RV-Archive.digest.vol-ag
October 06, 1994 - November 14, 1994
Brent, I didn't get your address right, it bounced back to me.
I had Brent_Baxter(at)ccm.jf2.intel.com, is that right?
Could you try mailing me again?
Thanks
Randall Henderson
randall(at)edt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P-51 style dorsal fin |
I've noticed several RV-4 builders have added an extension to their
fiberglass empennage fairing to add a dorsal fin. I kind of like the way
this looks and am thinking about doing this to my RV-4. Does this affect the
flight characteristics at all? Any other hidden drawbacks?
Thanks, Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
With all the talk about etching and primers, I was wondering if anyone else
has had experience with the Marhyde self-etching primer available from Avery
Ent. I have had very good results from the aerosol can (great for small
parts), but I have a very difficult time getting the paint in the quart cans
to adhere, at least with my cheap spray gun.
Any comments?
Ted, RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James M Wilson <James_M_Wilson(at)ccm.co.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-51 style dorsal fin |
Text item:
In the cases I have seen, that fin is actually a track for a custom sliding
canopy to ride on.
Two things are gained by adding such a fin.
1) build time
2) weight
Mike Wilson, RV-4
I've noticed several RV-4 builders have added an extension to their
fiberglass empennage fairing to add a dorsal fin. I kind of like the way
this looks and am thinking about doing this to my RV-4. Does this affect the
flight characteristics at all? Any other hidden drawbacks?
Thanks, Ted
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: P-51 style dorsal fin
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 01:58:43 EDT
From: aol.com!TLump51(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Marhyde primers |
>
> With all the talk about etching and primers, I was wondering if anyone else
> has had experience with the Marhyde self-etching primer available from Avery
> Ent. I have had very good results from the aerosol can (great for small
> parts), but I have a very difficult time getting the paint in the quart cans
> to adhere, at least with my cheap spray gun.
> Any comments?
>
> Ted, RV-4
>
>
In building my RV6A, I've used the Marhyde (kind of a grey color) to prime
some smaller pieces that I didn't feel like setting up my gun with VariPrime
to spray. What I found out is when I subsequently sprayed some adjacent
parts with VariPrime, it completely curdled the Marhyde. I guess its the
acid-etching in the VariPrime. You probably want to make sure you use a
compatible set of primers and topcoats. I've been using the System Three
products on all my exterior parts and am very happy so far. The
Marhyde is good for samll parts that wouldn't have a topcoat applied.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Shopping |
>--------------
>
> My prop is a little too much, great for cruising but not so great on
> take-off. I have a 180hp RV-4 buddy who wants a cruise prop. He
> currently burns 10+ gph at cruise, while I burn <8 (not sure if my
> airflow performance FI system is part of the reason for my economy?).
> This is at 7-11K feet at 195mph true. My prop is only letting me turn
> 2450rpm at that speed. At full throttle at 3000ft, I have seen well
> above 200 (corrected to alt & air temp) at 2550rpm, the max I can get it
> to turn.
>
> Since the -4 has 6 gallons less usable fuel, he feels saving 1-2 gph
> would increase his range, so is real interested in my prop.
>
> Recently, someone on the list (Doug Bloomberg?) was touting the merits
> of Aymar-Demuth props. Could I get some more info? I was just going to
> order another Warnke prop with slightly less pitch, but am willing to
> look at different options. I like the 'custom' prop Bernie did for me,
> except for the pitch, so will stay with him unless the A-D sounds good.
>
> I'm still not willing to spend $5K on CS (even though my -6 is set-up
> for it), there are too many other things I want first.
>
> So, what can you all tell me about the wood props that are available?
> don wentz
>--------------
I bought a Cato 3-blade prop for my 180 RV-4. Since the plane isn't done
yet, I can't tell you how it works first hand. I have heard some really good
things about it, however. It is a glassed, wood core prop. It is suppose
to be very quiet, and eliminate the harmonic that 180's have with a 70"
prop. If you are interested, I can get you Cato's phone number.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
Hello all...
I will be having some work done on the mail connection for matronics.com very
soon. Unfortunately, I will not be able to know exactly when connectivity will
be disrupted or for exactly how long. Hopefully, no mail will be lost - it
should be queued while the connection is lost.
I expect it to last no more than 1 day.
I'm sorry for the outage.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FACCHINETTI <Claudio.Facchinetti(at)imt.unine.ch> |
| Subject: | RV-4 dorsal fin, Mustang II |
>In the cases I have seen, that fin is actually a track for a custom sliding
>canopy to ride on.
>
>Two things are gained by adding such a fin.
>1) build time
>2) weight
>
>Mike Wilson, RV-4
>
A sliding canopy fro the RV-4? Wow! With this plus the dorsal fin, the bird must
really look like a Pilatus PC-7 (sort of swiss-made P-51D). Any hints on who did
this kind of job, or where to find plans?
Since I'm in the process of posting, I'd like to get feedback from people that,
like
me, are still hesitating between various kits (I already got some opinions concerning
the RV-4/6/6A options. Thanks again). I'm sorry to bring this in an RV-dedicated
mailing list, but did anybody evaluate (or built) a Mustang II?
________________________________________________________________________________
one is tandem and the other side-by-side. The Mustang II has much sharper stall
characteristics, though, but has various unique interesting options: mainly a folding
wings kit and the possibility to order sub sub-kits, which would nicely fit my
research
assistant salary. On the other hand, the support for the RV-4 is outstanding and
since
so many people are building RVs, they HAVE to be better!
Thanks in advance for opinions,
___________________________________________________________________________________
Claudio Facchinetti Voice: +41/38 301 653
Institute of Microtechnology Fax: +41/38 301 845
Tivoli 28 e-mail : facchinetti(at)imt.unine.ch
CH-2003 Neuchatel claudio(at)flamingo.stanford.edu
SWITZERLAND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Shopping |
>--------------
>
> Sounds like a good prop choice. A couple of questions, please, if
> you do not mind:
>
> 1) Is it water-proof (I presume so).
> 2) Will it shatter like a wood prop in the event of a prop strike.
> One advantage of a wood prop is that if you have a prop strike,
> you do not need to check the engine crankshaft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>
>>
>>
>> I bought a Cato 3-blade prop for my 180 RV-4. Since the plane isn't done
>> yet, I can't tell you how it works first hand. I have heard some really good
>> things about it, however. It is a glassed, wood core prop. It is suppose
>> to be very quiet, and eliminate the harmonic that 180's have with a 70"
>> prop. If you are interested, I can get you Cato's phone number.
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>>
>>
>
>--------------
Yes, it is suppose to be completely water proof. And, yes, it will
self-destruct if tapped on the runway... It looks really cool too. I can
hardly wait to try it out on the nose of the RV-4.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dougm(at)physio.wa.com (Doug Medema) |
Since there has been quite a bit of traffic lately about System 3
paints, I thought I would throw in some information that I have
received. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NOT FROM MY PERSONAL EXPER-
IENCE WITH THE PRODUCTS BUT ARE BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS.
A local RV-6A builder, Les Williams, was going to use the System 3
paint. To give you an idea of the level of builder Les is, he just
won a Championship Award as the last Oskosh for his very clean -6A!
Les started to use the paint but found it very difficult to use. I
believe he was using an HVLP system. He finally sanded off most of
the painting he had done and switched to a more conventional paint.
He told me the brand, but I don't remember. Les must have some
painting talent given the award at Oskosh so the fact that he had
problems would make me hesitate.
More importantly, he said that some other RV builder he knew had
painted his complete plane but wished he hadn't. In particular,
it seems that any fuel spilled on the paint will permanently stain
the paint. Since it seems pretty inevitable that some fuel will be
spilled over the wing sooner or later, this would be quite impor-
tant to me. I would suggest that anyone who is planning to use this
paint should first try some experiments to test this out.
System 3 is a local (Seattle) company and I used their epoxy when
I built my cedar strip canoe. I really thought their paint system
would be great since it was less toxic and I could go talk to the
manufacturers directly. At the present time, however, I have no
plans to use it and would recommend caution to all who do.
I REPEAT: THE ABOVE COMMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I BELIEVE THEY ARE ACCURATE AND CORRECTLY REFLECT CONVERSATIONS WITH
AN EXPERIENCED AND SUCCESSFUL RV BUILDER.
(BTW: My wing kit is on order. Van's said the production run should
either start or end on 10/3 (I can't remember) and then the kits would
be crated and shipped in order that they had received the order. I
ordered the one piece top skins and will thus have to pick up my kit.
I keep waiting for the phone call, it should be soon!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "'John H. Henderson'" <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
Oops. I confused a dorsal fin with a ventral fin in my reply the
other day. (I couldn't figure out how to make a ventral fin from
the fairing.)
The dorsal fin will probably INCREASE the left-turning tendency due
to the propwash, and add drag.
C23456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
C
C John H. Henderson E-mail: johnh(at)eng.auburn.edu
C Dept. of Electrical Engineering Finger: johnh(at)finger.eng.auburn.edu
C Auburn University Mosaic: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~johnh
C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Prop Shopping |
Text item:
Matt, I actually sent them a letter describing my project and requesting info,
about a year ago, and got ZERO response, so I wrote them off.
As to 3 blades, I would love to "test fly" one, but would not buy one without
first having that opportunity on my own airplane. Do you have a spinner
built-up yet (probably not)? We test flew my prop on Jerry Springer's airplane
one morning, only took a couple hours to do the swap, test fly, then un-swap.
dw
>I bought a Cato 3-blade prop for my 180 RV-4. Since the plane isn't done
>yet, I can't tell you how it works first hand. I have heard some really good
>things about it, however. It is a glassed, wood core prop. It is suppose
>to be very quiet, and eliminate the harmonic that 180's have with a 70"
>prop. If you are interested, I can get you Cato's phone number.
>Matt Dralle
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: Prop Shopping
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 22:57:15 -0700
From: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
Howdy,
I asked Larry Vetterman who has had a dorsal fin on his RV-4 since 1985.
Well Larry does it affect handling on do anything + or -????
He said, "I don't really know on my plane because it has always had it, but
compared to other RV's I have flown there seems to be no difference. I did
it because it looks nice."
So he seems to think it is mostly cosmetic.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: System 3 paints |
>
> Since there has been quite a bit of traffic lately about System 3
> paints, I thought I would throw in some information that I have
> received. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE NOT FROM MY PERSONAL EXPER-
> IENCE WITH THE PRODUCTS BUT ARE BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS.
>
> A local RV-6A builder, Les Williams, was going to use the System 3
> paint. To give you an idea of the level of builder Les is, he just
> won a Championship Award as the last Oskosh for his very clean -6A!
> Les started to use the paint but found it very difficult to use. I
> believe he was using an HVLP system. He finally sanded off most of
> the painting he had done and switched to a more conventional paint.
> He told me the brand, but I don't remember. Les must have some
> painting talent given the award at Oskosh so the fact that he had
> problems would make me hesitate.
>
> More importantly, he said that some other RV builder he knew had
> painted his complete plane but wished he hadn't. In particular,
> it seems that any fuel spilled on the paint will permanently stain
> the paint. Since it seems pretty inevitable that some fuel will be
> spilled over the wing sooner or later, this would be quite impor-
> tant to me. I would suggest that anyone who is planning to use this
> paint should first try some experiments to test this out.
>
> System 3 is a local (Seattle) company and I used their epoxy when
> I built my cedar strip canoe. I really thought their paint system
> would be great since it was less toxic and I could go talk to the
> manufacturers directly. At the present time, however, I have no
> plans to use it and would recommend caution to all who do.
>
> I REPEAT: THE ABOVE COMMENTS DO NOT REPRESENT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
> I BELIEVE THEY ARE ACCURATE AND CORRECTLY REFLECT CONVERSATIONS WITH
> AN EXPERIENCED AND SUCCESSFUL RV BUILDER.
Well, seeing that I've got several gallons of Systems 3 paint waiting
for this weekend to be applied (with a Croix), this message sure got
my attention! I've just spent about an hour on the phone with 'Kern'
of Systems 3, and I feel very comfortable with using the Sys3 and Croix
combo. I asked specifically about the Les Williams incident and he
remembered very clearly what happened. I believe this incident was
not really related to the technical properties of the materials, but was
more of a personal issue. I don't think it would serve any purpose to
elaborate any further.
I did ask about the staining of the paint by av-gas. Again, he remembered
this incident; it was a Kitfox that had some 80-grade av-gas leaking. The
red dye from the 80 DID stain it. However, Kern said they've done
extensive testing with 100LL (which just about everyone uses), and have
found no evidence of staining. Sounds like this is not an issue.
(note: I built a Kitfox and tried 80 just once; NEVER again! too low an
octane rating)
I'm glad I called him. I got some good technical info and he saved me from
making some errors (ie. rushing the time between coats). Also, he was
concerned that the green-primer might show through the red topcoat, so he's
got me doing some further testing. They'll swap me some of their white-primer
(no corrosion protection) to put over the green, if necessary. Very nice
people to deal with. I'll be glad when this construction phase is behind me!
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Rocky Mountain RVator's Newsletter. |
Howdy,
The Rocky Mountain RVators have reorganized. We have publish our second
newsletter. I contains Builders tips, interviews (this month Dean Hall, RV-4
builder EAA Director) and we organize RV flyins (Oct 22 at Tri County Airport
48V, Erie, Co near Denver).
If your local group has a newsletter we would like to exchange newsletters.
Or, if you do not have a newsletter available and would like to subscribe
(we publish 4 times a year) send $5.00 and info about you (address) and where
you are on your project to Denis Walsh, 4011 S Magnolia Way, Denver, CO 80237.
Denis is an excellent writer, he is midway through his Fuselage of his RV-6A
He has about 4,500 hours mostly in B-52's and F-111's. He retired about
3 years ago from the US Air Force, he graduated from the 2nd class of the
Air Force Academy, and retired as a Brig General. He has some very good
insights to flying and human nature. He is a very good editor.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: System 3 paints |
Text item: Text_1
As for staining, I have some gross stains on Imron from a 100LL leak on
my Cheetah that won't come out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SHARON IRVING <IRVING(at)clipr.Colorado.EDU> |
Unsubscribe Sharon Irving
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: System 3 paints |
>
> As for staining, I have some gross stains on Imron from a 100LL leak on
> my Cheetah that won't come out.
>
My Champion Citabria as well -- I believe it's Stits Aerothane (80 octane).
Randall Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
As a result of an earlier post where I shamelessly begged for a "fix" in
the form of an RV ride I got a taste of the tonic courtesy of Ed Wischmeyer
last week while on business in Silicon Valley.
After the necessary phone calls o arrange logistics Ed met me at my hotel
(how's that for service?) and we proceeded to San Jose airport to take
"slip the surly bonds" in Ed's RV-4. As this is October and daylight after
work is an endangered commodity we only had time for a short flight but it
was quite enough to a) rekindle my memories of my other two RV flights, b)
convince me that if trainers were this much fun more people might finish
their flight training and get a license, and c) inspire me to get my RV-4
in the air!
After rolling Ed's RV out of his hanger we mounted up, taxied out and after
getting clearance for a short local flight from clearance delivery took the
active and departed amoung the local rush hour of airline arrivals and
departures. Ed departed the pattern with a nice 60 degree bank giving me a
great view of the departure runway out the top of the canopy. After
notifying Bay Approach of our intentions for a little airwork we were
cleared to have fun as long as we stayed below 5,000'. Ed demoed some more
steep turns and while pulling a couple of G's gave me a good sense of how
quickly you can go from going thisaway to thataway in an RV. Next Ed said
I had it and waht I had was the famous RV grin plastered on my face as I
easily rolled in left and then right banks just as easily as if rolling my
head from side to side. The RV is so easy to fly if you just think where
you want it to go and smoothly allow your hands to lead you where your head
is taking you.
We didn't try any stalls because we were pushing the aft CG limit and we
really didn't have time. I had asked Ed to let me fly it slow so I could
get a feel for the slow flight characteristics and once again, the -4 is a
dream. At 65 kts indicated it felt rock solid even in some steeper turns -
I would say somewhere greater than 30 but less than 45 degree bank. The
only difficulty I had was in keeping the altitude constant. I'll blame it
on not being used to the airplane and lack of panel visibility from the
rear but the real reason probably had everything to do with the stick
wiggler in the rear rather that the airplane.
Well by now a beautiful October sunset was in full bloom and we headed back
in. Ed entered the pattern with another 60 degree "break" just for fun and
greased on a very nice wheel landing to complete the flight.
Let me add another couple of comments. The -4 was a dream to fly. Very
honest and so much fun we have to be careful or everyone will want to do
this! Also, while Ed's -4 is a well built example of the breed it ain't no
show stopper in that it is currently missing gear fairings among other
things. I say this not to desparage Ed's machine (he has the gear fairings
and I'm sure he will add them someday - the reason they are missing is that
Ed had to realign his landing gear - says something about his abilities
that he could acomplish that at all) but rather to make the point that we
don't have to make these things look perfect to have a near perfect flying
airplane. Something I plan to take to heart as I near the finish line.
After the flight we had dinner a a quaint ethnic resturant and talked
flying, RV's and anything else that came to mind.
Yes I enjoyed it greatly and met a really cool guy in the process.
Thanks Ed and you should share with the group how you realigned your gear
(Ed was not the original builder) sometime.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
Has this subject been discussed before on the list? I don't remember,
so forgive me if we're covering old news, but I'd like to know what
people's experiences have been heating wing skins while riveting.
________________________________________________________________________________
and results in a noticably better job, but I was talking to a fellow
builder the other day who said he thought that you could end up with
wavy skins, etc if you didn't heat them up nice and evenly.
What have people's experiences been with this? How hard is it to heat
the skins evenly? What method did you use?
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
P.S. Yes, I have read the article "Hot Stuff" in the Feb 93 RVator. Just
looking for other input.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ernstrm(at)alpha.hendrix.edu (Richard Ernst) |
| Subject: | ZnO2 primer, RV images, RV feed |
Forgive me if I repeat myself, but I've been having trouble with the local
e-mail, news and everything else. Please respond by e-mail
(ernstrm(at)alpha.hendrix.edu), since I'm apparently not getting any e-mail
from the RV list.
I'm just starting on the horizontal stab. on my -6A, which I'm building in
an apartment. To keep the noise level down, I'm using electric tools, and
putting off skinning and other rivet gun tasks until I move. I can busy
myself with stab. spars, etc. in the mean time. Without a compressor set
up, I don't have a convenient way to shoot primer on, so I picked up a few
spray cans of ZnO2, which I can spray outside, away from the apartment, and
with a respirator on. Does anyone have experience with this stuff? The
can says that it "etches metal", but should I believe it, or just wait
until I can borrow someone's compressor and spray on a good epoxy primer
(which may be a long wait).
I have a nice, new Mac on my desk at work, and can finally view .gif images
and the like. Are there any RV images left on the net? The ftp sites I
know about are either closed or don't have any images left.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Ernst ernstrm(at)alpha.hendrix.edu
Department of Physics office: (501) 450-3808
Hendrix College fax: (501) 450-1200
1601 Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032-3080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
| Subject: | Re: heating skins |
I heated my skins by riveting in the sun. Worked great and they ended up
nice and tight. All my fuselage was riveted w/o heating and it ended up OK
too so I don't know if all I got for my trouble was a tan.
RB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: heating skins |
Text item:
Randall, my thoughts on the subject:
1 - If you didn't heat them during the fitting/drilling process, I don't see how
heating them during the riveting process will make any difference.
2 - The only way to keep them uniformly heated would be to heat the whole room
to some unbearable temperature, since aluminum conducts heat so rapidly. Spot
heating doesn't sound good.
dw
>Has this subject been discussed before on the list? I don't remember,
>so forgive me if we're covering old news, but I'd like to know what
>people's experiences have been heating wing skins while riveting.
>From reading the manual one gets the impression that not difficult
>and results in a noticably better job, but I was talking to a fellow
>builder the other day who said he thought that you could end up with
>wavy skins, etc if you didn't heat them up nice and evenly.
>What have people's experiences been with this? How hard is it to heat
>the skins evenly? What method did you use?
>Randall Henderson
>RV-6X
>P.S. Yes, I have read the article "Hot Stuff" in the Feb 93 RVator. Just
>looking for other input.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: heating skins
From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:38:05 -0700
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: heating skins |
Text item:
If you're careful when fitting, drilling skins in the beginning I think
the heating is kinda' like buying pre-drilled skins .... it probably
isn't worth the effort. I know of an RV3 builder who heated his skins
on his RV3. He has since built an RV4 and did not heat the skins. He
thinks the end result is as good. I didn't heat the skins on my wings
and they came out nice and tight with no oil canning, at least in the
jig. How they are out in the weather I cannot say. I wish the guy that
bought it would get it flying so I can see it. Would someone please
help find me a steady job so I can start a -6!!
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: heating skins
Date: 10/11/94 9:57 AM
Randall, my thoughts on the subject:
1 - If you didn't heat them during the fitting/drilling process, I don't see how
heating them during the riveting process will make any difference.
2 - The only way to keep them uniformly heated would be to heat the whole room
to some unbearable temperature, since aluminum conducts heat so rapidly. Spot
heating doesn't sound good.
dw
>Has this subject been discussed before on the list? I don't remember,
>so forgive me if we're covering old news, but I'd like to know what
>people's experiences have been heating wing skins while riveting.
>From reading the manual one gets the impression that not difficult
>and results in a noticably better job, but I was talking to a fellow
>builder the other day who said he thought that you could end up with
>wavy skins, etc if you didn't heat them up nice and evenly.
>What have people's experiences been with this? How hard is it to heat
>the skins evenly? What method did you use?
>Randall Henderson
>RV-6X
>P.S. Yes, I have read the article "Hot Stuff" in the Feb 93 RVator. Just
>looking for other input.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: heating skins
From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:38:05 -0700
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: heating skins
From: Don Wentz <ccm2.hf.intel.com!Don_Wentz(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 09:38:25 PST
________________________________________________________________________________
Heating up the skin uniformly is difficult. Using my backriveting technique
produces pretty good results all on its' own. It minimizes the amount
deformation around each rivet that you can get using conventional riveting.
I have my left wing is in my garage on a stand that faces a row of windows
to the west. When the afternoon summer sun would shine in through the
window, the finished skin would get pretty hot. It remained fairly straight,
however.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: heating skins |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Don Wentz replies to Randall's question:
> Randall, my thoughts on the subject:
> 1 - If you didn't heat them during the fitting/drilling process, I don't see
how
> heating them during the riveting process will make any difference.
There is quite a bit of slop in the rivet hole (a thousandth or two
even before dimpling) so the skin can actually move quite a bit when it's
heated. After the rivet buldges, the slop goes to zero and the skin remains,
in theory, tighter.
> 2 - The only way to keep them uniformly heated would be to heat the whole room
> to some unbearable temperature, since aluminum conducts heat so rapidly. Spot
> heating doesn't sound good.
Agreed, but several lightbulbs inside the skin, a couple of hair dryers,
and a strategically place kerosene heater can keep skins warm to the
touch. At least that's how I've done it in the past.
I think one is most likely to notice problems if the skins were riveted
on a cold day. A dark paint color on a sunny hot summer with the
wings supported on the airplane rather than on a jig is probably when
you're going to first notice it--long after you can do anything about it.
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | RV-LIST Work Done... |
RV-LISTERS:
The connection work for matronics.com has been completed. Hopefully,
everything is working "normal" and the RV-LIST should be fine. Please
"post-away"!
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
Text item: Text_1
Randall, some input for your first newsletter (Randall is taking-over
the Portland RVators) and for you RV-list folks too.
FYI, I had a hard time finding a low cost OAT for my -6. I finally
settled-on a nice little unit from "Questair Inc". Cost $65, mounts to
the external skin, unit is about 5/8" thick x 2.5" diameter. I mounted
it right in the skin of the canopy, below the plexi in my tip-up, just
forward of my left shoulder. It has a small little streamlined pickup
that is all that shows on the outside, requires no wires, and doesn't
take-up panel space. Display is C or F, with on/off switch also.
I like it, a very clean, attractive unit that was quick/easy to install
in my RV. This unit is advertised regularly in the back of Sport
Aviation. 203-795-0611
VSI - I have a unit that is only 2,000 feet/minute, and every time I do
a manuever that involves high vertical climb/descent rates (i.e.
Split-S), it ends-up with a different ZERO point. So, if you intend to
have any fun in your RV, get at least a 3,000 fpm VSI.
dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing leveller for homebuilts??? |
Someone on this list mentioned something about a wing
leveller/autopilot for homebuilts with gyros for about US$1250.00. Am
I dreaming?
I had a question from a local Glasair owner about such a thing, and I
thought I would ask the list. Can someone confirm, deny, identify the
mfg, phone number etc if such a thing exists. Sounds too good to be
true for that price incl gyros.
Thanks in advance.
--
Bill Baines
Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
bill(at)sfu.ca, (604) 535-2714 or 2709, VE7FML
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing leveller for homebuilts??? |
Howdy,
Oh yeah it exists. $1200.00 Consists of a control unit with gyro that fits
into the standard 3" hole (Turn rate hole) and a servo unit. The servo
unit is geared and has an override clutch so if in a panic or hurry you
can bank the plane and not have to disengage the unit.
The control unit has a traditional ball on the bottom and a LED display
to indicate turn rate. Contols allow: NO auto trim, Auto trim only (with
knob to adj for right or left bank) and sw position which allows for
input from a Nav Radio, Loran, GPS. The device will track on the course from
the nav stuff.
It's all light weight and small. The gyro's are very dependable, more so than
the normal gyros. The servo is very torquey and small.
The company is NavAid Devices, Chattt, Tenn 615 267-3311
See the Nov kitplanes pg 75 for the ad.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
Remember: RV and Kitfox flyin Oct 22 at Tri-County airport along with the
Rocky Mountain AIRCRAFT Builders Forum, Nearby Denver, CO. ps carry
your own baggage, our government has opted to not supply baggage handling
at Colorado airports (except Co Springs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing leveller for homebuilts??? |
On Thu, 13 Oct 1994, Doug Bloomberg wrote:
>
> It's all light weight and small. The gyro's are very dependable, more so than
> the normal gyros. The servo is very torquey and small.
>
Does anyone have any actual experience with this unit? I'm wondering how
well it will handle aerobatics, what with all the talk about RVs trashing
gyros lately.
Note also that the comapany literature mentions that the wing-leveller is
NOT intended for IFR use, due to its rather rapid response time. (A
hard-over malfunction would have you upside down before you knew what hit
you) However, the benefit of this apparently is that the leveller works
very well in turbulence, since it reacts so quickly to every little bump.
I want one!
I want the new altitude hold unit too!!
And I want gyros that won't tumble!!
