeed call the "MOT" here in Ontario they
would tell him that you CAN'T change the designers gross weight or airframe
construction without written permission of the designer and or must have
engineering data to back what you are doing. They are still sticking with
what they thought was the correct interpretation of the regs (and aren't
giving in easily in an attempt to uphold the safety record of our
classification of aircraft and are trying to stick to their guns). I have
the letter from the acting Chief of Standards tucked away for the rainy day
that an inspector takes me to task on what I consider a minor modification
to an airframe. I have no plans to get stupid and upgross the "paperwork" on
an airplane design (without actually modifying the spars/pickups/gear/etc to
take it) that I've seen be easily damaged at less than gross weights in a
moderately hard landing...than say a Super Cub would have survived at Gross
weight without a whimper.

Cheers,
Wayne


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne G. O'Shea" <oifa@irishfield.on.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

In defense of Bob, Jerry, what Bob stated was (and in some ways still is)
exact gospel here in Ontario...as to how Mfg Design weight and

modifications

has been handled for at least 10 years! BC and Alberta, that have only had
the Ministers Delegate inspection program for a couple years, have run
pretty much based on local inspectors personal interpretation of the rules
(well maybe it was the Ontario inspectors that had a personal

interpretation

in retrospect!!) for many years and was even offering gross weight

increases

to builders/flyers at a whim without taking in to consideration the "G"
factor, landing gear loads and what have you.

FWIW there is a Rebel in Alberta registered at just over 3000lbs! Sure

hope

it's a typo, but considering during a couple hours of scanning the files a
few months ago I found over 10 Rebels on the Western end of the country

with

registered Gross weights of 2100lb and up. Considering that the Elite,

with

it's beefed front leading edge and other fuselage modifications, is only
designed for 1800lbs something is amiss here!!

It is quite possible that the Western province inspectors have always been
correct in their interpretation of the regs, especially now considering

the

acting Chief of Standards is stating the kit designer need not be asked if

a

modification or weight increase is allowed...since the builder is totally
responsible for the construction of his airplane. In some ways this opens
the door to a little more freedom in what we do with our airplane, but it
sure isn't looking out for the poor SOB that goes along as an uninformed
passenger or subsequent owner after the builder sells.

Fly safe guys!
Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Purdom" <jerrygoneflying@shaw.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Bob:
I have to disagree with your statement about higher gross weight if you

read

Wayne post you will find all you have to do is phone the MOT to find

out

that your info is incorrect including about the insurance???I sure don't
mean to step on you or anything but check with MOT and your insurer.

THANKS
jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Hi Rick !

I wouldn't worry too much about raising the weight limit - it won't
fly that much different. It's nice that it is legal for you - it is

NOT

in Canada !! Builders here <must> go with the designers specified

GW -

a couple have tried to sneak through more, but have to reverse it when
caught (and, in the meantime, their insurer has a complete 'out' not

to

pay claims, and they could be subject to fines) :-( !!

I know of several Rebels that flew for years at 2,000 lb gross
weight on amphibs, with no problems. Of course, they were always

UNDER

the factory limit when landed ! ;-) ;-) :-)
As you say, the stall speed increases a bit, rate of climb goes down a

bit,

and it's a bit more solid in rough air - and you might want to fly a

bit

slower when it's rough, beceause your G limits are reduced !

For the tail - if you've added the heavier piece joining the top
fuse bulkhead to the fin post, as Wayne suggests - and shown on Murphy
web site, that's about it. You might check that the extra tail spring
compressing doesn't change the trail angle of the tailwheel too much,
or you might get shimmy problems..... and adjust the tire (tyre ??)
pressures a bit, too.

Gord Mohr supplies some very nice fittings to beef up the gear
pivot points - I think photos are on Wayne's site, or here in the
archives. They're steel, with brass bushings - very nice ! Something
like the "Alaska" safety cables on the gear are a good idea, too !