--end of wish list (for today)
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Pls. add me to the mail list |
Please add me to your RV mail list.
I have built a RV-4 that is almost done. It still needs a few finish details
and then paint the exterior.
Thanks, Herman
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Pre-Punched Wing Skins Opinion Revision |
Text item: Text_1
The busy people out at Van's, never being satisfied with things, have
now fixed the problem of the pre-drilled wing rib holes in the main spar
being out of place. They are now shipping wing kits with the corrected
spacing. This means that you don't have to worry about wing rib attach
bolt heads digging into the angle or the hole being too close to the
edge in order for the ribs to line up with the pre-punched skin holes.
Therefore, for those of you who have a little extra money and seem to
have trouble understanding where to drill holes (or just worry a lot),
the prepunched skins now look like a good investment. The total time
saved is now closer to 10 hours. Just remember to use the skins as a
guide to where to put the flutes in the ribs.
Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Punched Wing Skins Opinion Revision |
> The busy people out at Van's, never being satisfied with things, have
> now fixed the problem of the pre-drilled wing rib holes in the main spar
> being out of place. They are now shipping wing kits with the corrected
> spacing. This means that you don't have to worry about wing rib attach
> bolt heads digging into the angle or the hole being too close to the
> edge in order for the ribs to line up with the pre-punched skin holes.
>
> Therefore, for those of you who have a little extra money and seem to
> have trouble understanding where to drill holes (or just worry a lot),
> the prepunched skins now look like a good investment. The total time
> saved is now closer to 10 hours. Just remember to use the skins as a
> guide to where to put the flutes in the ribs.
>
> Frank J.
And the price is $150 instead of $200 as was thought when this
was being discussed earlier on the net.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Punched Wing Skins Opinion Revision |
Text item: Text_1
Now that there is a warmer, fuzzier feeling about the accuracy of the
pre-drilled spars and rib locations, I could consider changing my
thinking that pre-drilled skins may be a real value. The price quoted
at the Portland RVators builders group meeting last night was well under
$200. Confirm actual price with Van's.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Pre-Punched Wing Skins Opinion Revision
Date: 10/14/94 9:18 AM
The busy people out at Van's, never being satisfied with things, have
now fixed the problem of the pre-drilled wing rib holes in the main spar
being out of place. They are now shipping wing kits with the corrected
spacing. This means that you don't have to worry about wing rib attach
bolt heads digging into the angle or the hole being too close to the
edge in order for the ribs to line up with the pre-punched skin holes.
Therefore, for those of you who have a little extra money and seem to
have trouble understanding where to drill holes (or just worry a lot),
the prepunched skins now look like a good investment. The total time
saved is now closer to 10 hours. Just remember to use the skins as a
guide to where to put the flutes in the ribs.
Frank J.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Pre-Punched Wing Skins Opinion Revision
From: Frank K Justice <ccm.ssd.intel.com!Frank_K_Justice(at)matronics.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 08:55:23 PST
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-4 Rudder Bottom |
I'm trying to fit the fiberglass rudder-bottom fairing on my RV-4. I
have the one that accepts a tail light. I'm finding that the fairing doesn't
even come close to fitting, particularly at the tail light fairing. I've
checked the rudder and it is built like the plans say.
Does anyone have any helpful hints as to how to cajole this part into
looking sleek like an RV should?
Thanks in advance,
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Elevator/Rudder Hinge Bolt Installation |
I've seen a couple articles in the RVator and Sport Aviation about a little
sheet metal tool designed to make it easier to install the hinge bolts in the
empennage control surfaces.
The method I use on my RV-4 doesn't require any fabrication. I use my
"grabber". Everyone's seen one, it has a metal plunger with four spring
steel hooks on the end. The plunger is sheathed in a metal cable and spring
loaded so that when you push on the plunger the four hooks expand and when
you release the plunger they contract to grasp whatever is in their midst.
This works great for the hinge bolts because the grabber is narrow and can
easily fit into the access cutouts while still allowing some movement of the
control surface to help you align the rod ends. It also holds the bolt
securely allowing you to feel for the hole. Also, if you should drop the
bolt, you can retrieve it with the grabber.
You can purchase one at almost any hardware store or automotive supply house.
$5.00 max.
Ted
P.S. - I've just finished my empennage, so the grabber may have many other
uses on other parts of the aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Meehan <meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Wing tip strobe mnt |
In the process of trying to build a mounting surface for my wingtip
strobe/position lites (A600-PG_PR Whelen). Don't have the unit since
money is a premium, but have the wire harness installed.
Anyone have the exaact dimension of the base?. Should be about six inches
long and an inch or two wide.
D. Meehan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RE: RV-4 Rudder Bottom |
>
> I'm trying to fit the fiberglass rudder-bottom fairing on my RV-4. I
> have the one that accepts a tail light. I'm finding that the fairing doesn't
> even come close to fitting, particularly at the tail light fairing. I've
> checked the rudder and it is built like the plans say.
> Does anyone have any helpful hints as to how to cajole this part into
> looking sleek like an RV should?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ted
>
Here is what I recall from doing this about 1 yr ago.
I had the same impression. I did not see how that thing would fit like
it should. In fact I had two parts, one for the tail light and one
for use without the light. Neither looked as if it would fit very well.
I decided to go with full lights and strobes so I installed the fairing
that works with the tail light.
You will need to cut out around the 'rudder horn' arms that stick out.
This will take some 'progressive' trimming to get it to fit.
At the rear, you will have to cut out part of the lower Al skin to allow
the light to fit. I riveted in two .025 Al straps that wrap around the
light and hold it in place. This was covered in one of the very old
RVators. It may be part of the manual now.
If I recall, you end up cutting out a little of the lower rudder rib
in addition to the skin that covers it.
The fiberglass will need some filing at the rear to trim of any excess
and make it flush with the light ring.
I think I also had to file out some excess resin on the inside of this
area. The fairing must be pulled down around the light and made to
lie flat on the rudder. Work with it and file any excess epoxy from
the inside so it will lay flat. I think I also clamped it down and
then put a heat lamp on it for a while to thermal set it.
I think I put 3 or 4 rivits on the part that goes around the light.
Be careful here at there is not much space at the rear. Stager the
rivets on each side so they do not interfeer with each other.
I used counter sunk pop rivets here.
You will have to file the top edges of the faring to get it to
match the bottom edge of the rudder skin. Use the Vixen file for
that (or any long file).
It is a lot of trim and fit work. Use clecos to hold it all together
once it is close and you drill the holes. Do any final trimming
and then 'nail' it. You may want to route your wires first and
maybe have them attached. I don't recall how I did that part.
I may have used a piece of poly tubing to route the wire in.
I did that in my wings. You route the poly tubing through holes
(7/16?) in the wings and then you can slide wire in at any time.
Herman.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Aerobatics in your RV. |
I just wrote the following article for our EAA chapter 187 newsletter.
I will post it here also for general intersts. If you get the RVator,
you will have already read about the first accident described below.
You may not have heard of the second one.
Something to think about.
FYI, I have a Pitts S1 with Ultimate wings and fly in Intermediate
class competition currently. I had a Super AcroSport I for over
a yr and then got a Pitts which I have had for a yr and a half.
I decided to learn and do aerobatics in a plane built for it after
hearing how fast RV's build up speed and how easy it is to over G them.
In the Pitts, I pull +5 or 6 and -2 all the time. Doing advanced level
routines, I pull +6 and -3. I don't plan to do any of this serious stuff
in the RV-4.
So you think you will take a friend up and do some aerobatics in
your RV or Mustang II or ??. Is your plane really set up for
aerobatics? The IAC recommends a second 'safety belt' which is
a lab belt that must be attached to a different structural point
than the primary belts. This is in fact required for IAC competition.
Here are two actual events that show why you need dual belts.
The first event resulted in two deaths. This was published in the
June '94 issue of "The RVator". Some of you will recall an article
several years ago when Van flew his RV-6 in a dog fight with a
Mustang II flown by Don Norris. Well, earlier this year, Don and his
passenger were killed when they went up in the Mustang II to do some
aerobatics. Early findings indicated that the passenger was thrown
throught the canopy under negative G loads when the right seat belt
stiching failed. The canopy in turn took off the horizontal stabilizer
and the plane crashed. The article did not say if they had parachutes,
but I expect they did not. That was their second mistake.
I will describe a second event that was posted at the Natational Aerobatic
Championship's in 1993. I don't have the article so I will describe
the essence of what happened. A pilot had a two seat Russian built
plane (I think it was a SU29 or a Yak) and it still had the Russian
built seat belts in it. He was to fly an air show later in the day but
he took a friend of his up for an aerobatic demo ride. I think they were
doing a Lomcovak and for some reason the passengers seat belt let go
and the passenger punched through the canopy. The pilot heard a loud
noise but did not know what happened. He then saw a parachute and he
thought he hit some skydivers. He then realized his canopy was broken
and he had no passenger. As luck would have it, the passenger had
taken a first jump parachute class about two weeks earlier and he
deployed his parachute and landed OK. This accident did not result
in any death or injury as the pilot landed the plane and the passenger
rode down the chute. They think the passenger may have hit the belt
release during the maneuver. Again, no second safety belt.
These two accidents should drive home the point that if you will be
doing aerobatics, you need a parachute and the plane should have
a second lab belt attached to a different structure. I you are like
me, I am sure you have had times when you thought the belts were locked
only to have them pop open while taxing. Think what would happen if you
did this doing aerobatics. As a passenger, you also need to check for
these two safety items if someone offers you a ride and says they will
go do a few 'loops and rolls'.
Even if you are only planing positive G maneuvers, it is very easy to
pull negative G's if the maneuver is not done exactly correct.
I recall when I was a young lad flying a Luscombe and I wanted to try
a loop. I dove for a little more speed and pulled back on the stick.
As I lost the view of the world over the nose and the speed was decaying
I thought I would never make it around a loop so I pushed the stick
forward. Boy was that a mistake. That generated some negative G's
and all the dirt on the floor came loose and the extra seat cushons
went flying. I was lucky as I had no parachute and only one 25 year old
seat belt. We need to learn from the accidents of others.
The chapter members now have lots of RV's, Mustang's, and other high
performance planes and I am sure many have done some form of aerobatics.
However, I don't know of any with dual belts or parachutes. Think of
the above stories next time you plan to do a few loops and rolls.
Happy aerobatics. Herman
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Bloomberg
------------------------------------
Hello all... Your friendly list owner here,
On Monday October 17th at 10 PM Eastern time ESPN will air their
program on Oshkosh. If you saw this last year I know you will want
to see this one. If you didn't see last year's version take my word
for it and watch this one.
The commercials might be interesting too. Sponsors include the EAA,
Avemco, Aircraft Spruce, AND SkyStar.
Have a good weekend!
Jim Simmons
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics in your RV. |
Thanks Herman,
I intend to publish your posting in our newsletter.
An aside. Two best friends have been killed in RV-4's by doing dumb
stuff.
event1) The RV-4 had two men both +260 lbs. Extreme aft CG, like at 31% of
the cord. Flat spin into the ground.
event2) RV-4, the pilot bragged he would do a high speed pass over every
uncontrolled airport he came to, and do a high G pullout. Well he did
one to many, my buddy was in the back seat. Another stall spin...
RV-4's fly great, but only in their envelope. Two passengers and aerobatics
are a NO-NO. Van sets limits to aerobatics at 1350 gross wt.
Doug Bloomberg
Don't do Nuthin Stupid!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rfrawley(at)cisco.com |
Hi,
At this stage I am only still dreaming due to other financial and time
committments..but dreams do come true !
I was wondering if someone would be willing to show me their RV a little
closer than reading about them on the end of email.
I will be in LA on the 24thOct and SF on the 25th, then in Raleigh on the
26th, Carlotte on the 27th and NY on the 28th...If anyone can spot me for a
view and a possible ride in your precious RV (I am more than happy to cover
expenses), I would be very grateful.
Thanks in advance..
Currently I have about 400+ hrs on performance Cessna, Cheerokee, Bonanza's
etc...have flown some basic aerobatics in Robins...a friend has a kit
fox..but its a bit of a toy I think...
Regards
Richard Frawley
cisco Systems Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Frawley | |
| Sales Type Stuff | || || * * * |
| Phone: 61-2-957-4944 | || || - * | | | * - |
| Mobile: 61-18-260-594 | |||| |||| |o|*| | | | |*|o| |
| Fax: 61-2-957-4077 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:..| |===========| | |
| Email:rfrawley(at)cisco.com | cisco Systems Australia |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
for rv-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Deene Ogden <deene(at)ibmoto.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing leveller for homebuilts??? |
I have two RV hangar mates that have this autopilot installed
on their RV6's. I have helped one of the guys tune up his.
The other guy is a EE and had no problems.
The Navaid units are nicely made and use fairly straight forward
techniques. Installation kits are available for use in RV's.
Basically, the servo output pully is attached to the ailerons via
a pushpull tube with rodends with a connection to the bottom
of the stick assembly.
Both units seem to work well. They do require some tuning via
front panel pots (easy) and may require diddling with the
servo (harder).
I plan on installing one on my BD-4 whenever I have an extra
$1200.
Regards,
Deene Ogden
(BD-4 and Acrosport I, ex-RV6 builder)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
>
>
> In the process of trying to build a mounting surface for my wingtip
> strobe/position lites (A600-PG_PR Whelen). Don't have the unit since
> money is a premium, but have the wire harness installed.
>
> Anyone have the exaact dimension of the base?. Should be about six inches
> long and an inch or two wide.
>
> D. Meehan
>
I did my wing-tip light mounts a few weeks ago, as follows:
1. find the right spot to mount it (that's up to you)
2. make a mounting plate out of aluminum plate, allowing
for the wires and bolt the light assembly to it
3. cut a hole in the wingtip for the wires to pass through
4. make a mold; I used grey modeling clay to obtain a
streamlined shape that would look good; use of water
to smooth it was the final step
5. bake it at a low temperature for a bit (not too long or the
the clay will crack)
6. wax the mold real good!!!
7. lay a glass cloth over the mold and apply the resin (I used
polyester resin for this); I end up doing 3 layers
8. after the resin was cured, fiberglassed the assembly to the wingtip
(I used several poprivets for extra protection)
9. I made a slurry mixture and applied it to the bonded area; then
sanded it.
It worked out very nicely!
Gary Bataller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansen(at)risc.austin.ibm.com (William Hansen) |
| Subject: | Re: Aerobatics in your RV. |
Have you set up your RV-4 for two seat belts and/or harnesses,
and if you have, how did you anchor them?
Incidently, I was talking with an RV factory rep at the Southwest
Regional EAA Fly-In at Kerrville, TX Saturday. He had flown in
the "company" RV-6 for the event. He said they were experimenting, on
that airplane, with painting without priming. He said the results were
ok, but there were some problems. Some paint had flaked off. (Very
little.) Also, the red color was a bit off and did not exactly match
the color of the cowling. I did not notice either, until he
pointed the problems out to me.
The plane was instrument-equipped, but not instrument-qualified.
He said his gyros were not good. Aerobatics destroys gyros, and
it is hard to fly an RV without throwing in some loops and stuff
when you fly one. He said the only way to protect gyros is to
prohibit aerobatics or to remove them before you do that first loop.
Again te: the primerless painting. The factory rep implied that
he expected better results in the future.
__Bill Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
> > In the process of trying to build a mounting surface for my wingtip
> > strobe/position lites (A600-PG_PR Whelen). Don't have the unit since
> > money is a premium, but have the wire harness installed.
> >
> > Anyone have the exaact dimension of the base?. Should be about six inches
> > long and an inch or two wide.
> >
> > D. Meehan
In the for what it's worth category... A guy named Lyle Hefel from Iowa
(won some award at Oshkosh this year and a Wright Borthers award at Dayton)
sells some fiberglass inserts for mounting the combination strobe/position
lights (the ones including the rear facing white light...) on RV wing tips.
They not only position the light so it is vertical, but inset it slightly.
I believe the intent was to cut down on glare from the strobes.
Sort of like so:
\-------------------
\_
|
|
\
\
\______________
(Sorry for the barbaric artwork...)
Lyle also sells an engraved plastic self adhesive ring which is used to
label the knob for the manual elevator trim.
I don't have Lyle's address with me - send me email if you need it and I'll
look it up when I get home. Prices for both items were reasonable.
Tom Goeddel
RV-6A
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
coopext.cahe.wsu.edu!meehan(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: Wing tip strobe mnt |
Text item:
The best location is in-line with the first lightening holes behind the spar.
This will allow you to slide your aileron push-pull tubes in and out of the
wing, while the wing is installed on the fuse. I forgot them when doing my
final assembly, and having the holes in the wing tips saved my butt!
don w.
>
>
> In the process of trying to build a mounting surface for my wingtip
> strobe/position lites (A600-PG_PR Whelen). Don't have the unit since
> money is a premium, but have the wire harness installed.
>
> Anyone have the exaact dimension of the base?. Should be about six inches
> long and an inch or two wide.
>
> D. Meehan
>
I did my wing-tip light mounts a few weeks ago, as follows:
1. find the right spot to mount it (that's up to you)
2. make a mounting plate out of aluminum plate, allowing
for the wires and bolt the light assembly to it
3. cut a hole in the wingtip for the wires to pass through
4. make a mold; I used grey modeling clay to obtain a
streamlined shape that would look good; use of water
to smooth it was the final step
5. bake it at a low temperature for a bit (not too long or the
the clay will crack)
6. wax the mold real good!!!
7. lay a glass cloth over the mold and apply the resin (I used
polyester resin for this); I end up doing 3 layers
8. after the resin was cured, fiberglassed the assembly to the wingtip
(I used several poprivets for extra protection)
9. I made a slurry mixture and applied it to the bonded area; then
sanded it.
It worked out very nicely!
Gary Bataller
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 09:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Wing tip strobe mnt
From: tif312.ed.ray.com!bataller(at)matronics.com (Gary Bataller)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
> They not only position the light so it is vertical, but inset it slightly.
> I believe the intent was to cut down on glare from the strobes.
> Sort of like so:
>
> \-------------------
> \_
> |
> |
> \
> \
> \______________
I thought that the main reason for a vertical mounting surface for the
wingtip lights was so that there would be a legal lighting pattern
in the vertical direction. Without a mounting pad, the lights
are blocked vertically by the wingtip. So, what is the use of
this vertical mounting surface if it is indented?
John Henderson
Auburn University...18-0...We beat number 1, now we are number 1.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Rion Bourgeois" <71311.2116(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Oshkosh coverage on ESPN |
tonight.
/exit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | Flap hinge question |
Hi all,
Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial to fret over.
Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
RV-6A
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
> > They not only position the light so it is vertical, but inset it slightly.
> > I believe the intent was to cut down on glare from the strobes.
> I thought that the main reason for a vertical mounting surface for the
> wingtip lights was so that there would be a legal lighting pattern
> in the vertical direction. Without a mounting pad, the lights
> are blocked vertically by the wingtip. So, what is the use of
> this vertical mounting surface if it is indented?
A person I spoke to at Oshkosh who had used these mounts was the one who
said the purpose was to cut down on glare. Personally, I'm not sure
they'll do a lot in that area - the inset is not very much, maybe 1/2" or so.
The bottom still protrudes from the surface which wasn't clear at all from
my crude ascii sketch. I liked them for cosmetic reasons. They made the
installation look like it was planned rather than an after thought.
As with many aspects of homebuilding, there is no single right answer
that works for everybody. That seems particularly true with respect to
lighting options...
I've had several requests for Lyle's address, so here it is:
Lyle Hefel
2821 Elm Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
The tip light inserts are $20 for the pair, $5 for the engraved plastic
elevator trim knob label. Prices include shipping.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Meehan <meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap hinge question |
Hinge dimpling vs cntrsnk approach....
On our flap we dimpled w/o any problems at all. Be sure you have a good
quality dimple and that things are centered on the hinge. Makes for a
strong hole and attachment. Did this same thing for control surfaces and
had no problem there either.
Meehan/King Project -RV6A
Whidbey RV-ators
On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Tom Goeddel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
> flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
> distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
> spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
> was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
> would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial to fret over.
>
> Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
> RV-6A
> t.goeddel(at)att.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Wing tip strobe mnt Sun & Fun variations -Reply |
> > They not only position the light so it
is vertical, but inset it slightly.
> > I believe the intent was to cut down on
glare from the strobes.
> I thought that the main reason for a
vertical mounting surface for the
> wingtip lights was so that there would be
a legal lighting pattern
> in the vertical direction. Without a
mounting pad, the lights
> are blocked vertically by the wingtip.
So, what is the use of
> this vertical mounting surface if it is
indented?
A person I spoke to at Oshkosh who had used
these mounts was the one who said the
purpose was to cut down on glare.
Personally, I'm not sure they'll do a lot
in that area - the inset is not very much,
maybe 1/2" or so.
The bottom still protrudes from the surface
which wasn't clear at all from my crude
ascii sketch. I liked them for cosmetic
reasons. They made the installation look
like it was planned rather than an after
thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My wife and I took pictures of every
wingtip strobe installation at Sun & Fun
last spring. Unfortunately I don't remember
seeing Lyle's installaton represented
there. The one we both agreed on that
looked the most like it wasn't an after
thought was very similar to what Gary
Bataller described for adding a steamlined
bulge mounting pad with one added touch
that really dressed it up. The wing tips
where painted with the trim color (in this
case metallic purple) and then the metal
housing of the light assembly and its
mounting bulge were also painted in that
same color to match the tip. It gave the
illusion of being a part of the tip, yet it
still provided for the full vertical and
horizontal radiation of the light. I
thought it was simple but quite elegant. I
don't see why this would not look as good
even if tips are painted white like most
aircraft.
Jim Schmidt
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As with many aspects of homebuilding, there
is no single right answer that works for
everybody. That seems particularly true
with respect to lighting options...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Of RV-4s and John Harmon's Rocket II |
I spoke with John Harmon yesterday about his Rocket II design/kit. It
is more like a RV-4 than I had originally thought. Apparently, you still
order the tail, wings, and fuse kits from Vans and get his mod and
finishing kit
I questioned him on the structural ramifications of adding all that weight
and horsepower to the RV-4 airframe. His reply caught my attention, and
raised some suspicion.
John claimed the RV-4 was originally designed with the six cylinder lyc's
in mind. And that they were quite capable of tolerating the added stresses.
Could this be so?
He also claimed he flutter tested both flying examples to over 300 indicated
at 10,000ft. On basic RV-4 wings? Come on...??!!
Sounds like a heck of an airplane on paper, but I'm not so sure the necessary
engineering has been performed.
When I alluded to this feeling John claimed there was much concern over the
engineering analysis done by Van in the first place... now go figure...
I'd sure like to see 10 flying before I fork over some dough.
James Sleigh
Test Engineering
Sikorsky Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Meehan <meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe REPLY |
Original Question:
What dimensions for the base of the strobe A600-PR-PG?
As to where to mount? Goedell had good thought about the lightning hole
yyou would use to slig puch rod through. Also very important is to
obtain the 30 degree vertical clearnace with the position lights. I know
the strobe will easily clear, but the position lites site low on the
mount and it seems they will not be seen at the proper angle if inset
into the tip.
Don Meehan
Whidbey RV-ators -RV6-A project
________________________________________________________________________________
Somebody posted that you can put your nav lights where you want to. Well,
only sort of. There are visibility requirements for the nav lights, and if
you put them under the wing where they're not visible from above, they're not
legal for night flight. At the Watsonville air show, as a homebuilt judge, I
caught three planes with this error!
Ed Wischmeyer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RE: Flap hinge question |
I used the dimple method. The hinge will curve put it pulls back in
line when you cleco/rivet it.
ONE NOTE OF CAUTION. You need to be very carefull where you place
the hinge laterally on the wing. I had the following problem as did
another builder here. My flap inboard edge rubs on the fuselage!
I used the recommended 1/4 inch spacing between the aileron.
I found this out AFTER I installed the wing and had drilled the rear
spar attach bolt hole (with the flap off). When I installed the flap
I found the interference problem. If I knew before I drilled the
spar attach hole, I think I could have moved the tip of each wing
forward a little. At this point, I think I have to drill out the
hinge and use a new hinge and shift it over a little.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
> flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
> distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
> spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
> was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
> would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial to fret over.
>
> Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
> RV-6A
> t.goeddel(at)att.com
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave.Bonorden(at)amd.com (Dave Bonorden) |
| Subject: | Of RV-4s and John Harmon's Rocket II |
> John claimed the RV-4 was originally designed with the six cylinder lyc's
> in mind. And that they were quite capable of tolerating the added stresses.
> Could this be so?
News to me as well!
>
> He also claimed he flutter tested both flying examples to over 300 indicated
> at 10,000ft. On basic RV-4 wings? Come on...??!!
Well, they're RV-4 wings that have been shorted. This should make them
more stiff and resistant to flutter. This also decreases the bending
moment on the spar box.
An acquantance of mine got a ride
in the Rocket and reported seeing 275 mph indicated! This was an
airline Captain, former navy A-4 and F-4 pilot. He was impressed.
> Sounds like a heck of an airplane on paper, but I'm not so sure the
> necessary engineering has been performed.
I've heard that Harmon had a stuctural analysis done by a competent
engineer. I'd like to have a better feeling about it than that! Harmon
does add thicker skins in several places and stronger mounts for the
engine/landing gear mounts.
> When I alluded to this feeling John claimed there was much concern over the
> engineering analysis done by Van in the first place... now go figure...
Again, news to me! I've always had the feeling (can't remember if this
was just from rumor or from a reliable source) that the horizontal
stabilizer was the least strong component in the RV design. Interesting
that this is one of the few unmodified components for the Rocket.
> I'd sure like to see 10 flying before I fork over some dough.
I don't think you'll have to wait very long.
> James Sleigh
> Test Engineering
> Sikorsky Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: Wing tip strobe mnt Sun & Fun variations -Reply |
Text item:
Jim, I noticed on Les William's award winning RV-6A that he had done that, it
does look very good. His is metallic purple, could have been his RV.
dw
>bulge mounting pad with one added touch
>that really dressed it up. The wing tips
>where painted with the trim color (in this
>case metallic purple) and then the metal
>housing of the light assembly and its
>mounting bulge were also painted in that
>same color to match the tip. It gave the
>illusion of being a part of the tip, yet it
>still provided for the full vertical and
>horizontal radiation of the light. I
>thought it was simple but quite elegant.
>Jim Schmidt
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: Wing tip strobe mnt Sun & Fun variations -Reply
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:12:12 -0600
From: mail.mei.com!JIM-SCHMIDT(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh coverage on ESPN |
Text item:
Did anyone in the Ptlnd area tape it? I don't have cable.
dw
tonight.
/exit
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Oshkosh coverage on ESPN
From: "J. Rion Bourgeois" <compuserve.com!71311.2116(at)matronics.com>
Date: 17 Oct 94 18:08:37 EDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Flap hinge question |
Text item:
To add to this dimple issue, I even used my older dimple dies to dimple the
K-1000 nut plates when necessary, worked fine.
dw
>Hinge dimpling vs cntrsnk approach....
>On our flap we dimpled w/o any problems at all. Be sure you have a good
>quality dimple and that things are centered on the hinge. Makes for a
>strong hole and attachment. Did this same thing for control surfaces and
>had no problem there either.
>Meehan/King Project -RV6A
>Whidbey RV-ators
>On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Tom Goeddel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
> flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
> distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
> spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
> was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
> would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial
to fret over.
>
> Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
> RV-6A
> t.goeddel(at)att.com
>
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: Flap hinge question
From: Don Meehan <coopext.cahe.wsu.edu!meehan(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
| Subject: | RE: Flap hinge question |
I had this same problem of flap/fuselage interference. I believe that in
constructing the flap the angle the root flap rib is attached to the flap
spar is shown too shallow on the plans. The plans show indenting the top
of the rib .25" on the spar to achieve the proper dihedral angle on the
flap root end. On my RV-4 it could have been almost twice that amount.
The side fuselage skin at this point angles outward toward the top of the
flap, if at all, aggrevating a close clearance problem at best.
If you haven't built your flaps you might want to make them a little
shorter or leave the root rib undrilled until you get ready to install them
on the wing (with the wing on the plane). This way you can achieve a
custom fit without having to drill out hinges or worse. I,m sure if
everything was exactly as the plans show everything would fit fine - its
just not qquite that perfect in the real world.
Riveted my last skin in place over the weekend - "just" fairings, painting,
and a million details before breaking the surly bonds.
RB
> I used the dimple method. The hinge will curve put it pulls back in
> line when you cleco/rivet it.
>
> ONE NOTE OF CAUTION. You need to be very carefull where you place
> the hinge laterally on the wing. I had the following problem as did
> another builder here. My flap inboard edge rubs on the fuselage!
> I used the recommended 1/4 inch spacing between the aileron.
> I found this out AFTER I installed the wing and had drilled the rear
> spar attach bolt hole (with the flap off). When I installed the flap
> I found the interference problem. If I knew before I drilled the
> spar attach hole, I think I could have moved the tip of each wing
> forward a little. At this point, I think I have to drill out the
> hinge and use a new hinge and shift it over a little.
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
>> flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
>> distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
>> spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
>> was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
>> would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial to fret
>>over.
>>
>> Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
>> RV-6A
>> t.goeddel(at)att.com
>>
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
>AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
>phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
>ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
>mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re[3]: Flap hinge question |
Tom,
The hinge material is very soft and hard to work, even plain
drilling can distort it. The previous replies do not mention that there
are actually 3 layers of material involved in this assembly ...
.. from the outside in .. A. skin B. flap spar/stiffening web C. hinge.
The method most local LA builders have used is:
A. skin -- Dimple
B. spar/web -- Countersink
C. hinge -- Plain hole
This seems to work well and is the least machining on the soft
hinge material.
hope this helps ... Gil Alexander RV6A #20701
Assembling fuse. structure .. what a lot of parts to prime!!
PS. I usually prefer to dimple everything, but this is one exception!
>Hi all,
>
>Any thoughts on dimpling versus countersinking for attaching the hinge to the
>flap? Dimpling would be simple, but the manual warns about dimpling
>distorting the hinge. Countersinking (dimple the skin, countersink the
>spar to receive the skin's dimple) ought to work (since it's .040), but I
>was wondering if that weakened the attachment any. My guess is either way
>would work fine, but, hey, I'm entitled to find something trivial to fret over.
>
>Tom "I used to have hair" Goeddel
>RV-6A
>t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
Just to clarify things (or confuse?) a bit, the tip light mounting insets
that Lyle Hefel sells are still basically a "bulge" under the tip which
provides a vertical surface for mounting the light unit. It's just inset
a little (1/2" or so):
\------------ \------------- \--------------
\ - ---
| | |
|__ |_ |
\ \ \
\ \ \
\______ \_______ \________
Plain bulge Small inset Not this!
(I should have taken ASCII Drafting 101 in school - a photo would really
simplify this discussion...)
I believe the lights will still protrude enough past the end of the tip to
meet the visability requirements. I'll have to go back and look at the photos
I took at Oshkosh...
Tom Goeddel
RV-6A
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Flap hinge question |
> To add to this dimple issue, I even used my older dimple dies to dimple the
> K-1000 nut plates when necessary, worked fine.
> dw
Huh? Am I stupid or something? (don't answer that) Are you talking
about actually dimpling the nut plates or the skin that
the K-1100 nutplates are riveted to? I don't get how you would go
about dimpling a nut plate using dimple dies. Seems to me you could
only use the male die, but what would you back it up with?
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Merlin Handley <mhandley(at)bga.com> |
| Subject: | Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
A while back I saw a formation photo of several RV', possibly RV-4's.
They were all painted bright yellow with blue horizontal stripes. I find
this paint job very striking. Does anybody know where I can get a photo
of these aircraft or in which magazine the photos appeared.
Thanks in advance,
M. Handley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
>--------------
> A while back I saw a formation photo of several RV', possibly RV-4's.
> They were all painted bright yellow with blue horizontal stripes. I find
> this paint job very striking. Does anybody know where I can get a photo
> of these aircraft or in which magazine the photos appeared.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> M. Handley
>--------------
I was in Sport Aviation about 2 months ago I think.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RUSS_NICHOLS(at)fire.ca.gov |
>From RUSS_NICHOLS Tue Oct 18 17:04:44 0700 1994 remote from ccgate.fire.ca.gov
From: RUSS_NICHOLS(at)ccgate.fire.ca.gov
Subject: RV pictures
In looking through an archive file for this mailing list, I
stumbled upon numerous messages that give the locations of
various RV pictures. However, the information seems to be
outdated.
In short, I'm looking for RV bitmaps, GIFs, TIFFs, or
anything else that I can get my hands on.
thanks,
Russ Nichols
almost RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Miner" <dougm(at)qm.WV.TEK.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]- Flap hinge quest |
Reply to: RE>>Re[2]: Flap hinge question
Randall, Don has a very big neighbor named Gunther... that dude could =
dimple anything... have you noticed the brake peddles on the pilots side =
of 790DW? Gunther did those by H A N D ....
Dougman.
--------------------------------------
Date: 10/19/1994 8:24 AM
From: Randall Henderson
> To add to this dimple issue, I even used my older dimple dies to dimple =
the
> K-1000 nut plates when necessary, worked fine.
> dw
Huh? Am I stupid or something? (don't answer that) Are you talking
about actually dimpling the nut plates or the skin that
the K-1100 nutplates are riveted to? I don't get how you would go
about dimpling a nut plate using dimple dies. Seems to me you could
only use the male die, but what would you back it up with?
Randall
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
(8.6.4/SMI-4.1)
(8.6.4/SMI-4.1)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 17:12:26 -0700
From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.COM (Randall Henderson)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Flap hinge question
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
>
> Somebody posted that you can put your nav lights where you want to. Well,
> only sort of. There are visibility requirements for the nav lights, and if
> you put them under the wing where they're not visible from above, they're not
> legal for night flight. At the Watsonville air show, as a homebuilt judge, I
> caught three planes with this error!
>
> Ed Wischmeyer
>
On my RV6A the dimensions for my light-mount is as follows:
(measured from the centerpoint of the large, foward-position light):
16" from the leading-edge (if projected across the wingtip)
17" foward of the built-in NAV antenna (mounted flat in the top of
the wingtip.
Looks good and is accessible from the landing light hole.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Flap Hinge Question |
Text item: Text_1
Tom:
I had to go back and read how I did this, but maybe it's worth passing
on. To attach the flap-
1. Clamp on the flap and drill its hinge through the skin.
2. Remove the flap and clamp the flap brace to the skin and drill it.
3. Remove the flap hinge pin and cleco the hinge half to the OUTSIDE of
the skin and countersink it. The wing skin holds the hinge so you can
zap right through the countersinking, and it also provides better backup
for the bit pilot.
4. Dimple the skin and flap brace.
5. Rivet together.
Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[4]: Flap hinge question |
Text item:
I have several 'cheap' dimple dies that I ground-off on one side to make
rib dimpling, tight spots, etc, easier. Using one of these it was easy
to dimple the nut plates, using the Avery tool so I could give it a good
whack with a hammer.
These are especially handy for access holes, etc, where you need flush
fitting rivets under a cover plate, etc. When the material is marginal
for countersinking, I just dimple the whole works.
dw
>> To add to this dimple issue, I even used my older dimple dies to
>dimple the > K-1000 nut plates when necessary, worked fine.
>> dw
>Huh? Am I stupid or something? (don't answer that) Are you talking
>about actually dimpling the nut plates or the skin that
>the K-1100 nutplates are riveted to? (YES, BOTH) I don't get how you
>would go about dimpling a nut plate using dimple dies. Seems to me you
>could only use the male die, but what would you back it up with?
>Randall
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Flap hinge question
From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 17:12:26 -0700
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Subaru Engine in a RV ?? |
Howdy,
Below is the responce I sent to an inquiry about using a Subaru engine in
a RV. If there are differing opinions I for one would like to hear them.
I AM Always interested in learning.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
****************************** From My Posting ****************
Subject: Re: Subaru Powered RV
________________________________________________________________________________
rec.aviation.homebuilt #7266 (14 + 28 more) [1]
| From: | us245566(at)cc025.mmm.com (Jody Gregg cc0193) |
[1] Subaru Powered RV
Hello All,
A friend is building an RV and is interested in alternatives to conventional
power plants. This post is on his behalf as he has no net access.
RV Builders:
Has anyone used a Subaru 3.3 liter SVX flat six in their RV?
I know about NSI and their 1.6 liter conversions and the future of 2.2 liter
with 160 HP and 180 HP for turbo. I'm looking at the SVX, but with an Ellison
throttle body and dual CDI. This eliminates the engine computer redundancy
problem and high pressure fuel pump/flow back problem. I'd also use an air
adjustable variable pitch Ivoprop, an oberg oil filter, and an aluminum
two part radiator where oil is also introduced for optimum oil temperature.
Also I'd make an adapter plate between my existing DF-1 engine mount and the
SVX, and use a belt reduction unit.
If anyone has done this.... so not to reinvent the layout specifics, I would
appreciate comparing notes.
Any information, opinions, advice is appreciated.
Regards , J.L.Gregg for George W. Blok
jlgregg(at)mmm.com
end of usenet message.......
Howdy Jody,
I have heard of a fellow who has put in a Subaru in a RV-6. I know it flys
I don't know for how long it will fly. Have your friend call Van and ask
for the Subaru fellows name and address.
I agree there should be an alternative to aircraft engines. But the
alternative usually costs the same if not more and the headaches are
far greater. You are inventing a high tech wheel.
Talking to the fellow who has a Chevy (maybe its a ford) V8 in his
BD-4. He says he has spent $25,000 on the engine, he tears it down
each year, and he still has had problems. (Broke the valve retainers, had to
go to Titanium retainers)
I feel the ideal engine would a Chevy Alum V-6 3.6L running an air-flow
mech injection. Of course all of this, crank, rods, pistons, etc would
be all racing quality.
Case in point. Say specific fuel consumption (sfc) is .5 lbs/horsepower/hr for
all engines. (A Subaru is about .38/lb/hp/hr). My friends RV-6 uses
8.5 gal/hr @185mph TAS. thats 51 lbs/hr. Or 102 hp. Now most modern auto
engines get say 25mpg, at 70mph that gives a burn rate of 2.8 gallons of
fuel. With our .5 sfc engine that's 33.6 hp. With a .38 sfc engine that
engine is producing 44.2 hp. By say shifting to a lower gear, to increase
rpm's (simulating the rpm's needed in aircraft usage) the fuel consumption
will not increase very much.
The whole point of the above is that, the argument auto engines last a long
time and should work for a long time in an aircraft does not really hold
water. The reason is that the rpm may be in the arena of aircraft usage,
but the power output level is nowhere near what is used in an aircraft.
Auto engines can be made to sustain that horsepower level, but that costs
$$$. If the idea is to prove a point and experiment, Do It!!! But if the
reasoning is to save money. Buy an older O-320, put it in, don't spend the
time fussing with fuel, spark, mounts, radiator, and just go fly.
Also there is a mailer for RV builders rv-list-request(at)matronics.com
it's a good list and we talk RV's.
Thanks, keep us posted of progress.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Re: Yellow RV paint job |
I think you are refering to the flight demostration team all flying RV-3s
, the Vanguards, I think. They fly RV-3s painted in a Yellow, blue&silver
scheme.
I'll look to see if I have any pictures to scan.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
Text item:
They were the methanol burning RV-3s of which there are 6 or 7, along
with an RV-6A now, all painted alike. There was a nice shot of 4 in a
diamond formation in the 92 RV calendar. I still have a copy, I could
try to scan it for you and send it on a diskette....
dw
>A while back I saw a formation photo of several RV', possibly RV-4's.
>They were all painted bright yellow with blue horizontal stripes. I
>find this paint job very striking. Does anybody know where I can get a
>photo of these aircraft or in which magazine the photos appeared.
>Thanks in advance,
>M. Handley
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme
From: Merlin Handley <bga.com!mhandley(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 15:55:27 -0500 (CDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ward Myke" <ward_myke(at)macmail1.cig.mot.com> |
Matt,
Could you kindly put me on the RV mailing list? Thanks greatly
Myke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
> A while back I saw a formation photo of several RV', possibly RV-4's.
> They were all painted bright yellow with blue horizontal stripes. I find
> this paint job very striking. Does anybody know where I can get a photo
> of these aircraft or in which magazine the photos appeared.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> M. Handley
>
It was in Sport Aviation a couple of years ago -- I'll look it up.
They're RV-3s, and have all been converted to run on ethanol as part
of an ethanol conversion experiment/promotion program. I forget
where they're based, somewhere in the midwest, or texas or something.
Randall Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | They're coming.... |
Well it looks like our days of indiscriminately trashing Van's Aircraft
on the net are coming to an end -- I've been working with Ken Scott
to get them a Modem and internet account, and they're on the verge of
getting CONNECTED!
I have to admit to some concern that the presence of "big brother"
could temper some of the rumors and whining about plans, etc., that we
like to throw around, but in general I'm looking forward to having
input from the company on some of the things we discuss here. Besides,
Ken is a pretty opinionated guy, so he should fit right in!
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
They were the methanol burning RV-3s of which there are 6 or 7, along
with an RV-6A now, all painted alike. There was a nice shot of 4 in a
diamond formation in the 92 RV calendar. I still have a copy, I could
try to scan it for you and send it on a diskette....
dw
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, if you can scan it, how about posting it? Or encoding it and sending
it out on the list!
Sure would make a nice wallpaper for my windows! (actually, I'd probably get
nothing done all day thinking about the project :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)claris.com> |
Now, I have a few pictures I took at the RV Fly-in at Scappoose a little
while ago, which I could scan and make available for FTP, but I don't have a
machine here I can allow to FTP (I'm behind a firewall). I CAN FTP them TO a
site, if anyone has one. It would be nice if I could show them first to
someone (Don?) who can identify the planes so I can put identifying
information on the JPEGs I would produce.
(I consider that JPEG is a better format for scanning pictures and other 24
bit images. GIF is more compact for computer generated images, especially
those with large ares of the same color. However, converting files from GIF
to JPEG is a waste, destroying detail for little gain.)
There are about a dozen or so pictures. A few are shots of various 6*
cockpit layouts, the rest are of completed planes, with a detail shot of an
interesting position light installation (Little red windows in a wingtip).
--
Have you ever seen a disclaimer say "my opinions ARE my employer's."?
--- Don't answer that!
"Wait a minute, you expect us innocent children to climb up dangerous
scaffolding and paint naked people all over a church? We'll do it!!"
-- Yakko Warner, Animaniacs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Jigs: metal vs wood |
My RV-6 emennage kit arrived last week, so I've started thinking
about building the jig and getting started. Have you been to the
lumber yard for straight, dry wood recently? At least around here
(Phoenix, Arizona) it just doen't exist.
However, a trip to the local steel/aluminum yard revealed that I
can get enough brand new 4-inch aluminum channel to build the jig
for about a hundred bucks. that's only about twice what the
crooked 4x4's would cost.
Guess what my jig will be made from?
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV6 SN 23744
Empennage under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
>> Hey, if you can scan it, how about posting it? Or encoding it and sending
> it out on the list!
>
> Sure would make a nice wallpaper for my windows! (actually, I'd probably get
> nothing done all day thinking about the project :-)
>
Yeah, Don...
And while you're at it, do you have a picture of 790DW yet? I didn't
get any good pictures with it in the hangar. I'm also surprised
that I didn't take any pictures of your beautiful panel -- that's
usually the first thing i photograph on an RV.
John Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | They're coming.... -Reply |
Well it looks like our days of
indiscriminately trashing Van's Aircraft on
the net are coming to an end -- I've been
working with Ken Scott to get them a Modem
and internet account, and they're on the
verge of getting CONNECTED!
I have to admit to some concern that the
presence of "big brother" could temper some
of the rumors and whining about plans,
etc., that we like to throw around, but in
general I'm looking forward to having input
from the company on some of the things we
discuss here. Besides,
Ken is a pretty opinionated guy, so he
should fit right in!
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
I for one think its a great idea. What
better way to get VAN's point of view not
to mention possibly all the other things
up to date companies provide with BBS type
services. We should be able to get part
numbers, change notices, and have a voice
in directions the company may be heading.
Jim Schmidt
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John.Morrissey(at)its.csiro.au |
| Subject: | Re: They're coming.... |
Hey does that mean I can order a RV kit on the Net - Aircraft by
internet - has a nice ring to it. :-) This could save me a heap in
overseas Fax and phone calls, Hmmm what could I buy with the extra
cash???
John Morrissey
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: They're coming....
Date: 10/19/94 11:18 AM
Well it looks like our days of indiscriminately trashing Van's Aircraft
on the net are coming to an end -- I've been working with Ken Scott
to get them a Modem and internet account, and they're on the verge of
getting CONNECTED!
I have to admit to some concern that the presence of "big brother"
could temper some of the rumors and whining about plans, etc., that we
like to throw around, but in general I'm looking forward to having
input from the company on some of the things we discuss here. Besides,
Ken is a pretty opinionated guy, so he should fit right in!
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
Still waiting for the right air-air shot. Van took some nice ones during a
recent several RV photo shoot, but he hasn't released one to me yet (I'm
keeping my fingers crossed that my -6 will be in the 95 Van's Aircraft
Calendar, which is going to press soon. 50-50 chance I'll get in there). I
do have some decent on the ground ones that I will scan. I think we lost
our 'photo server' that the RV-list was using, so not sure how to
proliferate them.
dw
>> Hey, if you can scan it, how about posting it? Or encoding it and sending
> it out on the list!
>
> Sure would make a nice wallpaper for my windows! (actually, I'd probably get
> nothing done all day thinking about the project :-)
>
Yeah, Don...
And while you're at it, do you have a picture of 790DW yet? I didn't
get any good pictures with it in the hangar. I'm also surprised
that I didn't take any pictures of your beautiful panel -- that's
usually the first thing i photograph on an RV.
John Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)claris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: They're coming.... |
[Van's on the net]
I can just imagine the shit that will hit the fan when the discussion of the
Harmon Rocket comes up.
BTW, I saw that ESPN coverage of Oshkosh. It was wonderful. Although none
of them were featured, I saw a lot of RV's on the field, and they did mention
that an RV-3 had the old time to climb to 6000m record, and it took a purpose
built aircraft to do it. ("Pushy Galore" Christ!)
What I'm waiting for is an episode of Wings (The Discovery Channel one, not
the sitcom) to cover homebuilts.
--
Have you ever seen a disclaimer say "my opinions ARE my employer's."?
--- Don't answer that!
"Wait a minute, you expect us innocent children to climb up dangerous
scaffolding and paint naked people all over a church? We'll do it!!"
-- Yakko Warner, Animaniacs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | re: Inboard flap end (was Flap hinge question) |
Hi all,
> I had this same problem of flap/fuselage interference. I believe that in
> constructing the flap the angle the root flap rib is attached to the flap
> spar is shown too shallow on the plans. The plans show indenting the top
> of the rib .25" on the spar to achieve the proper dihedral angle on the
> flap root end. On my RV-4 it could have been almost twice that amount.
> The side fuselage skin at this point angles outward toward the top of the
> flap, if at all, aggrevating a close clearance problem at best.
>
> If you haven't built your flaps you might want to make them a little
> shorter or leave the root rib undrilled until you get ready to install them
> on the wing (with the wing on the plane). This way you can achieve a
> custom fit without having to drill out hinges or worse. I,m sure if
> everything was exactly as the plans show everything would fit fine - its
> just not qquite that perfect in the real world.
Is this just a RV-4 problem or does it come into play on the RV-6 as well?
It looks to me that on the -6 the inboard top side of the flap has a 1/2"
skin overhang beyond the inboard rib that would be easy to trim if needed to
get a good fit with the fuselage. Do I have that right, or am I missing
something? Sometimes it's hard to visualize the completed assembly from the
plans...
BTW - should that 1/2" overhang be left a little long at this point?
This whole process would go a lot faster if Don would just fly his plane out to
New Jersey and park it in my yard so I have something to look at when
questions come up. I'd only need to borrow it for another 4 or 5 years...
Tom Goeddel
RV-6A (Slooowly I build, step by step, inch by inch...)
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Saftey Concern About Emergency Egress |
I read the following message on the USENET .homebuilt newsgroup. I had
been thinking about this possibility and wondering what I'd do if in
a -4 (or -6) that was on its lid.
Probably a good idea to carry a little hatchet strapped to the side
of the fuse...
************************************************************************
From: deene(at)ibmoto.com (Deene Ogden)
Subj: Re: Seawind loses canopy
Date: 17 Oct 1994 11:30:59 -0500
I have two close friends who have flipped a RV (RV4 and RV6) in
which they had extreme difficulty getting out after the dust
settled. Fortunately, there was no fires.
In the RV4 accident, the plane flipped after a forced landing
(bad oil hose) in soft dirt field. Canopy cracked but the pilot
had to wait for two people from a nearby highway to lift the
plane to allow his exit. He carried no canopy knife (axe) but does
now.
In the RV6 incident, again the plane flipped in soft dirt
on the edge of a runway. The canopy cracked and the pilot
was able to break enough more out to climb out, followed
by his passenger. He carried a knife, but had not secured
it adequately and could not reach it.
In both these cases, a fire would have been disastrous. A good
canopy knife made from a small camping axe is mandatory.
Regards, Deene Ogden.
*************************************************************************
Let's hear from the flying guys. What are *your* plans of egress?
Also, I noticed the Harmon lacks any roll bar. I guess you would need
not to worry about egress after flipping one of those .
James Sleigh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: Saftey Concern About Emergency Egress |
>
> I read the following message on the USENET .homebuilt newsgroup. I had
> been thinking about this possibility and wondering what I'd do if in
> a -4 (or -6) that was on its lid.
I saw a -6A with a nice door to the baggage compartment built
into the side. The builder pointed out that if the plane flipped,
he could get out through the side door. (Though some of the bigger
people around point out they could not.)
John Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Question: Safety Concern About Emergency Egress |
RVers,
Not wishing to re-ignite the 6 vs 6A e-mail wars, but would a 6A
flip over in a landing in a soft dirt field, or would the impact, and
subsequent removal, of the nose gear dissipate enough energy to prevent a
flip??
I think all of the flipped planes I have seen due to landing
accidents were taildraggers. (these comments not applicable to windstorm
damage though).
Gil Alexander RV6A #20701 .. lots of primed fuse. frame parts!
> I read the following message on the USENET .homebuilt newsgroup. I had
> been thinking about this possibility and wondering what I'd do if in
> a -4 (or -6) that was on its lid.
>
> Probably a good idea to carry a little hatchet strapped to the side
> of the fuse...
>
>************************************************************************
>
>From: deene(at)ibmoto.com (Deene Ogden)
>Subj: Re: Seawind loses canopy
>Date: 17 Oct 1994 11:30:59 -0500
>
>I have two close friends who have flipped a RV (RV4 and RV6) in
>which they had extreme difficulty getting out after the dust
>settled. Fortunately, there was no fires.
>
>In the RV4 accident, the plane flipped after a forced landing
>(bad oil hose) in soft dirt field. Canopy cracked but the pilot
>had to wait for two people from a nearby highway to lift the
>plane to allow his exit. He carried no canopy knife (axe) but does
>now.
>
>In the RV6 incident, again the plane flipped in soft dirt
>on the edge of a runway. The canopy cracked and the pilot
>was able to break enough more out to climb out, followed
>by his passenger. He carried a knife, but had not secured
>it adequately and could not reach it.
>
>In both these cases, a fire would have been disastrous. A good
>canopy knife made from a small camping axe is mandatory.
>
>Regards, Deene Ogden.
>
>*************************************************************************
>
> Let's hear from the flying guys. What are *your* plans of egress?
>
> Also, I noticed the Harmon lacks any roll bar. I guess you would need
> not to worry about egress after flipping one of those .
>
> James Sleigh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Saftey Concern About Emergency Egress |
The front of the spar in a -6 would be a perfect place to velcro a tool,
from a CG, easy to reach, and out of site of admirers perspective.
dw
I read the following message on the USENET .homebuilt newsgroup. I had
been thinking about this possibility and wondering what I'd do if in
a -4 (or -6) that was on its lid.
Probably a good idea to carry a little hatchet strapped to the side
of the fuse...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Inboard flap end (was Flap hinge question) |
Text item:
>Is this just a RV-4 problem or does it come into play on the RV-6 as well?
>It looks to me that on the -6 the inboard top side of the flap has a 1/2"
>skin overhang beyond the inboard rib that would be easy to trim if needed
>to get a good fit with the fuselage. Do I have that right, or am I missing
>something? Sometimes it's hard to visualize the completed assembly from the
>plans...
It seems to be mostly RV-4.
>BTW - should that 1/2" overhang be left a little long at this point?
ALWAYS leave 'trimmings' too long until you are fitting them to what
they mate with. This makes-it a whole lot easier later on. I found
that the early parts I did and left 1/2" for fitting tips to was not
enough.
>This whole process would go a lot faster if Don would just fly his plane out to
>New Jersey and park it in my yard so I have something to look at when
>questions come up. I'd only need to borrow it for another 4 or 5 years...