I can almost see your smile now, when you fly it !!! :-)
You won't believe the climb angle with your new engine ! Enjoy !!!

.....bobp

----------------------------orig.-------------------
On Sunday 22 February 2004 01:32 pm, you wrote:

the

Super

smooooth

really

soaks

never

higher

like

as

stronger

Walter

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*







-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

G

[Dave King]

The questioned raised was if it was legal to fly at the higher rates not
if it was smart to. At 3000lbs you are going to really be out on a branch
but as the builder/owner that is his responsibility. You can analyze flight
qualities
at the different weights before trying it out and you can see if it will be
a pig.
I think the gear and its attach structure are just one of the weak points
on a Rebel.
At 3000 on wheels I'd be worried about the lack of a deep crush space in
the structure
more than anything. However the Rebel holds up quite nicely and flies like
a 182 around
2000lbs. That is going to around the practical limit. At least you can fly
off with two guys,
full fuel and more than a tooth brush legally at that weight. It then
becomes more than the
single seater (with spare seat) if you registered at 1650.

The structural mods were incorporated to bring back the useful life of the
airframe so that
you wouldn't have a 500-1000 airframe at 3000lbs. As I mentioned the
structure will handle
3000 (sort of) and 200 easily but at the expense of reduced airframe life.
Problems may
show up in fittings, certain structures, never ending smoking rivets etc
but if you as the
owner are willing to increase your inspections to look for any problems it
still can
be structurally sound to fly. 150-180hp is fine for 2000, but at 3000 you
are going to need
230+.

The weak point on the Rebel has always been the gear and it carry
structure. Don't
forget the gear is not designed for the same load levels as flight loads.
Your gear will
be designed for 3-4G's with some of that load compensated for by offsetting
the lift
component. The airframe can easily be 2 times stronger than the gear.

Anyway it boils down to if it was legal at the higher weights, and if
flying at the higher
weights would void insurance etc. If the builder has registered at the
higher auw, and
performed his climb test his insurance is valid. The guy who got sucked
into 1650
and goes out and flies with a buddy and full fuel and gets into the 1800
range does
not have insurance if the insurance company finds out. Guess which one gets
screwed
over if something happens.

Dave

I don't want to go with you at 3000lbs and especially still be along for the
landing. Them alum gear legs ain't going to take 3000lbs for very long...
with even smooth landings, let alone some that I've made and managed to roll
away from ....or others that some (and myself) have walked away from (with
the airplane sitting a little closer to the ground!). Let alone the airframe
strength when you consider the substantial wing structure differences to get
the first SR to 3000lb gross safely. (ie double stringer thickness, 60%
thicker leading edge skin, approx 6 times the thickness for front pickup
fittings, lift strut reinforced with internal square 1/8" wall tube x 2 per
side, etc, etc)
Wayne

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

That's only 1875lbs Rick! Should not be an issue in my mind with your gear
upgraded. Tail feathers should be fine at this weight as well, considering
the number of amphibs I've looked at and know they have flow regularily at
~1850lb +/-. Keep a good eye on the struts and trim tab all the same, as
well as the attachment of FUS-31 to the tail post as Bob already reminded.

Just keep a good eye on your landing gears rear drag brace pickup, since
it's still aluminum and held in by the same 10 or so rivets. Watch that it
doesn't start to loosen and make it's way further inside the airframe. Have
a good look and memorize what things look like around this fitting. I have
repaired an airplane that these fittings were just hanging there on the drag
brace with all rivets sheared (wrong rivets mind you) and all that was
holding the drag brace in place was the skin keeping the fitting inside when
in flight and the pivot bolt against the skin when loaded on the ground. Too
bad the one side had to fail in order for me to find the damaged one on the
other side (and the $16K+ bill for the guy after the fuselage/wing
tip/engine overhaul'd/prop straightened/etc was all done). The other thing
that happens here... if you really plant the tire into a chuck hole (or
stand the airplane on it's nose).. is the drag brace attach fittings will
buckle the double bulkheads without shearing the rivets. This usually
buckles the area around it and the FUS-10 (or 70) right behind the attach
fittings as well, but not always so why I suggest memorizing what this area
looks like when it's good.

Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Harper" <rjwh@optusnet.com.au>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

G'day & Thanks Wayne !!!

I am only looking to increase the MTOW to 850 Kgs ..... and I know it

flies

OK at that level ... just wanted some input from others who may have
already been there.

It has been suggested that the tailfeathers might be a weak point .... Got
any input / suggestions that might help me out on this item Wayne ? ...

you

CAN write to me direct on rjwh@optusnet.com.au if you'd like to keep it
"unofficial" ... I value & would appreciate your opinion either way !

Thanks !

Rick

Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Bob, the first paragraph used to be the accepted fact, in at least

Ontario,

where it was beat into us that you can't change the Designers gross weight
or modify the design with out their permission unless you call it a Jack
Flash special. No longer fact... as the builder is (and always has been)
responsible for end design/construction and TC doesn't want to know what

has

been changed etc as it would be construed that they reviewed and agreed

with

your changes. I don't go along with this logic to the full extent it can

be

taken...like putting 3000lb gross on a Rebel if you so chose..and think
anyone that wants to play too much should at least cut the kit mfg/plans
supplier some slack and change the model name. Even I added a L.E. on mine
to call it a Rebel L.E. to hint there were a few changes performed when I
put mine together.

I have an actual letter from the Acting Chief of Standards from Transport
Canada (Federal Level) in Ottawa that states just this (ie: the builder

does

not need the permission of a kit manufacturer to change the gross weight

or

design) but promised I would never post it on a public forum. Didn't

promise

I wouldn't talk about it!


Cheers,
Wayne

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*



*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

I don't want to go with you at 3000lbs and especially still be along for the
landing. Them alum gear legs ain't going to take 3000lbs for very long...
with even smooth landings, let alone some that I've made and managed to roll
away from ....or others that some (and myself) have walked away from (with
the airplane sitting a little closer to the ground!). Let alone the airframe
strength when you consider the substantial wing structure differences to get
the first SR to 3000lb gross safely. (ie double stringer thickness, 60%
thicker leading edge skin, approx 6 times the thickness for front pickup
fittings, lift strut reinforced with internal square 1/8" wall tube x 2 per
side, etc, etc)

Your quick calculations do make sence though and I concure, to a
point,..although I'm pretty sure MAM's 6G's is failure (might be wrong) and
if so then really only a safe 4G airplane at 1650lbs.

The other thing that Ontario Region is catching people for here now,
especially when they go to floats/larger engines and ask for a higher gross
weight is the requirement to meet Minimum HP (which of course translates
into your statement of being able to pass a climb test!). To try that one
out at 3000lbs on a Rebel and we get:

Pmin=0.016W + C x square root of (W cubed) / b

Pmin=0.016 (3000) + 0.018 x square root of (3000 cubed) / 30'

Pmin= 48 + 98.59

Pmin= 146.59 BHP

W=Gross weight in lbs, C= constant of 0.018, b=wings span feet

According to this 150HP O-320 would be sufficent in theory, but I don't want
to be in there when the trees are coming up quick as I know damn well it
won't climb at that weight behind 150HP! You are going to need at least 210
to 250HP I would think to pass a climb test. With that many ponys pulling
you might just have the engine "part ship" and leave with your firewall as a
unit!

Fun to play with numbers....nobody gets hurt sitting in a chair typing on
the keyboard ..ouch wife slapped me in the head 'cause suppers cold!!


Wayne


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave King" <kingdws@shaw.ca>
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: REBEL MTOW

Jerry

I think it might be possible to be legal at a hair over 3000lbs in a Rebel
if it would pass the rate of climb test. To start with you have two
limitations
one is allowable wing loading tempered with the G loading.