Sure, I can do that - NOT!
No plans for next summer yet, although several folks trying to talk me
into Sun-n-Fun...
Might could 'swing-up the coast', never know.
dw
>Tom Goeddel
>RV-6A (Slooowly I build, step by step, inch by inch...)
>t.goeddel(at)att.com
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: re: Inboard flap end (was Flap hinge question)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 94 09:00:39 EDT
From: blink.att.com!twg(at)matronics.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278))
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Meehan <meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Need Canopy Buying advc |
Group,
About to order fuselage kit (RV6A) and have to make up our minds on which
canopy to go with. Like standard one for simplicty, cost, leak protection(wind
& water). Any thoughts from those who are making said decison as well.
Thanks
Don Meehan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Del Armstrong <dela(at)ceas.rochester.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking photo of my favorite paint scheme |
Merlin Handley writes:
>
> A while back I saw a formation photo of several RV', possibly RV-4's.
> They were all painted bright yellow with blue horizontal stripes.
The August calendar of this year's EAA calendar has a nice air-to-air
photo of them.
Del Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dela(at)ceas.rochester.edu rutgers!ur-valhalla!dela (716)275-5342
Computing and Networking Group, School of Engineering
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Saftey Concern About Emergency Egress (fwd) |
I don't like the idea of using 'velcro' and attaching it to the
front of the spar. In a high G impact, the tool may fly loose and
end up someplace that you can not reach it. It may also damage your
foot. For example, a 10 G impact might not be uncommon in a 'minor'
hit the ground and nose over. Assuming most impacts are in a forward
direction, the rear side of the spar may be better.
It should be secured in such a way that it will not come loose.
Same goes for a fire extinguisher(sp?).
Herman
>
> The front of the spar in a -6 would be a perfect place to velcro a tool,
> from a CG, easy to reach, and out of site of admirers perspective.
> dw
>
>
>
>
> I read the following message on the USENET .homebuilt newsgroup. I had
> been thinking about this possibility and wondering what I'd do if in
> a -4 (or -6) that was on its lid.
>
> Probably a good idea to carry a little hatchet strapped to the side
> of the fuse...
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can an RV-6A flip over? |
> Not wishing to re-ignite the 6 vs 6A e-mail wars, but would a 6A
> flip over in a landing in a soft dirt field, or would the impact, and
> subsequent removal, of the nose gear dissipate enough energy to prevent a
> flip??
I have seen several tricycle-gear airplanes on their backs due to a
flip-over. The usual scenario is the nosewheel hitting something
(chuckhole, soft spot, etc) at moderate speed. The nosegear goes into
the hole (or whatever), the nose goes down, the tail comes up, and the
airplane pivots on the nose and one wing right over onto its back.
There was a case here at PHX many years ago where a 182's Main gear hit
the airport boundry fence, and the airplane ended up on its back right
at the threshhold.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Canopy Buying advc |
Text item:
A very subjective thing.
I prefer the looks, simplicity, and behind the panel access of the tip up.
Since I don't live in a hot climate (portland OR), the advantage of being able
to open the slider for airflow doesn't apply. Once you begin the takeoff roll,
it doesn't matter anyway, it gets hot in there if the temp is above 85.
So I vote for the tip up.
dw
Group,
About to order fuselage kit (RV6A) and have to make up our minds on which
canopy to go with. Like standard one for simplicty, cost, leak protection(wind
& water). Any thoughts from those who are making said decison as well.
Thanks
Don Meehan
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Need Canopy Buying advc
From: Don Meehan <coopext.cahe.wsu.edu!meehan(at)matronics.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Can an RV-6A flip over? |
Text item:
>> Not wishing to re-ignite the 6 vs 6A e-mail wars, but would a 6A
>> flip over in a landing in a soft dirt field, or would the impact, and
>> subsequent removal, of the nose gear dissipate enough energy to prevent a
>> flip??
>I have seen several tricycle-gear airplanes on their backs due to a
>flip-over.
>There was a case here at PHX many years ago where a 182's Main gear hit
>the airport boundry fence, and the airplane ended up on its back right
>at the threshhold.
Any student pilot worth his salt can flip a C152. What about low-wing airplanes?
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: Can an RV-6A flip over?
From: "David A. Barnhart" <crl.com!barnhart(at)matronics.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 15:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Challenge?? was: Can an RV-6A flip over? |
OK ... I'm convinced ...
Challenge,
Let's put our collective heads to-gether and come up with
the ideal tool, and the ideal mounting system, for emergency canopy
breaking.
Gil Alexander RV6A
PS there was some discussion along the same lines in Soaring magazine a
year or two ago. One vendor advertised a custom made heavy, blunt
knive-like tool made from polished stainless steel. It was about $300, and
had no mounting provision. I hope we can collectively do better!!
>> Not wishing to re-ignite the 6 vs 6A e-mail wars, but would a 6A
>> flip over in a landing in a soft dirt field, or would the impact, and
>> subsequent removal, of the nose gear dissipate enough energy to prevent a
>> flip??
>
>I have seen several tricycle-gear airplanes on their backs due to a
>flip-over. The usual scenario is the nosewheel hitting something
>(chuckhole, soft spot, etc) at moderate speed. The nosegear goes into
>the hole (or whatever), the nose goes down, the tail comes up, and the
>airplane pivots on the nose and one wing right over onto its back.
>
>There was a case here at PHX many years ago where a 182's Main gear hit
>the airport boundry fence, and the airplane ended up on its back right
>at the threshhold.
>
>Best Regards,
>Dave Barnhart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | Need Canopy Buying advc -Reply |
Group,
About to order fuselage kit (RV6A) and have
to make up our minds on which canopy to go
with. Like standard one for simplicity,
cost, leak protection(wind & water). Any
thoughts from those who are making said
decision as well.
Thanks
Don Meehan
Don,
I have pondered on that decision myself. I
like the standard one for all the same
reasons. Being a glider pilot I appreciate
the simplicity and streamline. However, I
will most likely go the other way for two
reasons , one geographic the other
personal.
We currently live in Florida and with a
bubble type canopy I want to be able to
slide the bubble back and get some air
during ground operations.
Secondly my wife doesn't like being locked
into things and she didn't feel comfortable
in the tilt up that we sat in. People with
phobia's get uncomfortable when its hot and
no air is moving. She's fine in a Cub with
the doors open, just a lap belt on, hanging
out taking photos over the tire. Go figure!
Some how she says she will be okay with the
slider - just the thought of being able to
open it if she wants too.
Another difference to consider is the roll
over structure. In the slider its in front
of your face and on the tilt up its behind
you. I spoke with many owners of sliders at
Sun & Fun and they all said it was no real
disadvantage. They all lived it Texas and
liked the airflow.
Finally, one of the current discussions of
the group - flip over safety. Its possible
that the rudder will hold up the tail
enough that the slider could be pushed back
to effect egress.
Jim S.
RV6 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobe mnt |
The strobe/position light fiberglass mount I made consisted of 3 layers
of cloth. I embedded, under the top layer, an aluminum plate with 3
nutplates riveted on. This allows me to make the light assembly removable.
The plate was sized to be the same as the base of the light unit. The
fiberglass mount was positioned such that the plate is exactly (well, sort of)
perpendicular to the outer edge of the wingtip (for the visibility
requirements). I tapered the fiberglass mount, so exact measurements are
hard to give you. However....
The front of the mount tapers forward for about 1 3/4" and aft for about
1 1/2". Looking down from the top, the aluminum plate is about flush with
a projected downward perpendicular (oh, maybe about an 1/8" outward).
The aluminum plate top edge is tapers upwards about 1" and tapers down about
2 1/4". I had alot of fun with the black modeling clay, especially smoothing
it up with water; felt like the scene from Ghost.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
My input for the emergency egress tool:
1) Should be accessable from either seat
2) Should be *just* heavy enough to get the job done (gotta
haul this thing around ALL the time)
3) Needs to be secured such that it CAN NOT release inadvertantly
(lest it do its job on your skull during a inverted push!)
How about a small flat face hammer with a small, sharpened
pyramid nib welded to the hammer face?
About the RV-6 with the baggage door egress plan, I'd be skeptical
about really getting out that way. I fly Grumman Tigers and they
have the same deal. Even in that airplane with its much bigger cabin
I doubt one could contort himself from sitting on his head in a pile
with feet in footwells to a slithering position and shimmy over the
seat backs out that little (!) door. My plan is to open that dang
canopy *all* the way if I have to force-land.
James Sleigh
Sikorsky Aircraft
Test Engineering
(and RV-4 builder!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James M Wilson <James_M_Wilson(at)ccm.co.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Challenge?? was: Can an RV-6A flip over? |
Text item:
How about ??? :
- a screwdriver like tool
- with a hand drill type point to punch a hole in the plastic
- and a saw like shaft to cut the plastic open
The shaft could cut in any direction (i.e. round saw blade).
It would be used similar to a sheet rock saw.
MikeWilson
OK ... I'm convinced ...
Challenge,
Let's put our collective heads to-gether and come up with
the ideal tool, and the ideal mounting system, for emergency canopy
breaking.
Gil Alexander RV6A
PS there was some discussion along the same lines in Soaring magazine a
year or two ago. One vendor advertised a custom made heavy, blunt
knive-like tool made from polished stainless steel. It was about $300, and
had no mounting provision. I hope we can collectively do better!!
>> Not wishing to re-ignite the 6 vs 6A e-mail wars, but would a 6A
>> flip over in a landing in a soft dirt field, or would the impact, and
>> subsequent removal, of the nose gear dissipate enough energy to prevent a
>> flip??
>
>I have seen several tricycle-gear airplanes on their backs due to a
>flip-over. The usual scenario is the nosewheel hitting something
>(chuckhole, soft spot, etc) at moderate speed. The nosegear goes into
>the hole (or whatever), the nose goes down, the tail comes up, and the
>airplane pivots on the nose and one wing right over onto its back.
>
>There was a case here at PHX many years ago where a 182's Main gear hit
>the airport boundry fence, and the airplane ended up on its back right
>at the threshhold.
>
>Best Regards,
>Dave Barnhart
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Challenge?? was: Can an RV-6A flip over?
From: rassp.hac.com!gil(at)matronics.com (Gil Alexander)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 17:53:47 -0800
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Challenge?? was: Can an RV-6A flip over? |
Regarding emergency egress:
I like the idea of a small camping axe strapped to the front of the
spar, as it would double as an emergency survival tool. I agree you
wouldn't want to just have it "stuck" to the spar with patches of
velcro, but I would think that two or three nice wide Velcro straps
around the axe handle and head should provide adequate holding power in
high-Gs and would be easy to pull loose when needed. It would be easy
enough to test this by hanging 10x the weight of the axe from some
velcro straps screwed to a chunk of wood, and prudent for this or
anything that could potentially break loose inside of the cockpit.
But I was also thinking about the weight issue, and the fact that there
should be something you could use that's already in the cockpit. How
about the co-pilot's stick? In -6s at least a lot of people leave them
un-bolted. You could maybe modify it to make it a more effective
canopy buster by putting a short steel insert with a blunt point on it
in the bottom end. Would that interfere with anything? You'd want some
sort of latching mechanism with a quick release, which wouldn't be a
bad idea in any case.
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Challenge !! |
Text item:
> My plan is to open that dang
> canopy *all* the way if I have to force-land.
Which might make you RV-6 builders opt for a slider.....
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Challenge !!
Date: 21 Oct 1994 08:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: rcinet.utc.com!SIKJES(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Challenge !! (fwd) |
Several comments. I had a small axe when I was in Boy Scouts that
is close to what is needed. It was not very large and it was made
of a single piece of steel, estimate about 1/4 inch thick, and with
plastic grip riveted on. It was not much of an axe for heavy duty
wood chopping but it was for light chopping and back packing.
From several RV's that I know that have flipped over, I think the
canopy was broken in all cases. It would still be good to have the
tool just in case. Also, I like the small axe idea as you could
hack through the aluminum side if needed. The hammer would be OK
on the glass but would not do much for hacking out the side if needed.
>
>
> My input for the emergency egress tool:
>
> 1) Should be accessable from either seat
> 2) Should be *just* heavy enough to get the job done (gotta
> haul this thing around ALL the time)
> 3) Needs to be secured such that it CAN NOT release inadvertantly
> (lest it do its job on your skull during a inverted push!)
>
> How about a small flat face hammer with a small, sharpened
> pyramid nib welded to the hammer face?
>
> About the RV-6 with the baggage door egress plan, I'd be skeptical
> about really getting out that way. I fly Grumman Tigers and they
> have the same deal. Even in that airplane with its much bigger cabin
> I doubt one could contort himself from sitting on his head in a pile
> with feet in footwells to a slithering position and shimmy over the
> seat backs out that little (!) door. My plan is to open that dang
> canopy *all* the way if I have to force-land.
>
>
> James Sleigh
> Sikorsky Aircraft
> Test Engineering
> (and RV-4 builder!!)
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Challenge?? |
Randall ..... use a correct length "pip pin" instead of an AN3 bolt??
...... Gil Alexander
>Regarding emergency egress:
>
>I like the idea of a small camping axe strapped to the front of the
>spar, as it would double as an emergency survival tool. I agree you
>wouldn't want to just have it "stuck" to the spar with patches of
>velcro, but I would think that two or three nice wide Velcro straps
>around the axe handle and head should provide adequate holding power in
>high-Gs and would be easy to pull loose when needed. It would be easy
>enough to test this by hanging 10x the weight of the axe from some
>velcro straps screwed to a chunk of wood, and prudent for this or
>anything that could potentially break loose inside of the cockpit.
>
>But I was also thinking about the weight issue, and the fact that there
>should be something you could use that's already in the cockpit. How
>about the co-pilot's stick? In -6s at least a lot of people leave them
>un-bolted. You could maybe modify it to make it a more effective
>canopy buster by putting a short steel insert with a blunt point on it
>in the bottom end. Would that interfere with anything? You'd want some
>sort of latching mechanism with a quick release, which wouldn't be a
>bad idea in any case.
>
>Randall Henderson
>RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Challenge?? |
> Randall ..... use a correct length "pip pin" instead of an AN3 bolt??
>
> ...... Gil Alexander
>
Yeah that'd be the simplest to build, although I was also thinking
along the lines of something that would snap into place when you put
the stick in its socket, then have maybe a little release lever low on
the stick. This would be nice if your co-pilot wanted the thing out of
the way most of the time, and could just snap it in place in flight. In
a couple of RV-6s I've flown in that's the way it's set up, except
there's no latching mechanism, just stick it in there and fly.
Randall
> >
> >Regarding emergency egress:
> >
> >I like the idea of a small camping axe strapped to the front of the
> >spar, as it would double as an emergency survival tool. I agree you
> >wouldn't want to just have it "stuck" to the spar with patches of
> >velcro, but I would think that two or three nice wide Velcro straps
> >around the axe handle and head should provide adequate holding power in
> >high-Gs and would be easy to pull loose when needed. It would be easy
> >enough to test this by hanging 10x the weight of the axe from some
> >velcro straps screwed to a chunk of wood, and prudent for this or
> >anything that could potentially break loose inside of the cockpit.
> >
> >But I was also thinking about the weight issue, and the fact that there
> >should be something you could use that's already in the cockpit. How
> >about the co-pilot's stick? In -6s at least a lot of people leave them
> >un-bolted. You could maybe modify it to make it a more effective
> >canopy buster by putting a short steel insert with a blunt point on it
> >in the bottom end. Would that interfere with anything? You'd want some
> >sort of latching mechanism with a quick release, which wouldn't be a
> >bad idea in any case.
> >
> >Randall Henderson
> >RV-6X
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ED.RAY.COM (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | update on RV6A painting |
I promised a progress report on the Croix/System3 paint job on my RV6A, so
here it goes:
1. My Schedule Goes Down The Tubes
The 3 day ColumbusDay weekend was spent largely at work (unexpected crisis) and
with
family coming to visit (unexpected). So, I ended up doing a little every night
and
the following weekend. This consisting of alot of prepatory sanding and priming
with the
System3 epoxy primer (for corrosion protection). Everything is done except for
the
fuselage; it will be done today (when I can get out of work).
2. Choices of Colors
Turns out that the yellow/green color of the corrosion primer does show through
the
red topcoat, but just very slightly. The System3 tech-rep recommended putting
a coat
of their white-primer on which prevent the bleed-thru effect. It just arrived
in the
mail yesterday, so now I can continue onwards. It makes a good sanding base, but
offers no corrosion protection to the aluminum; the green primer takes care of
that.
I'm very satisfied with the corrosion primer. It sprayed very nicely (see next
comment)
and cured after about 3 days in a 50-65 degree garage environment.
3. Croix Spray System
As previously mentioned, I was having mucho problems getting an acceptable application
with the Croix unit, both with the 1mm and 1.4mm sets. I finally had a professional
autobody painter come visit me. He looked at my sample pieces and said he had
the same
results (as did his coworkers) when they tried an HVLP system. Either runny results
or 'muddy' results. He said they call them 'mudguns' in the auto industry. He
had
brought along a nice gun for me to borrow (a DeVries?) and a better organic mask
to
wear. I've been using his gun with my very small Sears compressor (which I've
also used
for the entire airplane) and have had excellent results.
So what have I learned 1st hand from this?
a. I just don't have the skills to use the Croix. I'm sure with proper hands-on
instruction from an experienced Croix HVLP user I could use it. But since
I
couldn't locate that person, I went back to a conventional spray system.
Perhaps
it was related to the System3 paint as the material being used, and you would
have
better luck with Imron in the Croix. Certainly the overspray was greater
with the
conventional gun, but it wasn't a problem, as my garage paint-booth worked
out
very nicely.
b. Consider how the topcoat color will look over the primer you select. In
my case,
I don't think it would have changed much, but the extra coat of white primer
will
add a few more pounds.
c. The fiberglass work that you took such pride in sure looks worse after the
primer
coat goes on. Every little flaw and unfeathered edge really stands out.
So,
plan on more post-primer finishing work.
d. I used some of the masking paper to put under the control surfaces as I was
spraying the top surface. In many cases the overspray (actually, underspray)
caused
the paper to stick to the previously primed undersurface. Yech; what a mess.
Had
to sand off the stuck paper. Not a big deal, but a cheap plastic shower-curtain
would have been a better choice.
e. A tip from Don Wentz on the fuel-tanks (using only a few screws with the
heads
ground smaller in diameter) go me thinking a bit more on this. So, instead
of screws
I used a few clecoes to secure the tanks during handling. Then, just before
painting the wings, I removed the clecoes from the tanks. Just before I
flip them
over, I put the clecoes back in. Guess it sounds trivial, but if Don hadn't
mentioned
this, I wouldn't have thought of this.
f. The System3 epoxy primer was sprayed over previously primed parts, that were
from different brands (ie. Stitts, Desoto, Variprime, Bob Avery's stuff),
and there
were no problems encountered.
g. The extra steps of applied the acid-etch and then the Alodine to ALL exterior
parts was a pain, but gave resulted in a surface well-prepped for the primer.
It
doesn't add any weight; just alot of labor (wear Neoprene gloves and a
face-shield!).
h. I used the new Alexander Aero Superlite epoxy filler for all surface imperfections.
Again, alot of labor, but the stuff is so light in weight, extra weight is
not
a factor. I recommend the stuff.
i. A sanding block can be used in alot of places (I even used an electrim jitter-sander
in some places). But, alot of hand-sanding is required. This has resulted
in my
finger tips being tenderized. I found the best solution was to put bandaids
on just
before sanding. I found gloves to be too uncomfortable after a while. How
the
heck do composite builders do this stuff?
j. Best way to work with the fuselage is to leave it on the main gear, but remove
the
engine mount. Just make sure the gear/wheels are protected (ie. with leaf
bags and
extra plastic and masking paper) before you spray. Leaving it on the gear
makes it
very easy to move around, and you can either lower the tail to ground or
raise it
to the sky until it rests on the bottom edge of the firewall for painting.
So, I've still got more to do over the next few weeks before I can declare victory.
Unfortunately (actually, fortunately) I've got a full-time+++ job so its not going
as
quickly as I had hoped. But at least its fun...
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
Origin: ssd
| From: | lakomski(at)comm.mot.com (Mark Lakomski) |
In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
been weighing everything else against. One question I'd like
to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
components seperately. As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
my previous postings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "de Solla, C." <de_solla_c(at)jpmorgan.com> |
David_Coleman_#l#Marathon_Man#r#.London_GM_#h#3_Mail_Server(at)smtpgwprod.ny.jpmorgan.com
I'm Carol writing from sunny (!) London, England.
I'm at stage one building an RV6. I.e. the garage has been cleared, the plans
have been bought, the beads of perspiration are appearing on the forehead.
Is there anyone out there, also in England, who is dying to sell me their old
tools, jigs etc. - or just to talk.
Also, if anyone is travelling to England and wants to talk aviation, or get an
idea of aviation places to visit, I'm only too glad to help a fellow flyer.
Carol de Solla RV6 #23820
de_solla_c(at)jpmorgan.com
011 44171 325 4063
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gretzw(at)tcplink.nrel.gov |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: Challenge !! |
There has been some talk lately about opening the sliding
canopy before making a forced landing. I see two possible
problems with this. (1) I believe I remember reading
something about adverse controlability problems with canopy
open. Or what might happen is that upon opening, the
canopy would blow off, and could hit the tail. Then you
would have major problems. This could be a problem,
especially when ones has other problems to contend with.
Some testing must be done in
flgiht with canopy open. (2) I would not like having the
canopy open during a forced landing. The darn thing could
slam shut during a sudden stop and could do major personal
injury on the way. If no injury did occur upon slamming
shut, it would be very likely it would be jammed shut at
that point anyway. So--leave the canopy shut, but have a
tool for breaking out like has been talked about here alot
lately.
Warren Gretz, RV6 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: update on RV6A painting |
>
> Gary,
>
> Could you tell us a little more about your garage spray booth?
Okay, although its not too exciting. I have a nice size, 2-car garage with
no insulation. Its has a window on the left and rear sides, with tow regular
size garge doors on tracks. The right side has an electric opener (which is
the side I made the paint booth. The left door does not have an electric
opener (I learned this trick from my father; his electrical to the garage
failed and could not get in; he had to cut a hole in the garage wall to get
in, since he didn't have any windows in at the time; he does now).
So, all my tools and stuff are on the left side. First task was to thoroughly
clean the garage and wait until the dust all settled. Then I plastic wrapped
the side and rear walls, the ceiling and then the garage door. I used a medium
grade plastic sheeting and used a staple gun. I have 4, 2-tube light fixtures
so the plastic protected them from the overspray, but the lighting didn't
suffer. Then I attached a plastic sheet down the middle of the garage
(seperating the left/right halves). I needed to place wood trim boards to keep
this piece from coming down. Finally, I place a heavy grade plastic sheet
on the floor. Then all seams were taped (I used some red-Tyvex tape had have
from residing my home). I then removed a pane of glass from the garage door,
which would act as my inlet for fresh air. The rear of the right garage has
the window that I would use for my exit air (ie. the overspray exit). I placed
a square fan up against the window.
I have a slit in the middle wall so I can travel between the left/right halves.
It has overlap to keep the overspray out of the left side. When the fan is
turned on, you can feel the air flow from the front to the rear of the garage,
and the plastic walls pull inwards. Before painting (since its been getting
colder in New England lately), I heat up the booth using a kerosene torpedo
heater on the left side (far from the plastic) and open the slit in the middle
plastic wall. When its nice and toasty, I turn off the heater, turn on the
fan and start painting. Naturally I have the compressor on the left side of
the garage with the hose going thru the middle slit in the wall. After
painting and the air has cleared, I heat it up with the heater again (since the
cold outside air is now in the booth). After its heated up again, I turn off
the torpedo and close the middle slit, and wheel in my oil-filled electric
heater. This keeps the booth warm during the night and into the next day.
Its been holding up well, but the floor plastic needs another piece on top soon
(as its covered with primer dust). I've been using a $6 tyvex painting suit
and old sneakers; they are permanently yellow!! Your footwear WILL be ruined,
so dress accordingly.
Hope this helps.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lackerma(at)rad.rpslmc.edu (lauren ackerman) |
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
It seems to me the question is not one of cost but one of
which type of airplane you wish to build...all aluminum or
composite. The RV is very complete, although I am only finished
with the tail and working on the wings. Others more along
with their construction might better answer that.
The attendant allergic problems with composite and the
UV issues are important. And of course there is a lot
more experience with the RV's. Plastic versus metal!
There planes serve different flying domains also. Is
the Lancair STOL capable? What about rough fields. How
easy is it to repair? How many Lancairs are flying?
laurens
--------------------------------------
From comm.mot.com!lakomski(at)matronics.com Mon Oct 24 12:29:53 1994
Origin: ssd
From: comm.mot.com!lakomski(at)matronics.com (Mark Lakomski)
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV kit contents
Cc: kbolvin(at)qualcomm.com
Content-Length: 989
X-Lines: 19
In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
been weighing everything else against. One question I'd like
to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
components seperately. As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
my previous postings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
> One question I'd like
> to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
> kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
> have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
> included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
> brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
> a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
I'm sure that those who have actually purchased the kits at this point
(unlike myself, who only currently owns plan), but my understanding
is that all of the hardware like you mentioned is included. Both
aircraft will probably require that you supply engine, prop, instruments,
paint and interior. The $10k difference will let you buy a lot of
accessories.
> As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
> it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference.
Although the Lancair is probably faster, I'd check with other
builders to see what kind of actual speeds they're getting.
It seems that many companies exagerate their performance claims,
while those of Van's seems to be what builders actually achieve.
Also, comparing 75% and 55% cruise speeds is probably more
realistic than comparing top speed, as those are actually
what you'll use. Then consider some typical cross-country flights
that you might take and see what kind of time difference
an extra 20-30 mph will make. Is saving 15 minutes on a 500 mile
trip worthwhile to you?
Have you ever seen or been in and RV-6 and Lancair 320/360 in person?
I never saw a Lancair close-up until SERFI a few weeks ago, and
my first impression was, "Wow, that sure is SMALL." I heard
onlookers saying that they did not think they would find the seating
position comfortable.
Other things to ask: Can you live with the higher landing speed of the
Lancair? DO you really want to work with composites. (Yucky, IMHO)
Hope this helps. I realize that these decisions will be different
for different people, and I know that there are those for which
either aircraft is the right choice.
John Henderson
Any comments greatly
> appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
>
> P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
> my previous postings.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
>In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
>best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
>been weighing everything else against. One question I'd like
>to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
>kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
>have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
>included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
>brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
>a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
>I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
>quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
>components seperately. As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
>it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
>appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
>
>P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
>my previous postings.
Most of the "big" things are included e.g. wheels, brakes, but at least
when I bought my kit tires and tubes weren't. ALso it's the little things
that add up such as throttle linkages and all the engine accesssory stuff.
But I expect a lot of this is missing in a Lancair as well but then I don't
really know.
Bottom line is the RV kit is about 1/3 to 1/4 of what you need to spend to
get it in the air - but I still believe you get more
utlity/fun/speed/capability/$ in an RV then anything else. But I'm an RV
nut so what would you expect me to say - its hard to be objective at this
point in my build cycle... And I hat fiberglass.
RB
________________________________________________________________________________
David_Coleman_#l#Marathon_Man#r#.London_GM_#h#3_Mail_Server(at)smtpgwprod.ny.jpmorgan.com
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
| Subject: | Re: UK RV builders |
>I'm Carol writing from sunny (!) London, England.
>I'm at stage one building an RV6. I.e. the garage has been cleared, the plans
>have been bought, the beads of perspiration are appearing on the forehead.
>
>Is there anyone out there, also in England, who is dying to sell me their old
>tools, jigs etc. - or just to talk.
>
>Also, if anyone is travelling to England and wants to talk aviation, or get an
>idea of aviation places to visit, I'm only too glad to help a fellow flyer.
>
>Carol de Solla RV6 #23820
>de_solla_c(at)jpmorgan.com
>011 44171 325 4063
Congratulations Carol!
Can't help you with the jigs but, given that most women (and I don't mean
stereotype women but it has been my experience) don't get as excited about
RV's as I do, if you are single I might ask you to marry me...:-)
Stick with it and good luck - if it is sunny in London you must have good
luck already!
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave.Bonorden(at)amd.com (Dave Bonorden) |
>In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
>best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
>been weighing everything else against.
As it should be! :)
>One question I'd like
>to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
>kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
>have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
>included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
>brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc.
RV kits include all these components. You'll have to supply tires,
engine, prop, paint, interior, wiring, instruments and avionics.
>A friend of mine is considering
>a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
Everything except the things in my list above.
>I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
>quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
>components seperately.
You don't.
>As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
>it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
Talk to builders and compare engine/prop installations and find out if
the difference in speed is really 40 mph. You should also consider
things like take-off and landing distances (do you ever want to operate
from a grass airfield?) and handling qualities. I've never heard a
single complaint about RV handling qualities, while I have heard
complaints about Lancair handling qualities.
Dave Bonorden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
Text item:
THE RV KIT IS VERY COMPLETE TO BUILD THE AIRFRAME. OF THE THINGS YOU
MENTIONED THEY ARE ALL THERE. YOU DO HAVE TO BUY THE TIRES FOR THE
WHEELS. OTHER THINGS YOU NEED TO BUY ARE THROTTLE CONTROL, CARB HEAT,
ETC. IF THE LANCAIR IS 40mph FASTER HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE AN RV AT
175-180MPH TO COVER 40 MILES? NOT WORTH $10,000 TO ME, IF I HAD IT.
I'D SAY TAKE THAT 10 GRAND AND APPLY IT TOWARD A NICE 180HP (new) FROM
VAN'S ... AND THROW IN A CONSTANT SPEED PROP TOO.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RV kit contents
Date: 10/24/94 10:19 AM
In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
been weighing everything else against. One question I'd like
to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
components seperately. As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
my previous postings.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RV kit contents
From: comm.mot.com!lakomski(at)matronics.com (Mark Lakomski)
Origin: ssd
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 11:50:07 CDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
gretzw(at)tcplink.nrel.gov
| Subject: | Will Slider open while flipped? |
What does the group think about opening the
slider after your on your back. The rudder
is a very substantial assembly. If your not
in water or muck wouldn't the tail be up
enough to push the slider back to allow
exit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | RV kit contents -Reply |
Every thing you mentioned is included. I'm
not sure what you mean by control hardware.
If you mean flight controls it is included.
If you mean engine controls they are not.
The canopy, gear, engine mount, cowling,
and wheels all come in the last kit called
the finishing kit. This is included in the
10K price.
You basically get the entire airframe minus
engine - all its associated controls,
plumbing and accessories, prop, upholstery,
paint, instruments and avionics. I'm not
sure what you get with a Lancair but I
don't think its much more.
Concerning price I have calculated all the
costs and talked with many builders. I
don't think you can build a Lancair for the
25K to 40K it will take to complete an RV6.
Have you ever seen a Lancair sell for less
than 80K to 100K.? There's a reason and I
don't think it's 40 mph.
Don't look at just all up top speed. Lets
see a Lancair land on a 800 foot grass
strip while clearing a 50 ft obstacle.
There are also differences in tool and shop
requirements. Glass work requires warm
temperatures 70 degrees or above for proper
cureing. The RV does require more tools.
Just a few thoughts but I think you will
find the RV series offer the most
performance for the money.
Jim S.
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
> From amd.com!Dave.Bonorden(at)matronics.com Mon Oct 24 14:06:15 1994
>
> RV kits include all these components. You'll have to supply tires,
> engine, prop, paint, interior, wiring, instruments and avionics.
Tires and tubes are now supplied. I would say that the level of
completeness of the Van's, Lancair, and Stoddard Hamilton (Glassair)
kits are all pretty close. Van's may not organize and label the packaging
as well as some of the others, but the equivalent parts are all there.
One of the things that impresses me about the Van's kit is the value.
You look at the pile of parts and say, "yeah, that looks like about
$10k worth of stuff." I don't get that impression from most of the
competition. It's not even close. I also feel that the RV design,
and proven track record are unsurpassed.
A few opinions on some of the questions raised about which kit to
buy:
Personally, I would feel "ripped-off" buying one of the more expensive
designs so commonly seen on expensive magazine cover ads--even though
I could afford the extra $10-20k, but it's a matter of perceived value
I guess.
Most of us building and flying RVs probably wouldn't trade the
versatility of the aircraft for the extra speed that other faster
designs provide.
One more point to consider in the metal vs. composite debate that I
discovered after several hundred hours of RV building:
I find that taking components in the RV kit that don't look like
airplane parts, and turning them into airplane parts is a motivating
transformation. Don't be fooled by "Quick-build" claims. Any
high-performance kit plane is going to take many hours to build.
If I started with molded pieces that already looked like an airframe
if I just stacked 'em up on one another, and then proceeded to spend
thousands of hours gluing, sanding, filling, installing, etc., without
rapid and obvious changes in the appearance of the project, I would
find it difficult to continue. Again, this is just an introspective
look at my own psychology.
Earl Brabandt N66VR (RV-6 in progress)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Will Slider open while flipped? |
> What does the group think about opening the
> slider after your on your back. The rudder
> is a very substantial assembly. If your not
> in water or muck wouldn't the tail be up
> enough to push the slider back to allow
> exit.
Seems to me like it could go either way. Would depend on how hard you
went over, and how soft the ground is, i.e. did the tail dig in? Did
the tail get crushed? Did the canopy bow get bent? It seems to me if
none of these things happened you could probably open it.
Personally I wouldn't make any decisions about whether to go with the
slider or the tip-up based on a perception that one or the other is
more likely to be openable in a turnover. I must admit I never thought
about it before this discussion got started, but now I'll make sure I
have some way to break the canopy in case it does, and not gamble on
whether or not I'd be able to open it.
I had another thought related to this -- if you did have a canopy
buster tool it seems like it'd be a good idea to have a plackard
stating where and what it is right next to the canopy latch, to remind
you or your passenger quickly in those critical moments.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Will Slider open while flipped? (fwd) |
Some comments:
1) The chances of the slider canopy opening are much higher
(maybe 50 to 80%) than the flip open canopy (about 0%).
2) Both are likely to be broken.
3) Don't put too much faith in the Virt. Stab. saving you
or the canopy. That is the reason for the roll over bars.
I don't think it would take much impact to fold over the
virt. Stab/rudder especially if there is any side-ways
motion. There would be quite a bit of leverage at the base.
If it is a slow flip over and no side-ways
skidding, then I would expect it to remain in good condition.
About 2 yrs ago I saw the wreckage of a Pitts S1 that had
flipped over. I was suprized that the tail was folded over.
The Pitts tail is steel tubing with 4 flying wires around it.
I thought it would be quite sturdy, and I am sure it is, but
it shows that you can not depend on it holding you up.
Herman.
> From root Mon Oct 24 16:38:18 1994
> From: mail.mei.com!JIM-SCHMIDT(at)matronics.com
> Message-Id:
> X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 16:32:19 -0600
> To: Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com, rv-list(at)matronics.com,
> gretzw(at)tcplink.nrel.gov
> Subject: Will Slider open while flipped?
>
> What does the group think about opening the
> slider after your on your back. The rudder
> is a very substantial assembly. If your not
> in water or muck wouldn't the tail be up
> enough to push the slider back to allow
> exit.
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Any Aircrafts Kit contents... |
Howdy,
First off, I with the rest of you agree that Van's RV-6(A) kits are very
complete, as are the RV-3 and RV-4 (though not as much work may be done on
the latter kits).
Anyone considering buying any kit should not only as for the promo
literature, but also ask for the optional parts catalog. When things
like engine mount and tires/wheels are optional I begin to wonder.
For a while Van didn't include tires, he felt that there was not a precise
schedule for completions. He felt folks could get tires locally and then
there would not be a problem of tires aging.
I for one wonder how Van does sell such a complete kit for ONLY $10K.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A (In the womb)
:^)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: update on RV6A painting |
> I then removed a pane of glass from the garage door,
>which would act as my inlet for fresh air. The rear of the right garage has
>the window that I would use for my exit air (ie. the overspray exit). I placed
>a square fan up against the window.
>
> Gary B
>
Several years ago I built a small paint booth inside my garage to paint some
parts of an old ChrisCraft boat I was restoring. I set up the airflow
similar to what I think you are describing here. I found a never ending
problem of dust and bugs falling on the paint (varnish) job.
It just so happens that a very well respected aircraft painter was the guest
speaker that month at the local EAA meeting. I talked to him after the
presentation about the problem. He said that when he first set up his shop
he was having similar problems. His solution was to change the fan from an
"exhaust" fan to a "pressurizing" fan, or in other words an fan that pulled
air in through a filter and blew it into and paint booth. He also built a
conduit to pull the air in from about 2 stories up which he thought was
overkill. I tried this method and had impoved results. (not prefect, but
much better)
You may not have this problem, but there may be others that might. This
method would be one thing to try.
P.S. Another thing that I did that might help was I sprayed the inside of
the plastic tent with a little "Downy" fabric softner mixed in water to cut
doun on the static that caused dust to cling to the inside of the booth.
bobn(at)ims.com
Bob Neuner RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Paint Booths at home |
A painter here, who does side work in his garage, says one of the most
important tips is to lightly water down the floor of the "booth".
This greatly reduces the "escape" of dust attracted to the plastic
then attracted into the paint spray via its static charge.
Just a suggestion.
James Sleigh
Sikorsky Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: update on RV6A painting |
> parts of an old ChrisCraft boat I was restoring. I set up the airflow
> similar to what I think you are describing here. I found a never ending
> problem of dust and bugs falling on the paint (varnish) job.
>
> It just so happens that a very well respected aircraft painter was the guest
> speaker that month at the local EAA meeting. I talked to him after the
> presentation about the problem. He said that when he first set up his shop
> he was having similar problems. His solution was to change the fan from an
> "exhaust" fan to a "pressurizing" fan, or in other words an fan that pulled
> air in through a filter and blew it into and paint booth. He also built a
> conduit to pull the air in from about 2 stories up which he thought was
> overkill. I tried this method and had impoved results. (not prefect, but
> much better)
>
> You may not have this problem, but there may be others that might. This
> method would be one thing to try.
>
> P.S. Another thing that I did that might help was I sprayed the inside of
> the plastic tent with a little "Downy" fabric softner mixed in water to cut
> doun on the static that caused dust to cling to the inside of the booth.
>
>
> bobn(at)ims.com
>
>
> Bob Neuner RV6
>
>
Bob:
I haven't really had a problems with insects, since its too cold for them
this time of year. I did have a problem with a rather large mouse family,
which I took care of (too much urine and mouse turds on everything).
I will try the "Downy", as the plastic does tend to attract the paint dust.
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Any Aircrafts Kit contents... |
Text item:
>I for one wonder how Van does sell such a complete kit for ONLY $10K.
Not only that, his prices for hardware, replacement parts, and accessories are
outrageously low. That wouldn't be so bad, except he keeps improving the kit
with almost no price increases.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 10:52:34 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Any Aircrafts Kit contents...
From: Doug Bloomberg <anchor.cs.colorado.edu!dougb(at)matronics.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: update on RV6A painting |
Text item:
>His solution was to change the fan from an
>"exhaust" fan to a "pressurizing" fan, or in other words an fan that pulled
>air in through a filter and blew it into and paint booth.
Pressurize it and you can get overspray into the rest of your garage; exhaust it
and you can suck dust in from the rest of your garage. What's a fellow to do?
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Re: update on RV6A painting
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 08:42:42 -0700
From: ims.com!bobn(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Meehan <meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: update on RV6A painting |
On Tue, 25 Oct 1994 ims.com!bobn(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> > I then removed a pane of glass from the garage door,
> >which would act as my inlet for fresh air. The rear of the right garage has
> >the window that I would use for my exit air (ie. the overspray exit). I placed
> >a square fan up against the window.
> >
>
> > Gary B
> >
>
>
> Several years ago I built a small paint booth inside my garage to paint some
> parts of an old ChrisCraft boat I was restoring. I set up the airflow
> similar to what I think you are describing here. I found a never ending
> problem of dust and bugs falling on the paint (varnish) job.
>
> It just so happens that a very well respected aircraft painter was the guest
> speaker that month at the local EAA meeting. I talked to him after the
> presentation about the problem. He said that when he first set up his shop
> he was having similar problems. His solution was to change the fan from an
> "exhaust" fan to a "pressurizing" fan, or in other words an fan that pulled
> air in through a filter and blew it into and paint booth. He also built a
> conduit to pull the air in from about 2 stories up which he thought was
> overkill. I tried this method and had impoved results. (not prefect, but
> much better)
>
> You may not have this problem, but there may be others that might. This
> method would be one thing to try.
>
> P.S. Another thing that I did that might help was I sprayed the inside of
> the plastic tent with a little "Downy" fabric softner mixed in water to cut
> doun on the static that caused dust to cling to the inside of the booth.
>
>
> bobn(at)ims.com
>
>
> Bob Neuner RV6
>
CONTROLLING DUST AND BUGS
homemade paint booths can be a challenge in controling dust and bugs.
The downy Softner sounds line a neat trick if it works. Bugs is a
problem everyone fears. Here is what I recommend having been a backyard
car painter for a number of years. First and foremost is to enclose the
entire area in visqueen and have your lighting above it all. flies,
moths, gnats, and etc are notorius for hiding in wall spaces/cracks,
behind boxes and so forth. They will come visit you when you don't want
them about 5 minutes after you have finished shooting that last panel.
The lights attract them, the complete enclosure of visqueen can keep them
looking in vs having an upclose and personal expereince with your newly
painted surface.
Don't forget to ground your project prior to cleaning and painting! Wet
the Floors also. And use a tack rag prior to shooting paint.
Just a few thoughts..hope it helps.
Don Meehan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)claris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: update on RV6A painting |
> Bob:
> I haven't really had a problems with insects, since its too cold for
> them this time of year. I did have a problem with a rather large mouse
> family, which I took care of (too much urine and mouse turds on
> everything).
> I will try the "Downy", as the plastic does tend to attract the paint
> dust.
>
> Gary
T
his gives
m
e an idea. Many of the paint guns I've seen are metallic. I have an
electrostatic "ionizing" air cleaner. My Subaru maunual says that they used
some electrical process to make sure the paint got into every nook and cranny
for corrosion protection.
Putting these facts together, has anyone considered using electrical
potential to help get the paint where it's supposed to go?
--
Have you ever seen a disclaimer say "my opinions ARE my employer's."?
--- Don't answer that!
"Wait a minute, you expect us innocent children to climb up dangerous
scaffolding and paint naked people all over a church? We'll do it!!"
-- Yakko Warner, Animaniacs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John.Saare(at)Eng.Sun.COM (John Saare) |
OK..., I mostly lurk on this group. I mostly haven't made much progress
on my 6 kit as of late. I mostly don't like my first posting on a group
to be the sort that this one will shortly become...
BUT...
Sheeeeesh!!! First someone posts that Van's will shortly be on the
net..., great! Then some folks proceed to promenade back and forth
on the group asserting as how they can't figure out how for ONLY
$10,000.00 Van's manages to do it.
Sorta like standing in front of ATM and screaming, about 10 times in
a row, as loudly as you can: "HUH!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!!!??? I ONLY
CAN GET $300.00 AT A TIME!!! YUP..., ONLY $300.00 !!!". And name
any unsavory setting in which to place the ATM that you care to.
Just by their longevity, Van's has proven themselves to be amongst the
most reputable of the kit manufacturers. I like their product.
But, I mean, they're only human. Do we really need to get them
scratching their heads and asking themselves: "Yeah, how do we do it?".
I THINK THEIR PRICES ARE JUST RIGHT!!! Don't you? -- John Saare
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Enough already! |
>
> OK..., I mostly lurk on this group. I mostly haven't made much progress
> on my 6 kit as of late. I mostly don't like my first posting on a group
> to be the sort that this one will shortly become...
>
> BUT...
>
> Sheeeeesh!!! First someone posts that Van's will shortly be on the
> net..., great! Then some folks proceed to promenade back and forth
> on the group asserting as how they can't figure out how for ONLY
> $10,000.00 Van's manages to do it.
>
> Sorta like standing in front of ATM and screaming, about 10 times in
> a row, as loudly as you can: "HUH!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!!!??? I ONLY
> CAN GET $300.00 AT A TIME!!! YUP..., ONLY $300.00 !!!". And name
> any unsavory setting in which to place the ATM that you care to.
>
> Just by their longevity, Van's has proven themselves to be amongst the
> most reputable of the kit manufacturers. I like their product.
> But, I mean, they're only human. Do we really need to get them
> scratching their heads and asking themselves: "Yeah, how do we do it?".
>
> I THINK THEIR PRICES ARE JUST RIGHT!!! Don't you? -- John Saare
>
Come on, do you think Van's doesn't already know their prices are the
best in the business? And anyone who knows Van will tell you that he's
a lot more interested in achieving the best price/performance in the
business than in making a pile of money.
I think discussion along these lines is mostly an expression of
admiration that they are able to sell such a good product at such a
good price, not an indication that anyone thinks they're not charging
enough for their kits.
And by the way, Van's isn't on the net yet. I'll be sure to post an
announcement to that effect when they are, if Ken doesn't introduce
himself right away.
Randall Henderson
RV_6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)claris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Enough already! |
> Come on, do you think Van's doesn't already know their prices are the
> best in the business? And anyone who knows Van will tell you that he's
> a lot more interested in achieving the best price/performance in the
> business than in making a pile of money.
Of course, that probably IS the best way to make a pile of money. :-)
How many total airplanes has he sold? Who else comes close? How close is
the next one after that? (I.E. I can only think of one other company
(SkyStar) that MIGHT have sold close to as many kits as Van's).
> I think discussion along these lines is mostly an expression of
> admiration that they are able to sell such a good product at such a
> good price, not an indication that anyone thinks they're not charging
> enough for their kits.
Ten grand is still not exactly pocket change. Plus tool, engine, and
instrument money.... I keep joking that maybe I shouldn't be on the list
because I'm still in the "Saving up to buy a garage to build it in" stage but
even though I've yet to drive my first rivet, I'm extremely enthusiastic
about this aircraft.
Hell, it's the main carrot leading me to finish my licence.
New Year's resolution: Buy Plans.
--
Have you ever seen a disclaimer say "my opinions ARE my employer's."?
--- Don't answer that!
"Wait a minute, you expect us innocent children to climb up dangerous
scaffolding and paint naked people all over a church? We'll do it!!"
-- Yakko Warner, Animaniacs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: update on RV6A painting |
>Pressurize it and you can get overspray into the rest of your garage;
exhaust it
>and you can suck dust in from the rest of your garage. What's a fellow to do?
>
I'd rather have dust in my garage that on my RV!
...but of course you still have the air outlet to the outside to move excess
overspray onto the neighbor's lawn, so the garage still stays sort of clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Enough already! -Reply |
> Come on, do you think Van's doesn't
already know their prices are the > best
in the business? And anyone who knows Van
will tell you that he's > a lot more
interested in achieving the best
price/performance in the > business than
in making a pile of money.
Of course, that probably IS the best way to
make a pile of money. :-)
How many total airplanes has he sold? Who
else comes close? How close is the next
one after that?
(I.E. I can only think of one other
company (SkyStar) that MIGHT have sold
close to as many kits as Van's).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to a documentary on the Discovery
channel SkyStar has sold 15,000 kits world
wide and that is far more than Van. Not
that I care!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jim Schmidt
RV6 in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Enough already! |
Text item:
>Sheeeeesh!!! First someone posts that Van's will shortly be on the
>net..., great! Then some folks proceed to promenade back and forth
>on the group asserting as how they can't figure out how for ONLY
>$10,000.00 Van's manages to do it.
I don't think you were getting our hidden message here. Some of this was coming
from people who live in the neighborhood, see Van and his top people at almost
every local builder's group meeting, and are still amazed that the product and
the people just keep on getting better.
FKJ
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Enough already!
From: Eng.Sun.COM!John.Saare(at)matronics.com (John Saare)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 15:52:37 -0700
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dan_fox(at)ccmail.GSFC.NASA.GOV |
| Subject: | Re[3]: update on RV6A painting |
>Pressurize it and you can get overspray into the rest of your garage; exhaust
>it and you can suck dust in from the rest of your garage. What's a fellow to
>do?
I'm another lurker who's in the "get the garage and the education finished
first" phase. I'm also another who misspent lots of time in high school doing
auto body work including painting.
You're right; pressurizing the paint booth will get some overspray dust outside
the enclosed volume, but it is dust and cleanuppable as such. Ductape a furnace
filter to the window you took out, and spray some filter sticky on it (available
at auto body supply shops). The drawback is that you have to put 20-40 amps of
heat into the incoming air in the winter, but having a constantly renewed supply
of breathable air is worth it. Put the pressurizing fan at one end and the
exhaust hole at the other and tell yourself you have a laminar flow paint booth.
A furnace filter over the fan's output (or input, come to think of it) is also
a
given.
Wetting the floor is a real good idea, too. Having some humidity in the air
won't hurt the finish, and will feel very nice as compared to breathing dry air
and organic volatiles all day. I know we all wear the right MSA approved
breathers, but all day, or only when the gun is active? I used to wear a pitiful
little paper mask, and my throat was raw from the fumes. We do such things when
we're 17.
Just another $.02 worth.
--dan fox
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Van's marketplace |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Randall's right--
> Come on, do you think Van's doesn't already know their prices are the
> best in the business?
Dick's own personality has a lot to do with the favorable
price/performance ratio of his airplane kits. He is a humble, honest,
and reserved individual who respects value himself. Van's customers
are not paying for the unnecessary expense of full-page, color, adverts
in the all the airplane rags on the news stand. I think most kits are
sold essentially by others builder's recommendations and word of
mouth.
For those of you on the list that are still considering the purchase,
there is a downside to this. Van also doesn't spare the unnecessary
expense of printing a legible part number on each and every part (some
have handwritten numbers--some don't). The kit is not slickly packaged
in bubble packs with razor blades on each pack to assist the builder
in opening logically arranged and packaged parts. No parts are
finished to the extent that they are tumbled to remove burrs or
coated with a coat of primer or epoxy or such. In general, Van
likes to say that they don't spend money on things the builder can
do himself.
Van's has not discovered the benefits of a slick CAE system with
the potential for improving the clarity of his plans. (Although
Andy Hanna's new drawings are sure an improvement!) There are
large gaps of direction in the construction manual. Frank's
instructions, although not endorsed by Van's, are doing a lot
to address this problem--particularly on the -6. If there is
a bargain better that Van's plans, it's gotta be Franks instructions--
they're free! In the past, builder's have worked primarily from
plans, and errors are likely to occur which cost the builder time
to correct. It's interesting to note that many, if not most
kitplanes, are developed with a construction manual approach that
doesn't require extensive use of plans. For most people, this
probably works better.
I sometimes say that Van is reserved to a fault. By that I mean that
he quite often will not express an opinion about something because
he doesn't feel qualified to defend his opinion, even though by most
standards, he IS well-qualified. Liability and legal concerns may
be an issue here, but I think a lot of it is simply Van's personality.
Overall, I think the product is priced about right for Van's market.
Sure, I think it's a bargain, but I usually don't value paying for
things that I don't need. I haven't bought the pre-built spar or
any of the 2nd-market "quick-build" options. I don't mind viewing the
project as a big puzzle--it's kind of fun, but many people don't
get much satisfaction from the "puzzle factor."
Earl Brabandt N66VR (in progress)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ward9(at)llnl.gov (Richard S. Ward) |
| Subject: | RV4 Fuse Ribs??? |
I am getting mixed signals on the flange orientation of the F415 ribs for
my RV4. My parts are labled so the rib flages and attached angle face
inward towards the center of the fuselage. Most of my drawing indicate
that they face outward but some show them facing inward (if I am
interpreting the dashed lines properly). And the photographs in the
instruction show them facing inward, I think...??? Which way do they
go????
-- Rich
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello everyone. I started on an RV-6A in July. I'm working at home
in a two-car garage and, like many others, had to build a garden shed
first to have a place for my junk. I'm working on the elevators
at the moment, and expect to pick up my wing kit at the factory
this week or next. This is my first aircraft project, and though
I was intimidated by the size/duration of it, I've been having
a blast so far.
One factor that helped me decide on the project was my location
in Portland. The local builders group has been a great source
of motivation and expertise. It's also been great to be able to run
over to the factory on my lunch hour to pick up parts that I
destroyed on my early assembly attempts :-).
I got my P-SEL before starting the kit. I've got about 100 hrs in
spam cans and try to get airborne every couple of weeks to keep
current and remind myself how much fun it is up there. I'm planning
to suck up to some of the many local RV pilots for rides. RV
flying is hardly the same sport as flying in a 172.
When I'm not building or flying, I write software for Synopsys.
We build software tools that engineers use to design semiconductor
chips and electronic systems.