First thing is if the airframe is actually strong enough. This is a gross
calculation
but would be close enough to see if it might work. And yes I can do a

proper

analysis of the wing and hand it to TC to watch their eyes roll back in
their heads
(and then not even look at it.)

You have a 6.6G airframe at 1650 so at 4.4G (Utility) you have 2450 lbs at
3075
you are good for 3.5g... All of which provide adequate margins.

At the higher rate you will have more wear , more loose rivets and
accelerated aging all of which
you can inspect for. Ie the smokers around the airplane. Some are normal
pull rivet
probs and other are just going to be hard landings at higher weight. If

you

were truly
playing in dangerous grounds you would be seeing a lot more or that and

all

the time.
And it would start and continue around any high stress point such as
attachments and fittings.
Performing inspections would alert you to where any problems start. That

is

half of it.

The other half is the wing loading. With flaps you could have up to 20.5
lbs per sqr foot
as per CH549. It's actually a formula that takes into account the flaps

but

put it this way
without flaps you are limited to about 13.3 lbs per square foot.

Except for high performance amateur-built aeroplanes, the wing loading M/S
(W/S) shall not be greater than:
(i) For wings without flaps, M/S = 65 Kg/m2 (W/S=13.3 lb/ft2); or
(ii) For wings with flaps, the value calculated using the method of
Appendix A of this Chapter, but not exceeding 100 Kg/m2 (20.4 lb/ft2).

So without flaps and 150 square feet of wing on a rebel you can LEGALLY

fly

away at 1995 lbs or 905kgs

Since it has flaps you can fly away LEGALLY at 3075lbs or 1395kgs

As long as you can pass the minimum rate of climb test at that weight you
are legal.

The above is right off of the page of Transport Canada and Chapter 549. So
it is Good info.
So even the 3000lb guy in Alberta is PERFECTLY legal if he passed the

climb

test.

Dave

I agree with you there has to be a limit,the 3000 lber has to be typo
error,but in regards to inspectors in B.C. they used the formula for load
and square ft. of wing,and climb test,and from what I've been told their
within limits,and far as insurance goes totally legal with Certificate of
Registration. The inspectors here checked with MOT came up with the same
results you are getting,since it is up to builder,problem being their has

to

be a limit. And to repeat myself I was not trying to step on anybody just
stating facts from B.C. end.

THANKS
jerry

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

Thanks Walter ! ...


Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of Walter
Klatt
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 2:06 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Rick Harper
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:38 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: REBEL MTOW


G'day from HOT 'n' Sunny OZ !

OK you lot .... VH-REB has just passed it's
inspection today
....
After retro fitting an IO-320 ....
(somewhat modified ... 180 HP)

The plane only gained 10Kg in weight .... (Even after
moving the engine
FORWARD about 3") ...
BUT .. I had to add 10Kg of lead shot near the
tailpost to get the C of G
back to where I wanted it .. so she gained 20Kgs all
up ... I'm happy w
ith
that figure.

Now, ... I want to do my Stage 1 test flying / proving
period and test he
r out
at 850Kg MTOW ... (100 above the norm')... I have 230 lts
capacity in
the tanks
(55 US gal's) ....and I'm not small, so I want to keep
the "Utility
"
capability thing happening .... I do LOVE being able to
get in & out of
small/short/"difficult" strips :-) :-) :-)

I have spoken to several RV 6 owner builders who have
done the same ... a
nd
they are operating fine.

I KNOW the Rebel can handle the extra weight , no
problems .... But I'
d like
to hear some opinions and ideas from some of you out
there on this one.

Has any one "over/up there" put their Experimental
Certificate weight
at
850Kgs ?

Do we have any data on what to expect with the extra weight ?
(obviously it's going to have extra sink on flare and
a higher stall
figure) ... but I'd like to hear from some of you who
have done anythin
g
similar.