- Dan Benua
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | RV-LIST Problems... |
There was a problem on the RV-LIST machine that may account for the lack of
activity on Oct 27-28. I think that everything is fine now.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjames(at)animas.tcinc.com (Scott James) |
would you please add me to this list
Are there any RV-4/6 builders in the
Denver area? I'd like to build a plane,
but first get a better feel for what
exactly is involved (mostly time and
space/tools needed).
thanks,
scott
________________________________________________________________________________
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
| From: | orpheus(at)KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Jason B. Wittmer) |
| Subject: | RV6/6A builders in KC? |
Is there anyone on the list (or does anyone know anyone) building an RV6 or
6A in the Kansas City area? I'd really just like to take a look at one up
close, although a short flight would be great also. Thanks for any info
anyone has.
--Jason B. Wittmer
Medical Student
University of Kansas School of Medicine
INTERNET: orpheus(at)kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
CompuServe: 71052,440
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[4]: update on RV6A painting |
Some items from when we painted my RV-6 last June:
I had an experienced automotive painter help with the prep and do the
shooting. we tried his 'partner's' new HVLP and gave-up, going back to a
top-cup DevilBiss standard spray-gun.
We did the wings in a professional booth, but the owner was too wierd so
we did the fuse in my 'vis-queened' garage. The fuse turned-out great!
We used 3 'window fans' taped-into the bottom opening of a double garage
door, sucking the air out.
Inlet was a large window (3x4') with real paint booth filter on it
(should have been at least 2x the area for better ventilation).
We sealed all the plastic seams, used lots of light, had only 2 bugs in
the whole finish.
No dust problems, washed the floor in-between coats (Bob's fabric
softener idea is a good one).
DO, I repeat, DO use a colored primer over the etching base primer so
that your metal and glass parts will end-up the same color. I've seen
many RVs with really white cowls that the fuse doesn't match, caused by
the white gel coat underneath vs gray aluminum. (I will be repainting my
ailerons as they are not fully white next to the flaps and tips, just not
enough coverage).
Painting it yourself is very possible, just keep all the great ideas off
this list and you can do just fine.
dw
>Pressurize it and you can get overspray into the rest of your garage;
exhaust it
>and you can suck dust in from the rest of your garage. What's a fellow to do?
>
I'd rather have dust in my garage that on my RV!
...but of course you still have the air outlet to the outside to move excess
overspray onto the neighbor's lawn, so the garage still stays sort of clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Will Slider open while flipped? |
I agree with Randall's comments below: Don't depend on EITHER being
open-able, don't make your decision on which one based on this, a
'reminder' of where the tool is wouldn't hurt.
I disagree with with modifying the 2nd stick tho, I think that small
'Boy-scout hatchet' in the proper restraint is the hot idea. It would
be useful in non-emergency situations too.
dw
> What does the group think about opening the
> slider after your on your back. The rudder
> is a very substantial assembly. If your not
> in water or muck wouldn't the tail be up
> enough to push the slider back to allow
> exit.
Seems to me like it could go either way. Would depend on how hard you
went over, and how soft the ground is, i.e. did the tail dig in? Did
the tail get crushed? Did the canopy bow get bent? It seems to me if
none of these things happened you could probably open it.
Personally I wouldn't make any decisions about whether to go with the
slider or the tip-up based on a perception that one or the other is
more likely to be openable in a turnover. I must admit I never thought
about it before this discussion got started, but now I'll make sure I
have some way to break the canopy in case it does, and not gamble on
whether or not I'd be able to open it.
I had another thought related to this -- if you did have a canopy
buster tool it seems like it'd be a good idea to have a plackard
stating where and what it is right next to the canopy latch, to remind
you or your passenger quickly in those critical moments.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV kit contents |
Text item:
Without doing any Lancair bashing, let me say that I used to
be on the Glass/Lancair newsletter lists, as I was seduced by
their sleek appearance and high speed claims. However, as I
learned more about them and the RV series, I realized the RV
would be more useful than the others, at least for my needs.
While I was 'shopping', I recall that their 'basic kits' were
about 20K, but there where thousands of $$ worth of 'options'
listed too (fancy latches, landing gear parts, etc.) that you
could build yourself, but weren't likely to. I feel $30K is
much closer to their 'base price' than $20K.
BTW, I recall my finish kit came with
tubes/tires/wheels/brakes, etc. It DIDN'T include: lighting
systems, control cables (throttle, mixture, carb heat), heat
xfer boxes, exhaust, prop, engine, upholstery, etc.
dw
In what appears to have become a never-ending search for the
best plane/$ it seems the RV's have become the standard I've
been weighing everything else against. One question I'd like
to ask of current RV builders concerns the completeness of the
kits. I at one time ordered a info packet from Van's but seem to
have misplaced it and can't recall exactly what is or is not
included. In particular I'm referring to items such as wheels,
brakes, canopy, control hardware, etc. A friend of mine is considering
a Lancair 320/360 and claims that at $20k you get virtually everything.
I can see that 10k differential between a RV6A and a Lancair 360
quickly deteriorate if I need to purchase all the aformentioned
components seperately. As great of an aircraft as the RV6 may be
it's difficult to ignore the 40 mph difference. Any comments greatly
appreciated! - Mark Lakomski (...still cleaning garage)
P.S. Thanks in advance and to those who responded to a couple of
my previous postings.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RV kit contents
From: comm.mot.com!lakomski(at)matronics.com (Mark Lakomski)
Origin: ssd
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 11:50:07 CDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6/6A builders in KC? |
Text item:
>Is there anyone on the list (or does anyone know anyone) building an RV6 or
>6A in the Kansas City area? I'd really just like to take a look at one up
>close, although a short flight would be great also. Thanks for any info
>anyone has.
>--Jason B. Wittmer
> Medical Student
> University of Kansas School of Medicine
> INTERNET: orpheus(at)kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> CompuServe: 71052,440
Is this part of your preparation for your surgery residency?
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RV6/6A builders in KC?
From: KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU!orpheus(at)matronics.com (Jason B. Wittmer)
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:59:55 -0600 (CST)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
| From: | orpheus(at)KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Jason B. Wittmer) |
| Subject: | RE: RV6/6A builders in KC? |
>
>Is this part of your preparation for your surgery residency?
>
No, not at all. Is a predilection for surgeons to fly RV's? I'm going to
take a long time to finish whatever project I choose, I'm sure. Medical
school (and residency, and practice, etc.) doesn't leave you a lot of spare
time. However, it is awfully important to me that I really enjoy the time I
do have off. Anyone in KC out there with an RV? Passing through town (I
fly out of MKC, but will meet you anywhere nearby)? Thanks.
--Jason B. Wittmer
Medical Student
University of Kansas School of Medicine
INTERNET: orpheus(at)kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
CompuServe: 71052,440
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dougm(at)physio.wa.com (Doug Medema) |
| Subject: | Single piece top wing skins |
Well I picked up my wing kit for my -6A on Friday. It was a pretty
long drive -- about 450 miles total. I also got a ride in the -6B,
the new yellow tri-gear with the straight horizontal stab. I just
wish my stomach liked doing aerobatic manuvers as much as my mind
does! I had to pick it up because I ordered the single piece top
wing skins and they won't deliver those.
I inventoried it over the weekend and now have some questions about
the contents. I originally assumed that the one piece top skins
would simply replace the two piece skins on the regular kit. The
numbers are W602 and W603. These were removed from the kit as I
expected. Here is what I got as replacements using Van's current
numbering system:
2 ea. - AS3032X28 11/16X104 1/2 This replaces W602 and W603
2 ea. - AS3032X19 1/4X104 1/2
2 ea. - AS3032X39 1/2X48
For anybody who doesn't know about the current numbering system:
AS - Aluminum Sheet
3 - Temper (T3 in this case)
032 - Thickness
19 1/4 - 19 1/4 inches wide
104 1/2 - 104 1/2 inches long.
My question is: What the heck are the 2nd and 3rd items for? Any-
body else buy one piece skins from Van's? The one piece top skin
option was an extra $104, which I originally thought was pretty
steep, but maybe there is more to this than just replacing W602
and W603.
P.S. I have identified all other sheet aluminum items such as
leading edge, fuel tank, bottom skins (2), flaps, and ailerons.
Where do these additional items fit in?
Thanks for the help!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: RV6/6A builders in KC? |
Text item:
>Is a predilection for surgeons to fly RV's? I'm going to
>take a long time to finish whatever project I choose, I'm sure. Medical
>school (and residency, and practice, etc.) doesn't leave you a lot of spare
>time.
WARNING! The Surgeon General reports that building an RV is extremely addictive.
However, it is also much more effective than seeing a psychiatrist.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RE: RV6/6A builders in KC?
From: KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU!orpheus(at)matronics.com (Jason B. Wittmer)
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 22:21:01 -0600 (CST)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6/6A builders in KC? |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
First Frank inquires:
> >Is this part of your preparation for your surgery residency?
Jason replies:
> No, not at all. Is a predilection for surgeons to fly RV's?
No, not unless you can get that new "V-tail" mod designed
especially for surgeons :-)
Seriously now, you may find that even a little time spent weekly
on the project will provide a lot of pleasure and relaxation (just
watch those fingers around the bandsaw). Fortunately it doesn't
take much money to get started and the projects seem to get done
someday, even though it will probably take you many years given
your chosen occupation. Of course it would help if you could get
the hospital to allow you to move it on site. In that case, you
might actually finish it pretty fast given all the 40-hour calls
you'll be pullin' in the next few years. On the other hand,
it may be okay to provide medical care after being awake for a day
and a half, but I'm not so sure I'd want to rivet my wing spar
in that condition.
Earl N66VR (RV-6 under construction)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Single piece top wing skins |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Doug,
Van sells you the entire 12 foot sheet. The rest of it is
useful for inspection covers and errors. I puzzled over
these extra skins too until I realized that the dimensions add
up to a sheet.
> 2 ea. - AS3032X28 11/16X104 1/2 This replaces W602 and W603
> 2 ea. - AS3032X19 1/4X104 1/2
> 2 ea. - AS3032X39 1/2X48
>
> My question is: What the heck are the 2nd and 3rd items for? Any-
> body else buy one piece skins from Van's?
--------------------------------------------------- ^
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| This is the wing skin | | |
| | extra | |
| | material | |
| | | 48"
| | | |
| | | |
------------------------------------| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| extra material | | |
| | | V
---------------------------------------------------
<-------- 104 1/2" -----------------><---39 1/2"-->
<--------------------- 12'------------------------>
Earl Brabandt
N66VR (RV-6 under construction)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Single piece top wing skins |
Basically, they charged you for a whole sheet and just 'gave' you
the extra pieces (19.5" x 104.5"). In my case, I turned the extra
into Duckworks Landing Lite Kits, early-on in the product. Yours is
just lots of extra material.
don wentz.
PS - Notice the Oshkosh award winning RV-6 of Lyle Hefel in Van's
Calendar for November. It has 2 Duckworks Lites in it!
dw
Well I picked up my wing kit for my -6A on Friday. It was a pretty
long drive -- about 450 miles total. I also got a ride in the -6B,
the new yellow tri-gear with the straight horizontal stab. I just
wish my stomach liked doing aerobatic manuvers as much as my mind
does! I had to pick it up because I ordered the single piece top
wing skins and they won't deliver those.
I inventoried it over the weekend and now have some questions about
the contents. I originally assumed that the one piece top skins
would simply replace the two piece skins on the regular kit. The
numbers are W602 and W603. These were removed from the kit as I
expected. Here is what I got as replacements using Van's current
numbering system:
2 ea. - AS3032X28 11/16X104 1/2 This replaces W602 and W603
2 ea. - AS3032X19 1/4X104 1/2
2 ea. - AS3032X39 1/2X48
For anybody who doesn't know about the current numbering system:
AS - Aluminum Sheet
3 - Temper (T3 in this case)
032 - Thickness
19 1/4 - 19 1/4 inches wide
104 1/2 - 104 1/2 inches long.
My question is: What the heck are the 2nd and 3rd items for? Any-
body else buy one piece skins from Van's? The one piece top skin
option was an extra $104, which I originally thought was pretty
steep, but maybe there is more to this than just replacing W602
and W603.
P.S. I have identified all other sheet aluminum items such as
leading edge, fuel tank, bottom skins (2), flaps, and ailerons.
Where do these additional items fit in?
Thanks for the help!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Single piece top wing skins |
>
> 2 ea. - AS3032X28 11/16X104 1/2 This replaces W602 and W603
> 2 ea. - AS3032X19 1/4X104 1/2
>>Underside of the Wing?<<
> 2 ea. - AS3032X39 1/2X48
>>Wing walk area?<<
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
DOn't really know, those are just guesses.
Didn't even know that a one piece skin was an option through Van's.
Several folks locally has returned Van's skins and bought the larger
skins locally at scrap prices. We don't hav a Boeing plant here, but
we do have Martin Marietta. Did you investigate going up to Boeing
scrap yard and buying the sheets at a really reduced rate? And then turn
in your Van's provided shorter sheets? That would have netted you $100.00
instead of costing $100.00.... Based on the rediculuos prices Boeing
charges. Ron Wanttaja built a Doghouse outof alum because it was cheaper
than wood. And wood in Seattle is pretty cheap, compared to other places
in the USA.
let us know what the extra pieces are for.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Single piece top wing skins (fwd) |
It looks to me like you also got one piece bottom skins.
All 4 skins are the same length. Two are a little wider.
I don't know which would go on the top. The top is curved
and also I think it would overlap the flap so it is probably
the wider piece. The narrow piece would then be the bottom.
You will have to notch out around the aileron.
Herman
> From root Tue Nov 1 12:53:00 1994
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 07:26:51 PST
> From: physio.wa.com!dougm(at)matronics.com (Doug Medema)
> Message-Id: <9411011526.AA25339(at)physio.wa.com>
> To: Rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Single piece top wing skins
>
> Well I picked up my wing kit for my -6A on Friday. It was a pretty
> long drive -- about 450 miles total. I also got a ride in the -6B,
> the new yellow tri-gear with the straight horizontal stab. I just
> wish my stomach liked doing aerobatic manuvers as much as my mind
> does! I had to pick it up because I ordered the single piece top
> wing skins and they won't deliver those.
>
> I inventoried it over the weekend and now have some questions about
> the contents. I originally assumed that the one piece top skins
> would simply replace the two piece skins on the regular kit. The
> numbers are W602 and W603. These were removed from the kit as I
> expected. Here is what I got as replacements using Van's current
> numbering system:
> 2 ea. - AS3032X28 11/16X104 1/2 This replaces W602 and W603
> 2 ea. - AS3032X19 1/4X104 1/2
> 2 ea. - AS3032X39 1/2X48
>
> For anybody who doesn't know about the current numbering system:
> AS - Aluminum Sheet
> 3 - Temper (T3 in this case)
> 032 - Thickness
> 19 1/4 - 19 1/4 inches wide
> 104 1/2 - 104 1/2 inches long.
>
> My question is: What the heck are the 2nd and 3rd items for? Any-
> body else buy one piece skins from Van's? The one piece top skin
> option was an extra $104, which I originally thought was pretty
> steep, but maybe there is more to this than just replacing W602
> and W603.
>
> P.S. I have identified all other sheet aluminum items such as
> leading edge, fuel tank, bottom skins (2), flaps, and ailerons.
> Where do these additional items fit in?
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | More travels in N790DW |
Text item: Text_1
Took last week off to take Janet on a little trip down in to California.
Sunday we arrived at Livermore to meet Matt Dralle & Kym. Immediatly
were surrounded by RV builders/admirers. Pulled my Warnke prop and
installed Matt's Catto 3-blade, just to see how they compared.
The 3 blade sounded very different from inside, much more quiet on the
outside. Comparison:
Mine Matt's
2 blade 3 blade
72 pitch
73 length
static rpm 2200 2300
climbout No numbers, but noticed much better with Matt's
max level rpm 2550 2850
max speed - 3000' 205 mph 210 mph
I have flown my prop on another very similar 180hp RV-6 and got
basically identical numbers, so my true airspeed & tach seem to be
fairly accurate.
Interestingly, after we slowed down (I didn't like turning 2850!) a long
easy went sweeping by. We talked with him and he seemed surprized that
a 180hp RV-6 could match the top speed of his 170hp (est.) Long Easy.
He happened to have a 3 bladed Catto prop also.
We had a nice dinner with Matt/Kym and Matt put us up for the night.
For a UNIX dweeb he has a real nice place, with all the parts to finish
his RV-4, except for a 'distraction shield'. Thanks again Matt.
Monday we went up to Auburn, just NE of Sacramento, where we spent 2
days giving rides to Janet's relatives, including a WWII veteran uncle
who had 3 victories in a P-51 in the Pacific. He also had significant
combat time in P-40 Warhawk and P-47 Thunderbolts. He said they used an
old Devastator for 'fun', mostly for hauling beer up to altitude to cool
it! He hadn't flown as PIC in over 40 years, but still knew how and
loved the light controls of my RV. I really enjoyed giving that ride.
I also dropped in on Ed Martinson over in Lincoln CA (5 minutes from
Auburn airport by RV, there be a TON of airports in CA!!) who had 6
hours on his brand-new 180hp, C/S, slider RV-6. A very nice RV, I think
on a par with Lyle/Les/Hanks award winning -6s. The fiberglass work was
really nice. I did notice that he didn't have the Jerry Herrold
'stabilized' wing tips with the built-in warp resistance. You all need
to either get some of his, or modify yours to match, to prevent that
waviness that RV wingtips have. His are already getting wavy. We had a
nice lunch and he was complaining about having trouble landing. I took
him up & showed him my interpretation of how to 3-point an RV-6, which
he was grateful for, so I hope it helped.
Wednesday we decided to bop over to South Lake Tahoe, which I had never
been to. It was absolutely beautiful, although you need to watch the
downwind side of the very tall ridges, lots of turbulence/downdrafts.
We spent a romantic evening and the next day headed back NW, into a
50mph headwind at 12,000'. Ended-up at a small airport outside of
Redding CA called Enterprise. It is 6 months from extinction, being
owned by the developer that built houses all around it. In the
restaurant was a set of 4 photos showing the hostess climbing in/out of
an RV-6 with the caption "Gloria's First Ride!". A closer look showed
Mike Seager as the pilot! (Mike is a local RV builder who sold his
first -6 with >650 hours on it, & is building another). Mike has done
lots of first flights, including my RV-6, and is a regular 'demo' pilot
for Van at Oshkosh, including this year.
We were clouded-in for the night, but managed a free ride to a hotel &
got in touch with an old high-school buddy, spending the evening with
him & his wife. The next morning was clear, so we headed north,
stopping in Medford OR for fuel, then dodged BIG cumulous and in another
hour & 45 minutes were home.
Except for the heater controls not staying open (it's getting COLD out
here) the RV was flawless. My wife TOTALLY enjoyed the trip, and the
freedom and speed with which we travelled was really something.
don w.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansen(at)risc.austin.ibm.com (William Hansen) |
| Subject: | subscribe account |
What is the account to which one sends mail to subscribe to
this list? Is it "rv-list-request(at)matronics.com? I seem
to have forgotten, and I want to have the right accoount
to give to others might want to subscribe.
I know just rv-list will work, but I don't want to waste
bandwith by having a sibscribe message echoed.
Thanks.
__Bill Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | rbibb(at)fore.com (Richard Bibb) |
| Subject: | Re: More travels in N790DW |
>really nice. I did notice that he didn't have the Jerry Herrold
>'stabilized' wing tips with the built-in warp resistance. You all need
>to either get some of his, or modify yours to match, to prevent that
>waviness that RV wingtips have. His are already getting wavy. We had a
Not familar with "stabilized wingtips" - explanation?
RB
RV-4 N414KT
Richard E. Bibb TEL: (301) 564-4404
Federal Program Manager PAGE:(800) 719-1246
Navy and Civilian Programs FAX: (301) 564-4408
FORE Systems
6500 Rock Spring Drive, Suite 444 rbibb(at)fore.com
Bethesda, MD 20817
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: More travels in N790DW |
Oops, thought that might generate a question. I meant the 'flat' top
surface of the fiberglass wing tips. The thin material immediately
begins to sag and get a wavy appearance, not pretty.
The best solution I have seen is to laminate a 1/8" layer of 'non-resin-
absorbing' foam to the entire underside of the upper tip surface, with
one layer of 9 oz cloth over it. This is what Jerry Herrold's optional
tips have. I have these on my -6 and they are still as straight as the
day I installed them. The non-absortive foam prevents adding a lot of
weight.
dw
>really nice. I did notice that he didn't have the Jerry Herrold
>'stabilized' wing tips with the built-in warp resistance. You all need
>to either get some of his, or modify yours to match, to prevent that
>waviness that RV wingtips have. His are already getting wavy. We had a
Not familar with "stabilized wingtips" - explanation?
RB
RV-4 N414KT
Richard E. Bibb TEL: (301) 564-4404
Federal Program Manager PAGE:(800) 719-1246
Navy and Civilian Programs FAX: (301) 564-4408
FORE Systems
6500 Rock Spring Drive, Suite 444 rbibb(at)fore.com
Bethesda, MD 20817
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: More Travels in N790DW |
>--------------
>
> Took last week off to take Janet on a little trip down in to California.
> Sunday we arrived at Livermore to meet Matt Dralle & Kym. Immediatly
> were surrounded by RV builders/admirers. Pulled my Warnke prop and
> installed Matt's Catto 3-blade, just to see how they compared.
>
> The 3 blade sounded very different from inside, much more quiet on the
> outside. Comparison:
> Mine Matt's
> 2 blade 3 blade
> 72 pitch
> 73 length
FYI, the Catto's a 78 pitch, 64 diameter. And I must say that the 3 blade
looks totally awsome on Don's RV-6! We used my spinner (RV-4), so it was a
little small for the -6. I would say that the 64" Catto "looks" maybe 10% too
small for the RV-6, but should look just perfect on the smaller cowl of the
RV-4.
> static rpm 2200 2300
> climbout No numbers, but noticed much better with Matt's
> max level rpm 2550 2850
> max speed - 3000' 205 mph 210 mph
Ahuum, Don, I saw 215 mph on the Loran at least twice there while we had it
balls-to-the-wall (while that lame LongEze was trying to catch up!). :-)
>
> I have flown my prop on another very similar 180hp RV-6 and got
> basically identical numbers, so my true airspeed & tach seem to be
> fairly accurate.
>
> Interestingly, after we slowed down (I didn't like turning 2850!) a long
> easy went sweeping by. We talked with him and he seemed surprized that
> a 180hp RV-6 could match the top speed of his 170hp (est.) Long Easy.
> He happened to have a 3 bladed Catto prop also.
>
> We had a nice dinner with Matt/Kym and Matt put us up for the night.
> For a UNIX dweeb he has a real nice place, with all the parts to finish
> his RV-4, except for a 'distraction shield'.
Hey, I like to think of myself as a UNIX nerd... :-)
>
> Thanks again Matt.
>
>---------------
My pleasure, Don. Thanks for flying the first part of my RV-4! The whole
experience was quite inspiring... Know where I can get one of those
"distraction shields"??...
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: Enough already! |
>--------------
> OK..., I mostly lurk on this group. I mostly haven't made much progress
> on my 6 kit as of late. I mostly don't like my first posting on a group
> to be the sort that this one will shortly become...
>
> BUT...
>
> Sheeeeesh!!! First someone posts that Van's will shortly be on the
> net..., great! Then some folks proceed to promenade back and forth
> on the group asserting as how they can't figure out how for ONLY
> $10,000.00 Van's manages to do it.
>
> Sorta like standing in front of ATM and screaming, about 10 times in
> a row, as loudly as you can: "HUH!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!!!??? I ONLY
> CAN GET $300.00 AT A TIME!!! YUP..., ONLY $300.00 !!!". And name
> any unsavory setting in which to place the ATM that you care to.
>
> Just by their longevity, Van's has proven themselves to be amongst the
> most reputable of the kit manufacturers. I like their product.
> But, I mean, they're only human. Do we really need to get them
> scratching their heads and asking themselves: "Yeah, how do we do it?".
>
> I THINK THEIR PRICES ARE JUST RIGHT!!! Don't you? -- John Saare
>--------------
Aaaa, me too John... ;-)
Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | How to be Added to the RV-LIST... |
I've had a number of people asking about the 'official' way to be added to the
rv-list so that they could tell friends how to go about it. It's simple.
Send a message to:
rv-list-request(at)matronics.com
Be sure to include:
1) Email Address
2) Full Name
3) Paper Mail Address
4) Daytime Phone
5) Evening Phone
6) RV Type (3,4,6,etc.)
To be removed from the list, send mail to the same address and simply asked
to be removed.
Thanks, and please pass the word.
Matt Dralle
RV-4 Builder(?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Stabilized wingtips |
Jerry Harrold, who makes the OEM wingtips for Van, also makes an identical
set with a foam core on the top skin to stop the waviness. He sells these for
$203, compared to $185 or so for the inferior Van product. He has also
developed a set of KIS lookalike tips with Jon Roncz, and should be selling
these after the first of the year--price unknown. He claims higher roll
rates, lower stall, thinner wallet(you know the price of a/c parts).
Sure don't know why Van won"t sell these tips as an option, but they will
give you the phone numberkeep building
Mark
PS Has anyone installed dual seatbelts (for aerobatics) in a -4?
sure don't want to end up like that guy in that Mustang II.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: RV6/6A builders in KC? |
Text item:
>No, not unless you can get that new "V-tail" mod designed
>especially for surgeons :-)
In case you're not a real aviation insider and are looking in Van's catalog for
this, don't bother. Earl was once the proud owner of a Beechcraft Bonanza,
often lovingly called the "V-tailed doctor killer" because of its intolerance of
arrogant piloting technique. The RV, on the other hand, is tolerant of most
everything except gross stupidity and yet still is able to delight any Jaguar
driver.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
From: "Earl Brabandt" <ichips.intel.com!earlb(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: RV6/6A builders in KC?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[4]: update on RV6A painting |
> I had an experienced automotive painter help with the prep and do the
> shooting. we tried his 'partner's' new HVLP and gave-up, going back to a
> top-cup DevilBiss standard spray-gun.
Same here! I gave up with my friend's HVLP and borrowed a DevilBiss (sp?)
standard gun. Excellent results.
>
> We did the wings in a professional booth, but the owner was too wierd so
> we did the fuse in my 'vis-queened' garage. The fuse turned-out great!
I'm doing everything in my paint-booth garage setup.
>
> We used 3 'window fans' taped-into the bottom opening of a double garage
> door, sucking the air out.
> Inlet was a large window (3x4') with real paint booth filter on it
> (should have been at least 2x the area for better ventilation).
> We sealed all the plastic seams, used lots of light, had only 2 bugs in
> the whole finish.
> No dust problems, washed the floor in-between coats (Bob's fabric
> softener idea is a good one).
Very similar setup and results (although I only used a single window fan).
Bugs have not been a problem.
> DO, I repeat, DO use a colored primer over the etching base primer so
> that your metal and glass parts will end-up the same color. I've seen
> many RVs with really white cowls that the fuse doesn't match, caused by
> the white gel coat underneath vs gray aluminum. (I will be repainting my
> ailerons as they are not fully white next to the flaps and tips, just not
> enough coverage).
>
I applied a green corrosion primer to all aluminum surfaces. All surfaces then
got a coat of white sanding primer. The final red color should be uniform
throughout.
> Painting it yourself is very possible, just keep all the great ideas off
> this list and you can do just fine.
Agreed, although it sure is taking me alot longer then planned. ALOT of
sanding of the primer, for a nice smooth surface and to reduce as much weight
as possible. I am finally ready for the red topcoat this weekend.
Gary B
> dw
>
>
>
>
>
> >Pressurize it and you can get overspray into the rest of your garage;
> exhaust it
> >and you can suck dust in from the rest of your garage. What's a fellow to do?
> >
>
>
> I'd rather have dust in my garage that on my RV!
>
> ...but of course you still have the air outlet to the outside to move excess
> overspray onto the neighbor's lawn, so the garage still stays sort of clean.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjames(at)animas.tcinc.com (Scott James) |
Hello RV dreamers and builders!
My name is Scott James and I've been getting into
the idea of building an RV myself. I've been to
a meeting at JeffCo - introduced by George Brady
(you out there, George?) who got my started on the
RV kick.
I'd like to start attending those meeting again
and want to learn about the time, space and materials
people need to build a plane. If anyone in the Denver
area would like help, I would love to lend a hand
(and also pick your brain in the process).
As for myself, I'm thinking of an RV-6 (tail-wheel model)
with 180HP and constant speed prop. something I can enjoy
for aerobatics and also reasonable cross-country
convenience. I would like to be able to carry two people
and light luggage.
I'm also interested in getting checked out in tail-wheel
aircraft. If anyone has suggestions of where/who, please
pass along the info.
I learned about this list on the rec.aviation.homebuilt
group and now am ready to learn more about it.
thanks,
-scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Single piece top wing skins |
Text item:
One interesting thing I have found to do with the leftover aluminum from the
one-piece top skins is to sell it to your local A&P or trade it for services.
Two different ones in my area were glad to make a deal.
FKJ
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Single piece top wing skins
From: physio.wa.com!dougm(at)matronics.com (Doug Medema)
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 07:26:51 PST
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re:Stabilized wingtips |
> Jerry Harrold, who makes the OEM wingtips for Van, also makes an identical
> set with a foam core on the top skin to stop the waviness. He sells these for
> $203, compared to $185 or so for the inferior Van product. He has also
> developed a set of KIS lookalike tips with Jon Roncz, and should be selling
> these after the first of the year--price unknown. He claims higher roll
> rates, lower stall, thinner wallet(you know the price of a/c parts).
> Sure don't know why Van won"t sell these tips as an option, but they will
> give you the phone number
> keep building
> Mark
Around here Jerry Harrold has a reputation for two things:
1) Great fiberglass work
2) Taking forever to deliver
Number 2) probably has something to do with why Van doesn't sell
the modified wingtips.
My wingtips, from Van's, were made by Jerry (non-reinforced tho), and
I've been told they are superior quality to ones farmed out to other
suppliers. I figure I'll either reinforce them myself, or wait and see
about these new "KIS lookalikes" with the turned up trailing edges. I
don't suppose there's any data yet on actual results from these tips to
support the claims....?
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | As the PROP turns |
Text item: Text_1
Had a long discussion with Larry Vetterman about props last nite. He is
a real good guy, BTW. Some of what he said makes sense, so I thought I
might pass it along.
Remember, we aren't prop experts, this is just some of what we think,
based-on experience.
He has had 4 props on his 160hp RV-4 since new. 2 wood, 1 C/S, now
another wood.
He didn't like the C/S because he felt the 50 lbs adversely affected his
RV-4 performance - Roll rate reduced, general quickness reduced,
increased vibration (he had the prop balanced on 2 separate occasions).
In discussions with 'old timers', he heard that on the smaller engines
(<180hp) the physical weight of the prop is a problem.
1) the engine uses more of it's hp to turn the weight
2) the added weight on the airframe (drag) wastes some hp
He has changed to an Aymar-Demuth wood prop (-50lb), replaced the
starter with lightweight (-8lb), and added a Landoll vibration dampener
(+12lb), for a total appx 46lb weight reduction. He says the airplane
is so much more lively now, he really enjoys it. There are several
local builders there who are using the Landoll dampener, and really like
it.
His takeoff/climb are only slightly affected (the weight loss must help
offset the lack of C/S pitch control) and his cruise/top speeds are as
good or better (again, items 1 & 2 above would affect this area).
So, even though I have a 180hp engine, I am still inclined to stay with
a wood prop. The weight & $$ savings mean a lot more to me than 100
feet of takeof roll. My current prop is optimized for cruise, and still
requires modification or replacement, and that choice won't be easy.
One of the reasons I felt this discussion worth sharing, is the amount
of experience involved. As I mentioned, Larry has flown 4 props on his
RV-4, and, 2 of the same props (1 wood & the C/S) on a 160hp Glasair
that he helped build. MOST of the prop 'data' I hear, is from folks who
haven't tried more than 1 combination, so they don't have any
comparison.
Now, if I could just find someone with an Aymar-Demuth prop for a 180
that I could try-out, I would be ecstatic!
I do need to fly a similar -6 with 180 C/S just to see how it feels,
compared to mine.
Hope this helps. dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Re: Your Catto Prop |
>--------------
> Hi Matt,
> We're running a three bladed Catto prop on a UAV we're developing down
> in Mojave and Edward AFB. The AP working on our project told me that Catto
> made a prop for RV-4's but I've always assumed he was wrong since I've
> never heard nor seen any mention of it anywhere until today.
> When we put the Catto prop on our aircraft, its overall performance
> improved considerably, and the noise level went way down which really
> caught my attention -- every time I hear it run I say to myself, "It would
> sure be nice to have a prop like that on my RV."
>
> Anyway, all I really wanted to ask you is the approximate cost and
> delivery time from Catto, and do you know how many of these things are
> flying? The prop we use on our UAV is ground ajustable and we found it
> useful a couple times to make some small adjustments. Does Catto offer a
> gound adjustable for an RV?
>
> -- Rich
>
>
>--------------
I paid about $900 for the Catto 3 blade about 2 years ago. Delivery was about
a month as I recall. I know that there were a couple of RV-6s in the
Sacramento valley with Catto props and a number of LongEzes. I don't thing
that he makes anything that is 'adjustable'. I can get you Catto's phone
number if you'd like.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | As the PROP turns (fwd) |
A few comments.
I agree with everything you have said here. I think Van has also
said similar things with respect to C/S props.
One other advantage to C/S is that it can help slow you down for
landing (I am told). When you go to flat pitch, it adds a lot of
drag. I have heard some RV owners complain that it is hard to
slow the plane down for landing with a fixed pitched prop.
If you plan to use a wood prop on a 180 HP engine, be sure you
use the large diameter prop extension and the large diameter
front plate. There has been a history of these props working
loose. I think Van commented on this in one of the last two
newsletters.
With the wood props, the Landol vibration dampener adds needed
weight for flywheel affect. A well known RV builder in the
central Tx area has claimed for several years that wood props
will destroy your mags and can cause chrome to flake off of
the cylinders due to the fact there is not enough mass in the
wood prop. This causes some bad harmonics which cause these
problems.
There are a lot of RV owners in this area that run modified fixed pitch
metal props with good results. This is VERY experimental however
and Van does not recommend this (see last news letter).
The secret of this is that the prop must be cut down in length
AND also in chord and then repitched. This is a bit of black
magic and not for most builders. The advantage here is low cost,
(fixed pitch and usually starts with a metal prop that had some
tip dammage), metal prop (good flywheel effect and avoids rain
errosion problems of wood prop and retorque problems of wood).
I have one of these special metal props for my RV4. The weight
is 26lb which is probably close to what a wood prop plus the
vibration dampener would weigh.
> From root Wed Nov 2 16:41:04 1994
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 94 13:07:11 PST
> From: Don Wentz <ccm2.hf.intel.com!Don_Wentz(at)matronics.com>
> Message-Id: <941102130711_4(at)ccm.hf.intel.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: As the PROP turns
>
>
> Text item: Text_1
>
> Had a long discussion with Larry Vetterman about props last nite. He is
> a real good guy, BTW. Some of what he said makes sense, so I thought I
> might pass it along.
>
> Remember, we aren't prop experts, this is just some of what we think,
> based-on experience.
>
> He has had 4 props on his 160hp RV-4 since new. 2 wood, 1 C/S, now
> another wood.
>
> He didn't like the C/S because he felt the 50 lbs adversely affected his
> RV-4 performance - Roll rate reduced, general quickness reduced,
> increased vibration (he had the prop balanced on 2 separate occasions).
> In discussions with 'old timers', he heard that on the smaller engines
> (<180hp) the physical weight of the prop is a problem.
> 1) the engine uses more of it's hp to turn the weight
> 2) the added weight on the airframe (drag) wastes some hp
>
> He has changed to an Aymar-Demuth wood prop (-50lb), replaced the
> starter with lightweight (-8lb), and added a Landoll vibration dampener
> (+12lb), for a total appx 46lb weight reduction. He says the airplane
> is so much more lively now, he really enjoys it. There are several
> local builders there who are using the Landoll dampener, and really like
> it.
>
> His takeoff/climb are only slightly affected (the weight loss must help
> offset the lack of C/S pitch control) and his cruise/top speeds are as
> good or better (again, items 1 & 2 above would affect this area).
>
> So, even though I have a 180hp engine, I am still inclined to stay with
> a wood prop. The weight & $$ savings mean a lot more to me than 100
> feet of takeof roll. My current prop is optimized for cruise, and still
> requires modification or replacement, and that choice won't be easy.
>
> One of the reasons I felt this discussion worth sharing, is the amount
> of experience involved. As I mentioned, Larry has flown 4 props on his
> RV-4, and, 2 of the same props (1 wood & the C/S) on a 160hp Glasair
> that he helped build. MOST of the prop 'data' I hear, is from folks who
> haven't tried more than 1 combination, so they don't have any
> comparison.
>
> Now, if I could just find someone with an Aymar-Demuth prop for a 180
> that I could try-out, I would be ecstatic!
> I do need to fly a similar -6 with 180 C/S just to see how it feels,
> compared to mine.
>
> Hope this helps. dw
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Your Catto Prop |
I ran into Andy Wienburg (sp?) up in the Sacramento area last week during my
travels. He just pulled a Catto 3 blader off of his RV-6 to put on a C/S, &
would want to sell it, I expect.
Van's could get you Andy's #
dw
>--------------
> Hi Matt,
> We're running a three bladed Catto prop on a UAV we're developing down
> in Mojave and Edward AFB. The AP working on our project told me that Catto
> made a prop for RV-4's but I've always assumed he was wrong since I've
> never heard nor seen any mention of it anywhere until today.
> When we put the Catto prop on our aircraft, its overall performance
> improved considerably, and the noise level went way down which really
> caught my attention -- every time I hear it run I say to myself, "It would
> sure be nice to have a prop like that on my RV."
>
> Anyway, all I really wanted to ask you is the approximate cost and
> delivery time from Catto, and do you know how many of these things are
> flying? The prop we use on our UAV is ground ajustable and we found it
> useful a couple times to make some small adjustments. Does Catto offer a
> gound adjustable for an RV?
>
> -- Rich
>
>
>--------------
I paid about $900 for the Catto 3 blade about 2 years ago. Delivery was about
a month as I recall. I know that there were a couple of RV-6s in the
Sacramento valley with Catto props and a number of LongEzes. I don't thing
that he makes anything that is 'adjustable'. I can get you Catto's phone
number if you'd like.
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: As the PROP turns |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Don,
As a proponent of CS props for an X/C airplane here's my .02 (once
again).
> He didn't like the C/S because he felt the 50 lbs adversely affected his
> RV-4 performance - Roll rate reduced, general quickness reduced,
> increased vibration (he had the prop balanced on 2 separate occasions).
It's hard to believe it had much effect on roll rate unless there
are some slipstream effects that we don't know about. Gyroscopic
effects shouldn't be a factor because the roll and prop axis are
nearly the same. I might buy that the aircraft would be somewhat
quicker in the pitch axis due to the additional moment and possibly
gyroscopics.
Vibration seems to be generally less with wood-- until the seasons
change! Then the slightest amount of moisture in the wood prop
will probably tip the scales in favor of the metal because the moisture
is rarely absorbed evenly. That was my experience running both
a metal and (new) wood Sensenich on my T-Craft here in the Pacific
NW. How's your prop doing in the rain Don? Keep me informed--
especially after it sits out on a damp ramp somewhere on a cross
country layover.
> In discussions with 'old timers', he heard that on the smaller engines
> (<180hp) the physical weight of the prop is a problem.
> 1) the engine uses more of it's hp to turn the weight
It takes essentially no more power to turn a heavy prop than a
light one. The main bearing "drag" is not significantly greater
on the heavy prop.
> 2) the added weight on the airframe (drag) wastes some hp
This is true because the extra weight requires the wing
to fly at a slightly higher angle of attack, hence it generates
more drag. Also, the more forward CG of the heavier prop will
require additional tail down force in flight, again creating
more drag (and improved longitudinal stability). These are
not going to have as large an effect on cruise speed as climb.
Fortunately, CS props nearly always climb well due to the
capability to spin fast and produce red-line (full rated)
engine horsepower. A fixed prop that climbs well, won't
cruise very fast without exceeding redline when compared to a
CS--except at very high altitude where full throttle on the
fixed prop will produce redline RPM, and here I'm talking
about "fast" relative to the C/S; it will be a slow cruise
at these high altitudes (probably mid-teens) compared to
the speeds possible at lower altitudes. (I'm excluding
turbo-charged airplanes.)
The weight disadvantage of a C/S prop on a typical X/C flight
can often be largely offset by better fuel economy
(frequently 1 gph at the same speed). That's 24 lbs. on
a four hour flight! Alternatively a pilot could elect
to have a greater range on a typical X/C flight. The
fuel savings can be used to pay for C/S prop maintenance
and overhauls :-)
>
> He has changed to an Aymar-Demuth wood prop (-50lb), replaced the
50 lbs sounds a bit high. I'll have to go weigh my Hartzell and
governor.
> His takeoff/climb are only slightly affected (the weight loss must help
> offset the lack of C/S pitch control) and his cruise/top speeds are as
> good or better (again, items 1 & 2 above would affect this area).
Fixed pitch props can match or come close to C/S under certain
conditions, but I've never found it to be the case over a
wide range of cruise speeds and altitude.
> One of the reasons I felt this discussion worth sharing, is the amount
> of experience involved. As I mentioned, Larry has flown 4 props on his
> RV-4, and, 2 of the same props (1 wood & the C/S) on a 160hp Glasair
> that he helped build.
The prop comparison Van did with Kitplanes a few years back
is the only direct data from an RV-6 that I've seen that I
trust. Some of my conclusions are based on flying several
similar factory aircraft with different props. A Grumman
Tiger sure cruises fast on its fixed prop, but it gives
up a ton of ceiling and climb to other aircraft with the
C/S. A 180 HP Mooney on the other hand climbs much better
and flys much higher. A Piper Arrow will outclimb a Cherokee
of the same HP even with the gear down!
Earl Brabandt (N66VR in progress)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Construction, Baggage Ribs |
Text item: Text_1
A while back Gil Alexander wrote that his baggage floor ribs were
misshapen; F-625's too high and the angle at the forward end not right.
I didn't see any responses to that, but find that I have the same
problem in my kit which was made 4 months earlier than Gil's. I also
found that the F-625's were about 3/8" too short but they match the
drawing length. Does anybody have any comments before I call Van's to
complain?
Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Construction, Baggage Ribs |
> A while back Gil Alexander wrote that his baggage floor ribs were
> misshapen; F-625's too high and the angle at the forward end not right.
> I didn't see any responses to that, but find that I have the same
> problem in my kit which was made 4 months earlier than Gil's. I also
> found that the F-625's were about 3/8" too short but they match the
> drawing length. Does anybody have any comments before I call Van's to
> complain?
>
> Frank J.
>
I received my fuselage kit sometime around July '93. I didn't have the problem
that is described above.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Cooper" <cooper(at)seer.jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report |
I just got back from Van's Builders Clinic held last week and I thought I'd
post a review of the class.
The class went from 7:30 to 4:00 Mon through Fri with a break for lunch. They
held it at the airstrip workshop (next to Van's house) and it was taught by Art
Chard and Ken Scott. With only 7 students in our class the teacher to student
ratio was exceptional! The curriculum is geared to the first time builder and
covers tool usage, plans reading, metal working skills and is continuously
hands on. The first day we discussed what tools are required to build RV's and
which ones are just nice to have. When asked about the need for pneumatic
squeezers Ken said he thought they were a luxury if building just one RV and
Art just enigmatically smiled (he had a habit of doing this and it was hard to
tell if he approved of your work or just thought you were a bozo). Later I
found out Art has about 8 squeezers in his home shop (one each for just about
every conceivable yoke size/configuration) and puts them to good use. I believe
Art has the record for the most RV's built (over 15 I think) and contracts out
his skills to wealthy builders. I would kill to have a workshop like his; its
larger than my whole house, but I digress. Art gave us all a set of plan for
the exercises we were to finish during the week. We were expected to use the
information on these plans to guide our work just as we will be doing on the
real thing. The assignments consisted of small projects that increased in
complexity from simple rivet shop-head gauges and locator tools to mock rudders
and wings. What I discovered is that things went much faster for the students
working in teams (even though you still made one item per student) than those
that worked alone. My teammate was my wife Lynne, and it was great to know that
I'll be able to count on her to help build my RV6A. She was really good at
riveting (better than I was) and had a great time learning to use all the shop
tools. I would recommend the class highly for your spouses/helpers as it gives
them an appreciation of what you'll be doing all those odd hours in the garage
and gives them a sense of involvement. Lynne now has taken the mini-rudder she
built and proudly displayed it in her office at work as a fine example of her
"Rosie the riveter" accomplishment.
In addition to the time we spent in the workshop those of us who hadn't yet
gotten to ride in an RV were treated to one in the prototype RV6A by Ken. Lynne
seemed to have a great time in her ride and commented on how smooth it was
compared to the flights she's been in the Cessnas I have rented. Her eyes were
a little bugged out though from the 2 wing-overs Ken performed and with the 2.5
G's they pulled.
The class was treated to a guided tour of the manufacturing/shipping area of
Van's and we even had about an hour question and answer session with Dick
VanGrunsven and Bill Benedict all to ourselves.
All in all it was a great trip. The class is very well organized and
professionally run by that master craftsman Art Chard. The folks were friendly
and helpful and the curriculum was well thought out and completely relevant to
the task of RV building. Probably the most important thing I got out of this
was a big boost in confidence to just start working on my empennage.
Since I was in the area I called Frank Justice and he treated me to a tour of
both his project and that of Earl Brabant's. It was great seeing their RV's,
each at a different stage of completion, and being able to poke around and try
to notice the little details of construction and ask all the stupid questions
of a beginner. I really appreciated Frank's warm hospitality and great door to
door service. Isn't it great how helpful our fellow RV builders can be?
Well, thats about it for this long rambling trip review.
BC
--
Brian K. Cooper - Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena CA - (818)-354-6298
cooper(at)robotics.jpl.nasa.gov
Signature in Stereo (free view, diverge eyes):
X X
ZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWV
FWAVBMYQCLXJRGNTFWABMYQCQLXJRGTFWHABMYQCLXJVRGTFHABMYUQCLXVRGTFHOABYUQCLXWVRGTFH
GRTUFHNBDTZFQATQGRUFHNBDTRZFQTQGRUYFHNBTRZFQETQGUYFHNBQTRZQEHTQGUYFNBXQTZQXEHTQG
UQPDMMSKSJDOONCSUQDMSMSKSJDONCVSUDMRSMKSZJDNCNVSDMSRSKSSZJNCFNVSDMSSKLSSJNSCFNVS
JBAHAWXSALESVWDBJBHALWXSALESWDSBJHAQLWSAPLEWDKSBHAIQLSAMPLWDKSBHDAILSAMPLJWDKSBH
ZXDEIWQMWXOUWGUKZXEIKWQMWXOUGUMKZEIFKWMWJXOGUQMKEIFKWMIWJXGUWQMKEIFWMKIWXGYUWQMK
NWIZZTYXXEHTUVRTNWZZTYXXEKHTURTNWZLZTYXEKHTUQRTNZLSZTYXEKHUQGRTNZLSTYAXEHUDQGRTN
UHOMSMYSZWBYWWYVUHOSMYSZTWBYWWVUHEOSMYSZWBYEWWVUEOOSMYSZWBEWWVUEZOOMYASZBEFWWVUE
UMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
> Brian K. Cooper - Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena CA - (818)-354-6298
> cooper(at)robotics.jpl.nasa.gov
>
> Signature in Stereo (free view, diverge eyes):
> X X
> ZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWV
> FWAVBMYQCLXJRGNTFWABMYQCQLXJRGTFWHABMYQCLXJVRGTFHABMYUQCLXVRGTFHOABYUQCLXWVRGTFH
> GRTUFHNBDTZFQATQGRUFHNBDTRZFQTQGRUYFHNBTRZFQETQGUYFHNBQTRZQEHTQGUYFNBXQTZQXEHTQG
> UQPDMMSKSJDOONCSUQDMSMSKSJDONCVSUDMRSMKSZJDNCNVSDMSRSKSSZJNCFNVSDMSSKLSSJNSCFNVS
> JBAHAWXSALESVWDBJBHALWXSALESWDSBJHAQLWSAPLEWDKSBHAIQLSAMPLWDKSBHDAILSAMPLJWDKSBH
> ZXDEIWQMWXOUWGUKZXEIKWQMWXOUGUMKZEIFKWMWJXOGUQMKEIFKWMIWJXGUWQMKEIFWMKIWXGYUWQMK
> NWIZZTYXXEHTUVRTNWZZTYXXEKHTURTNWZLZTYXEKHTUQRTNZLSZTYXEKHUQGRTNZLSTYAXEHUDQGRTN
> UHOMSMYSZWBYWWYVUHOSMYSZTWBYWWVUHEOSMYSZWBYEWWVUEOOSMYSZWBEWWVUEZOOMYASZBEFWWVUE
> UMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLII
Leave it to a guy from JPL! (Just Pictures Lab) :-)
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com |
| Subject: | Re:Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report |
How often are these classes given. I'd love to make a vacation trip
out of it for my girlfriend and me (yes, she'd actually volunteer :-)
James Sleigh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Cooper" <cooper(at)seer.jpl.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re:Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report |
On Nov 3, 4:29pm, rcinet.utc.com!SIKJES(at)matronics.com wrote:
> Subject: Re:Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report
>
> How often are these classes given. I'd love to make a vacation trip
> out of it for my girlfriend and me (yes, she'd actually volunteer :-)
>
> James Sleigh
>-- End of excerpt from rcinet.utc.com!SIKJES(at)matronics.com
My understanding is that they hold them approximately quarterly. Call Cynthia
Schrantz at Van's 503-647-5117 to find out for sure (she handles scheduling of
classes).
BC
--
Brian K. Cooper - Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena CA - (818)-354-6298
cooper(at)robotics.jpl.nasa.gov
Signature in Stereo (free view, diverge eyes):
X X
ZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWV
FWAVBMYQCLXJRGNTFWABMYQCQLXJRGTFWHABMYQCLXJVRGTFHABMYUQCLXVRGTFHOABYUQCLXWVRGTFH
GRTUFHNBDTZFQATQGRUFHNBDTRZFQTQGRUYFHNBTRZFQETQGUYFHNBQTRZQEHTQGUYFNBXQTZQXEHTQG
UQPDMMSKSJDOONCSUQDMSMSKSJDONCVSUDMRSMKSZJDNCNVSDMSRSKSSZJNCFNVSDMSSKLSSJNSCFNVS
JBAHAWXSALESVWDBJBHALWXSALESWDSBJHAQLWSAPLEWDKSBHAIQLSAMPLWDKSBHDAILSAMPLJWDKSBH
ZXDEIWQMWXOUWGUKZXEIKWQMWXOUGUMKZEIFKWMWJXOGUQMKEIFKWMIWJXGUWQMKEIFWMKIWXGYUWQMK
NWIZZTYXXEHTUVRTNWZZTYXXEKHTURTNWZLZTYXEKHTUQRTNZLSZTYXEKHUQGRTNZLSTYAXEHUDQGRTN
UHOMSMYSZWBYWWYVUHOSMYSZTWBYWWVUHEOSMYSZWBYEWWVUEOOSMYSZWBEWWVUEZOOMYASZBEFWWVUE
UMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John.Morrissey(at)its.csiro.au |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report |
Hey it works!!! we can all see it here!! COOPER in 3D, Next question,
how did you do it???
John Morrissey
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Van's Builders Clinic Trip Report
AARNet_Gateway
Date: 11/3/94 1:32 PM
> Brian K. Cooper - Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena CA - (818)-354-6298
> cooper(at)robotics.jpl.nasa.gov
>
> Signature in Stereo (free view, diverge eyes):
> X X
>
ZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORWVZKSCCFYKDXNLORW
V
>
FWAVBMYQCLXJRGNTFWABMYQCQLXJRGTFWHABMYQCLXJVRGTFHABMYUQCLXVRGTFHOABYUQCLXWVRGTF
H
>
GRTUFHNBDTZFQATQGRUFHNBDTRZFQTQGRUYFHNBTRZFQETQGUYFHNBQTRZQEHTQGUYFNBXQTZQXEHTQ
G
>
UQPDMMSKSJDOONCSUQDMSMSKSJDONCVSUDMRSMKSZJDNCNVSDMSRSKSSZJNCFNVSDMSSKLSSJNSCFNV
S
>
JBAHAWXSALESVWDBJBHALWXSALESWDSBJHAQLWSAPLEWDKSBHAIQLSAMPLWDKSBHDAILSAMPLJWDKSB
H
>
ZXDEIWQMWXOUWGUKZXEIKWQMWXOUGUMKZEIFKWMWJXOGUQMKEIFKWMIWJXGUWQMKEIFWMKIWXGYUWQM
K
>
NWIZZTYXXEHTUVRTNWZZTYXXEKHTURTNWZLZTYXEKHTUQRTNZLSZTYXEKHUQGRTNZLSTYAXEHUDQGRT
N
>
UHOMSMYSZWBYWWYVUHOSMYSZTWBYWWVUHEOSMYSZWBYEWWVUEOOSMYSZWBEWWVUEZOOMYASZBEFWWVU
E
>
UMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLIIUMTMEBOJVWXKQLI
I
Leave it to a guy from JPL! (Just Pictures Lab) :-)
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
> A few comments.