(If you are worried about "someone" ...IE: Government
types over ther
e or here
listening in on the chat page, please write to me direct at
rjwh@optusnet.com.au <mailto:rjwh@optusnet.com.au> )

What I'm proposing IS legal under the rules of the
EXPERIMENTAL CATEGOR
Y ....
But I'd like some feedback before I throw myself (&
plane) into the wil
d
blue yonder :-)

Thanks Guys !

Rick

Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007




*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*




*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

I have the 1650 lb version .... But with Chrome - moly legs as per the Super
Cub ... with coil compression springs ... landings are VERY soft & smooooth
(bit bouncy if you really let it drop) , but the undercarriage really soaks
it up. I am redesigning the pivot points, as I understand they were never
really meant to "pivot that much".

Main things I need to know were what the stall characteristics at higher
weights were like, and if there were any particular weak points ... like as
you said, the tail.

Did Daryl indicate exactly WHERE the tail could be beefed up ? IE: stronger
strut design ?

Thanks !


Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of Walter
Klatt
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 2:06 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: RE: REBEL MTOW

Don't know what your serial number is, but assume you have the
1650 wing upgrade. There is also an .032 leading edge upgrade
which further strengthens it. Then depending what gear you have,
that can definitely be a weak point. At higher landing weights,
you will want to be extra gentle on the touchdowns. On water
that's easy, but can be a challenge on a short paved runway on a
hot sunny day and a gusting cross wind.

Besides that, I have been told by Darryl that the tail may be a
weak spot on the Rebel, or at least it has not been fully tested
for higher gross weights and higher hp engines. That's why they
redesigned it for the Elite.

Another consideration is floats. In Canada, your flotation needs
to be able to support 1.8 times your gross weight. So, if you are
using the Murphy 1800 amphibs with 1750 flotation each, the max
registered gross weight can be up to 1944 pounds.

I'll send you an email offline about a few other points.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of
Rick Harper
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:38 AM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: REBEL MTOW


G'day from HOT 'n' Sunny OZ !

OK you lot .... VH-REB has just passed it's
inspection today
....
After retro fitting an IO-320 ....
(somewhat modified ... 180 HP)

The plane only gained 10Kg in weight .... (Even after
moving the engine
FORWARD about 3") ...
BUT .. I had to add 10Kg of lead shot near the
tailpost to get the C of G
back to where I wanted it .. so she gained 20Kgs all
up ... I'm happy w
ith
that figure.

Now, ... I want to do my Stage 1 test flying / proving
period and test he
r out
at 850Kg MTOW ... (100 above the norm')... I have 230 lts
capacity in
the tanks
(55 US gal's) ....and I'm not small, so I want to keep
the "Utility
"
capability thing happening .... I do LOVE being able to
get in & out of
small/short/"difficult" strips :-) :-) :-)

I have spoken to several RV 6 owner builders who have
done the same ... a
nd
they are operating fine.

I KNOW the Rebel can handle the extra weight , no
problems .... But I'
d like
to hear some opinions and ideas from some of you out
there on this one.

Has any one "over/up there" put their Experimental
Certificate weight
at
850Kgs ?

Do we have any data on what to expect with the extra weight ?
(obviously it's going to have extra sink on flare and
a higher stall
figure) ... but I'd like to hear from some of you who
have done anythin
g
similar.

(If you are worried about "someone" ...IE: Government
types over ther
e or here
listening in on the chat page, please write to me direct at
rjwh@optusnet.com.au <mailto:rjwh@optusnet.com.au> )

What I'm proposing IS legal under the rules of the
EXPERIMENTAL CATEGOR
Y ....
But I'd like some feedback before I throw myself (&
plane) into the wil
d
blue yonder :-)

Thanks Guys !

Rick

Rick & Wendy Harper
16 Tor Road
Dee Why
NSW 2099
Australia
Home (02) 9971 7889
Mobile 0416 041 007




*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*------------------------------------------------------
-------------------*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*




*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.wcx
Archives located at https://www.dcsol.com/default.htm
Archives public username "rebel" password "builder"
To contact the list admin, e-mail mike.davis@dcsol.com
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*








-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------