> I agree with everything you have said here. I think Van has also
> said similar things with respect to C/S props.
>
> One other advantage to C/S is that it can help slow you down for
> landing (I am told). When you go to flat pitch, it adds a lot of
> drag. I have heard some RV owners complain that it is hard to
> slow the plane down for landing with a fixed pitched prop.
>
The slow-down is a feature, but is not at all required, with minimal
planning. I have no trouble slowing-down. I am sure that if you
got used to using it tho, you would really miss it if you didn't have
it any more.
> If you plan to use a wood prop on a 180 HP engine, be sure you
> use the large diameter prop extension and the large diameter
> front plate. There has been a history of these props working
> loose. I think Van commented on this in one of the last two
> newsletters.
>
Very true, most prop makers recommend them too. They are being
made available for the 320s now too.
> With the wood props, the Landoll vibration dampener adds needed
> weight for flywheel affect. A well known RV builder in the
> central Tx area has claimed for several years that wood props
> will destroy your mags and can cause chrome to flake off of
> the cylinders due to the fact there is not enough mass in the
> wood prop. This causes some bad harmonics which cause these
> problems.
>
I agree with the flywheel thing, although I haven't heard of the
harmonics/failures. In fact, during the short time I had Matt's
small diameter 3-blade on, I experienced kickback that I had never
seen before with my prop.
> There are a lot of RV owners in this area that run modified fixed pitch
> metal props with good results. This is VERY experimental however
> and Van does not recommend this (see last news letter).
> The secret of this is that the prop must be cut down in length
> AND also in chord and then repitched. This is a bit of black
> magic and not for most builders. The advantage here is low cost,
> (fixed pitch and usually starts with a metal prop that had some
> tip dammage), metal prop (good flywheel effect and avoids rain
> errosion problems of wood prop and retorque problems of wood).
> I have one of these special metal props for my RV4. The weight
> is 26lb which is probably close to what a wood prop plus the
> vibration dampener would weigh.
>
The newer wood props with various leading edge treatments seem to
do pretty well in rain, but you do need to reduce rpm. The repeated
torqueing is the only REAL disadvantage I have noticed, that does
get to be a pain.
I don't have b---s enough to run a fixed metal prop.
I haven't noticed a lot of vibration, although they say it is
more insidious than blatant. I may have a dampener in my future,
I installed all light weight stuff up front, and could use a little
fwd weight. It's just nice to be able to put the weight where you
want/need it.
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
>AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
>phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
>ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
>mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | The prop is still turning |
>Don,
>As a proponent of CS props for an X/C airplane here's my .02 (once
>again).
>
I have learned a lot since our last discussion, having now flown an
RV >130hrs, so let's beat this horse some more.
>> He didn't like the C/S because he felt the 50 lbs adversely affected his
>> RV-4 performance - Roll rate reduced, general quickness reduced,
>> increased vibration (he had the prop balanced on 2 separate occasions).
>
>It's hard to believe it had much effect on roll rate unless there
>are some slipstream effects that we don't know about. Gyroscopic
>effects shouldn't be a factor because the roll and prop axis are
>nearly the same. I might buy that the aircraft would be somewhat
>quicker in the pitch axis due to the additional moment and possibly
>gyroscopics.
>
I would think mostly it's the reduced weight making it quicker in overall
responsiveness. But don't planes roll better one way than the other,
depending on prop rotation?
>Vibration seems to be generally less with wood-- until the seasons
>change! Then the slightest amount of moisture in the wood prop
>will probably tip the scales in favor of the metal because the moisture
>is rarely absorbed evenly. That was my experience running both
>a metal and (new) wood Sensenich on my T-Craft here in the Pacific
>NW. How's your prop doing in the rain Don? Keep me informed--
>especially after it sits out on a damp ramp somewhere on a cross
>country layover.
>
Don't have significant experience here, but you DO need to
throttle-back some in the rain with wood.
>> In discussions with 'old timers', he heard that on the smaller engines
>> (<180hp) the physical weight of the prop is a problem.
>> 1) the engine uses more of it's hp to turn the weight
>
>It takes essentially no more power to turn a heavy prop than a
>light one. The main bearing "drag" is not significantly greater
>on the heavy prop.
>
I have to disagree here. I would argue that the increased vibration
is caused by the same thing that takes more power to turn the heavier
prop: each power pulse fighting to accelerate that heavier mass. It
may be true that the better 'flywheeling' of the heavier prop comes
in to play slightly, but I doubt if it's much since the drag of the
air is doing more to slow it all the time.
>> 2) the added weight on the airframe (drag) wastes some hp
>
>This is true because the extra weight requires the wing
>to fly at a slightly higher angle of attack, hence it generates
>more drag. Also, the more forward CG of the heavier prop will
>require additional tail down force in flight, again creating
>more drag (and improved longitudinal stability). These are
>not going to have as large an effect on cruise speed as climb.
>
Is that true for an aircraft as light as an RV? Most RVers
say they lose 5-10mph at cruise when they add a passenger (more
weight, but at the CG).
>Fortunately, CS props nearly always climb well due to the
>capability to spin fast and produce red-line (full rated)
>engine horsepower. A fixed prop that climbs well, won't
>cruise very fast without exceeding redline when compared to a
>CS--except at very high altitude where full throttle on the
>fixed prop will produce redline RPM, and here I'm talking
>about "fast" relative to the C/S; it will be a slow cruise
>at these high altitudes (probably mid-teens) compared to
>the speeds possible at lower altitudes. (I'm excluding
>turbo-charged airplanes.)
>
Are you considering the 'flex' that is employed in the newer
sport props? The prop makers claim that they even-out that
difference to some extent by allowing the props to 'flatten'
under high load (takeoff/climb) then returning to more pitch
at speed.
According to one of Van's pilots, his 160hp -6 stays with the
160hp -6A prototype during takeoffs/climbs at Van's. He has
wood, the -6A has C/S. Vetterman said there is minimal dif-
ference in his TO/climb after switching also.
I agree that the C/S will always have the advantage in TO/climb
if the wood is designed to also provide good cruise, but it's not
hands-down.
>The weight disadvantage of a C/S prop on a typical X/C flight
>can often be largely offset by better fuel economy
>(frequently 1 gph at the same speed). That's 24 lbs. on
>a four hour flight! Alternatively a pilot could elect
>to have a greater range on a typical X/C flight. The
>fuel savings can be used to pay for C/S prop maintenance
>and overhauls :-)
>
There are many who will debate this point. I have several
'testimonials', like 2 RV-4 180hp going to Oshkosh from here.
2 people in the wood prop unit & 1 in the C/S. The wood prop
consistently burned less on the whole trip. Van's -6A seems
to burn more fuel now than it did with a wood prop.
What are the reasons? I can only speculate:
1- the weight thing?
2- able to get more power out of the C/S?
3- Your experience is in heavier, slower, draggier planes?
3- (this is one I have often wondered-about, but don't have
any data to deny or support) blade design? Were the C/S props
used on RVs designed for 50 to >210 mph speeds?
Or, from another angle, how many 200 or less hp engines are
there in production aircraft that can go over 200 mph?
>> He has changed to an Aymar-Demuth wood prop (-50lb), replaced the
>
>50 lbs sounds a bit high. I'll have to go weigh my Hartzell and
>governor.
>
That would be great data. The RV-6 I saw in CA last week was
80lbs heavier than mine, empty. How much of that was the C/S?
>> His takeoff/climb are only slightly affected (the weight loss must help
>> offset the lack of C/S pitch control) and his cruise/top speeds are as
>> good or better (again, items 1 & 2 above would affect this area).
>
>Fixed pitch props can match or come close to C/S under certain
>conditions, but I've never found it to be the case over a
>wide range of cruise speeds and altitude.
>
Again, newer sport props have closed that gap somewhat.
>> One of the reasons I felt this discussion worth sharing, is the amount
>> of experience involved. As I mentioned, Larry has flown 4 props on his
>> RV-4, and, 2 of the same props (1 wood & the C/S) on a 160hp Glasair
>> that he helped build.
>
>The prop comparison Van did with Kitplanes a few years back
>is the only direct data from an RV-6 that I've seen that I
>trust. Some of my conclusions are based on flying several
>similar factory aircraft with different props. A Grumman
>Tiger sure cruises fast on its fixed prop, but it gives
>up a ton of ceiling and climb to other aircraft with the
>C/S. A 180 HP Mooney on the other hand climbs much better
>and flys much higher. A Piper Arrow will outclimb a Cherokee
>of the same HP even with the gear down!
>
Right, but how much of the difference is related to the size, drag,
and weight of these A/C? With the RV being lighter and cleaner,
some of that may be lost?
Sounds like mission helps decide. If xcountry in all kinds of
weather where the airplane will always be heavy due to baggage &
instrumentation anyway is your mission, metal may make more sense.
If local sport flying, much of it solo, is most of your flying,
lightness and quickness would be virtues that make the wood make
more sense.
Great discussion, anyway. One thing for certain, my prop is an
awesome cruiser, but not sporty enough, so I need to change it
some how. Wonder what I'll end-up with......
>Earl Brabandt (N66VR in progress)
>
dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | Local source for Alumiprep |
I thought I would try some Alumiprep on my
aileron parts after reading the discussion
on priming and etching. I have been wiping
down with acetone and spraying with
Variprime but have noticed that the
aluminum is always a little smeary looking-
most likely contamination from my rag. The
Variprime seems to scratch quite easily
also and when it comes off there isn't much
sign of bonding. That alclad is smooth.
Are there local sources? Bob Neuner
mentioned that he found it at a local paint
store. I have only found it a an automotive
paint store where I purchase the Variprime.
They want $10 a Qt. Which is double Bob's
price. I would guess a gallon at $35 they
don't seem to discount like they used to
for gallons. Any ideas other than sending
away. Is this stuff used in any industry
other than Aircraft?
Jim Schmidt
RV6 s/n 23082
Jupiter, FL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansen(at)risc.austin.ibm.com (William Hansen) |
| Subject: | I'm not building. |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) |
| Subject: | Returned mail: Service unavailable |
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 aol.com!Mlfred(at)matronics.com... Service unavailable
----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:36:23 -0600
From: hansen (William Hansen)
Subject: Re: Austin RV's
No, at present I am not building an RV or anything else. It'll
be a while before I can get started. There are a few things I
need to do first. Now, I'm just trying to learn as much as I can
before I get started.
My inclination is to the RV-6, although the -6A is also a possibility.
I really have been paying attention to the discussion about engines
and propellors, and I think I understand the arguments for the
options a lot more now.
BTW, how much does it cost to insure an RV-6? Is insuring an RV-6A
less expensive?
__Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Local source for Alumiprep (fwd) |
Any of the aero supply places should have it.
Try Wicks, Alaxender, or Aircraft Spruce.
I know Spruce has it and I thing the other two do as well.
There are several brands. It is all the same acid etch.
If you just want to try a small amount, go to WalMart
and look for Navel Jelly as it would do the same thing.
I find the acid etch cleans the metal as well as etches it.
For all my parts, I etched and alodined all the interior
parts and then primed with 2 part epoxy (Randolf Epibond
expoxy primer which is an off white color or also in green).
> From root Fri Nov 4 11:14:24 1994
> From: mail.mei.com!JIM-SCHMIDT(at)matronics.com
> Message-Id:
> X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 1994 09:09:03 -0600
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Local source for Alumiprep
>
> I thought I would try some Alumiprep on my
> aileron parts after reading the discussion
> on priming and etching. I have been wiping
> down with acetone and spraying with
> Variprime but have noticed that the
> aluminum is always a little smeary looking-
> most likely contamination from my rag. The
> Variprime seems to scratch quite easily
> also and when it comes off there isn't much
> sign of bonding. That alclad is smooth.
>
> Are there local sources? Bob Neuner
> mentioned that he found it at a local paint
> store. I have only found it a an automotive
> paint store where I purchase the Variprime.
> They want $10 a Qt. Which is double Bob's
> price. I would guess a gallon at $35 they
> don't seem to discount like they used to
> for gallons. Any ideas other than sending
> away. Is this stuff used in any industry
> other than Aircraft?
>
> Jim Schmidt
> RV6 s/n 23082
> Jupiter, FL.
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
Concerning the discussion on wing tips, this is from the book "The
Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics", 2nd Ed. by H. C. "Skip" Smith,
pp 282-284:
TIP SHAPE EFFECTS
Early wingtips were often rounded, in keeping with the general
aerodynamic rule of smooth transition from one surface to another.
Developers soon recognized that interference of the flow around the
wingtip was more conducive to low drag because the tip vortex causes
induced drag. A sharp-edged tip (viewed from a frontal position) will
tend to have this effect by causing a slight separation of the flow,
somewhat analogous to a sharp leading edge causing early stall.
A more effective tip arrangement is the DROOPED TIP. Drooped tips
have been available for some time as add-on devices from various
modification shops. They have also appeared on production airplanes,
particularly some of the last Cessna singles that were produced...
Drooped tips give the spanwise flow a somewhat downward flow around
the tip,... The result is a formation of the vortex farther outboard
rather than at the actual wingtip. Because it is the distance between
the tip vortices that determines the action of the vortices, the wing
behaves in this respect as if it were wider in span; hence, the
effective aspect ratio is increased without physically increasing it.
Computer analysis has been a boon to studies regarding the way
that vorticity is shed across the wing and the way that it rolls up
into two distinct tip vortices. Results of such research reveals
that an even greater reduction of induced drag can be achieved by
sweeping the tips upward, rather than downward as with the drooped
tip. The theory is that the upward displacement of the vortex
reduces its effect on the downwash, and, hence, the induced drag.
This principle was employed by Cessna in twin-engine designs....
The Hoerner wingtip is somewhat of a compromise in tips that
reduce induced drag, but retain simplicity of construction. This
tip, designed by S. Hoerner, who did classic studies on aircraft drag,
is used in a number of Piper airplanes, such as the Warrior tip...
It employs a slightly curved upsweep to the lower surface, which tends
to boost the vortex both upward and outward, plus a sharp edge. IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NONE OF THESE MODIFIED TIP SHAPES PRODUCE A
DRASTIC REDUCTION IN INDUCED DRAG, but in the aircraft design business,
every little bit helps. (Emphasis added.)
Any spelling errors and typos are probably mine. I was thinking of making
upturned tips on my -6, but I guess if somebody else is already making
them, it'll save me the trouble....but so much for being different.
I highly recommend this book to any pilot or homebuilder. It is easy
to understand and well-illustrated. The math does not go beyond
high school algebra, and even without that background, the book is
still usable. 337pp, softcover, retail price is marked as $19.95
and is published by TAB Books, copyright 1992, ISBN 0-8306-3901-2.
John Henderson
RV-6 23687
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Ray" <str(at)almaden.ibm.com> |
Avemco will insure you after 10 hours of flight time in your new RV and
it is then approximately 10% of the hull coverage. You might want to
pick up the insurance for 6 months and then drop it once your gain
confidence in the plane's integrity.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | warning on switching props (i.e. prop bolts) |
A word of caution when installing any propeller or when
switching propellers. You must ensure that the prop bolt
is the correct length. If the bolt screws into a bushing
in the crank flange or a bushing in the prop extension,
you need to make sure it does not bottom out on the threads.
If it does, it will appear that the bolt is torqued but
it is not. The shoulder of the bolt above the threads
hits the flange and you get a false torque reading.
If you use 'real' prop bolts, there will be less chance
of this as they have longer threads than normal AN bolts.
However, most homebuilders go the low cost route and use
AN bolts so be very carefull here.
Many of the RV's may not have this problem because some
(not all) of the hub extensions do not use the pressed in
threaded bushings but instead just use a nut on the back.
However you can have the same problem with a nut on the back.
There have been a number of accidents where someone changes
a prop and the hub thickness is not the same and they
use the same bolts and the bolt is too long and hits the
shoulder and does not torque properly. Most end up loosing
the prop and crash the aircraft. One example is on pg 138
of the IAC Technical Tips Manual Vol II. A nice AC was
destroyed. I have read of several other cases in the
past few years.
Second, be sure you know the proper torque. Prop bolts
have a slightly different torque than normal AN bolts.
Most certified props have the torque value printed on
a sticker on the prop.
For Wood props, see Sensenich Propeller Co. letter
"Wood Propellers: Installation, operation and Maintenance"
Sensenich can be contacted at 717-560-3711
I don't want to reproduce it here for fear of making a typo
and for liability reasons.
On my Pitts, it has a fixed pitch metal prop with 3/8 inch
prop bolts. I found that 4 of the 6 prop bolts were all
streached. I looked like someone torqued the bolts to much.
The thread area close to the shoulder was necked down
(smaller diam.) due to the streching. So, always inspect
your bolts before reinstalling them. I ended up buying all
new prop bolts and installing new bushings in the prop as
the threads there appeared to be too loose as well.
This can be checked by threading in one of the bolts
without the prop on and seeing how much side play it has.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The prop is still turning |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Another episode of "As the Prop Turns",
> I would think mostly it's the reduced weight making it quicker in overall
> responsiveness. But don't planes roll better one way than the other,
> depending on prop rotation?
Yes they do roll opposite the direction of the prop better, but this
is due to Newton's law rather than conservation of agular momentum
(gyroscopics). It's the "action-reaction" law. The mass of the
prop doesn't matter; only the force of its action on air matters.
(And the force that the air exerts back!) Spin that prop in a vacuum
and it won't matter how much it weighs once it reaches a steady
speed; there will not be a reaction force back. Of course once
it reaches speed, it won't require a force to keep it turning
in a vacuum either (assume no internal engine drag). No action-no
reaction. It's the force of the air on the prop (the same regardless
of how much the prop weighs) that makes it roll one way faster. So
in the light of such physics, torque rolls don't rely on the mass
of the prop; it's the turning of the prop against the air that helps
keep the airplane turning. On the other hand the wild "nose over
tail--tail over nose" stunts DO use gyroscopics and the energy
stored in a heavy rotating prop. I think the "Tucker-Upper" is
one extreme example. You'll never find one of those guys running
a fixed pitch prop--not enough drag in a dive, not enough thrust
HP in a climb, and most certainly, not enough mass for the best
of the wild gyroscopic stuts.
> I have to disagree here. I would argue that the increased vibration
> is caused by the same thing that takes more power to turn the heavier
> prop: each power pulse fighting to accelerate that heavier mass. It
> may be true that the better 'flywheeling' of the heavier prop comes
> in to play slightly, but I doubt if it's much since the drag of the
> air is doing more to slow it all the time.
The 'flywheeling' of the heavier prop comes into play just as much
as the "fighting to accelerate" that heavier mass! They are two
sides of the same coin! Yes, each power pulse does have to "fight"
to incrementally accelerate the prop. Having done so, the energy
is stored in the rotating prop--it is not lost. One could argure
that because the lighter prop doesn't store energy as well, it
slows down more between pulses and must be accelerated more by
the next pulse and it should be "jerkier" just like if you
tapped repeatedly on the accerlerator on your car to cause pulses
of acceleration/deceleration. In reality it's much more complicated
than that and such intuition won't work. I suspect that the
vibration issue is more likely due to dynamics that don't lend
themselves well to these simple first order arguments and discussion.
Things like the rigidity and damping of the material, mass distribution,
etc. affect the natural harmonic resonance of objects like props.
It's much beyond the scope of the conjecture in this forum!
Also, in my experience, C/S metal props generally DO run extremely
smoothly (if in balance) at certain RPMs. It's just a matter of
finding a prop speed that doesn't excite the natural harmonic of
the system.
> Is that true for an aircraft as light as an RV? Most RVers
> say they lose 5-10mph at cruise when they add a passenger (more
> weight, but at the CG).
10 sounds high to me. I can believe 5--especially considering
they were probably operating over max gross weight where the
higher angle of attack required really starts to hurt.
But we're talking about maybe 20-30 lbs here (I still have
to weigh my prop), not they typical 200 lb male passenger!
The drag/speed difference due to prop weight is much,
much less. I'll wager that the difference due to weight alone
is too small to measure.
Also if you're concerned with speed rather than stability,
it's better to have the weight in back; you won't loose as much.
> Are you considering the 'flex' that is employed in the newer
> sport props? The prop makers claim that they even-out that
> difference to some extent by allowing the props to 'flatten'
> under high load (takeoff/climb) then returning to more pitch
> at speed.
________________________________________________________________________________
near enough. Then we get into the question of is a prop really
something that SHOULD flex?
> According to one of Van's pilots, his 160hp -6 stays with the
> 160hp -6A prototype during takeoffs/climbs at Van's. He has
> wood, the -6A has C/S.
Van also makes his guys reduce power/RPM on the C/S just as
soon as they have air under their wheels. Bill once told
me Van listens for it :-) So of course the wood prop would
keep up with the C/S.
> Vetterman said there is minimal dif-
> ference in his TO/climb after switching also.
> I agree that the C/S will always have the advantage in TO/climb
> if the wood is designed to also provide good cruise, but it's not
> hands-down.
Again, too many operational and aircraft differences.
Actually from the standpoint of the weight argument, climb is
where the weight should hurt you the most because it's done at lower
speed and higher angle of attack. At high angles of attack,
any additional angle of attack necessary to "support" the extra
weight results in a rapid increase in induced drag. But in
fact, the capability to spin the engine faster more than compensates
for the extra drag brought about by the additional weight.
At cruise speed, if the C/S prop is turning faster than the fixed
prop, the advantage in performance would be even more pronounced
because the wing is operating at a lower angle of attack and the
relative drag penalty of the additional weight is even less
than in the low speed climb.
All of the props that flew fast in the Kitplanes/Van's prop test
were spinning fast. In typical use, fixed and C/S props usually
cruise closer than they climb because the RPM is closer.
(Sometimes because the C/S driver doesn't know that he could go
faster or fly higher if he would just push that little blue knob
in a bit!)
By the way, the aerodynamic efficiencies of all the best props in
the test were very close so we're mostly talking about being able
to spin fast enough to develop engine HP here. (Or spin slowly
enough when you wish to improve fuel economy and maybe engine
longevity.) Some new, more flexible "almost constant speed" have
appeared recently that were not tested, but the older Warnke was
tested and I believe he was calling that one almost constant speed.
There have been failures reported as well and I'm not ready to
trade a tried and true Hartzell yet even if they really were
"almost" C/S" But listening to all the RVs take off at various
fly-ins, they aren't!
> Right, but how much of the difference is related to the size, drag,
> and weight of these A/C? With the RV being lighter and cleaner,
> some of that may be lost?
Despite its low weight and good speed, the RV is still a very
conventional aircraft. My arguments for a C/S prop are based on
experience and simple "first order physics arguments" which I
believe dominate the these questions of performance. If anyone
has some specific ideas about how the RV differences come into
play, I'm interested.
> 'testimonials', like 2 RV-4 180hp going to Oshkosh from here.
> What are the reasons? I can only speculate:
> 1- the weight thing?
> 2- able to get more power out of the C/S?
> 3- (this is one I have often wondered-about, but don't have
> any data to deny or support) blade design? Were the C/S props
> used on RVs designed for 50 to >210 mph speeds?
> Or, from another angle, how many 200 or less hp engines are
> there in production aircraft that can go over 200 mph?
4- People report that what they have (and spent good money on) works.
Hey, I'm doing that here!
The efficiency numbers were comparable and excellent on the best
props tested by Kitplanes/Van's on the RV-6A so I'd suggest that
even though they are used on heavier production aircraft (not
necessarly slower--some Mooneys and Bonanzas go just as fast as
RVs) C/S props work equally well on RVs.
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I'm not building. |
Liability only on my -6 is $330/yr.
dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) |
| Subject: | Returned mail: Service unavailable |
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 aol.com!Mlfred(at)matronics.com... Service unavailable
----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:36:23 -0600
From: hansen (William Hansen)
Subject: Re: Austin RV's
No, at present I am not building an RV or anything else. It'll
be a while before I can get started. There are a few things I
need to do first. Now, I'm just trying to learn as much as I can
before I get started.
My inclination is to the RV-6, although the -6A is also a possibility.
I really have been paying attention to the discussion about engines
and propellors, and I think I understand the arguments for the
options a lot more now.
BTW, how much does it cost to insure an RV-6? Is insuring an RV-6A
less expensive?
__Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
Are you saying it is $2,500 for insurance for 1 yr on a $25,000 hull value?
I find that hard to believe. I pay about $750.00 a yr for 25K hull value
on my homebuilt Pitts and that includes 1 million liability and includes
coverage for IAC aerobatic competition (but excludes air shows).
And this is on an aerobatic aircraft. I think the first year was about
$850. I have 1400 hours TT and most of it tail wheel.
If someone is low time and low tail wheel then I could see it being more
(maybe $1,000 per yr).
Also, dropping the insurance after 6 months may not be smart.
You have to decide if you can stand the full loss of the A/C.
A local pilot here flipped his RV6 over after flying it for several years
and he is looking at a new prop, new crank, engine OH, new canopy, new
VS/rudder, lots of labor, etc. The crank shaft alone (used) is $2,500.00.
> Subject: insurance
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 94 09:39:54 -0800
> From: "Sam Ray" <almaden.ibm.com!str(at)matronics.com>
>
> Avemco will insure you after 10 hours of flight time in your new RV and
> it is then approximately 10% of the hull coverage. You might want to
> pick up the insurance for 6 months and then drop it once your gain
> confidence in the plane's integrity.
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | insurance -Reply |
Avemco will insure you after 10 hours of
flight time in your new RV and it is then
approximately 10% of the hull coverage.
You might want to pick up the insurance for
6 months and then drop it once your gain
confidence in the plane's integrity.
I don't know where this topic came form
but it so happens that I called the EAA in
oshkosh to ask about registration,
inspection and such and they are sending me
circular 2027D from the FAA but also noted
that they are going to send me two other
programs that are going on. One they said
involved using the Technical advisors to do
pre-cover inspections and insurance.
Evidently if you have someone inspect your
plane like the FAA used to do some
insurance companies will include coverage
during the first 10 hours.
I will forward this info once I get the
actual details from headquarters.
Jim S.
RV6 s/n 23082
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM-SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com |
| Subject: | Local source for Alumiprep found |
I jumped to assumptions again. I called my
local automotive store back and the gallon
price is $24.
The store clerk tried to sell me Dupont
226s I think it was. That was what appeared
to be alodine to me. She said she does a
lot of aluminum painting on her rail
dragster. She said she never uses alumiprep
just this 226s then Variprime and then
another Dupont product called Chroma prime
as a base coat sealer before the Poly
urethane top coat and then clear coat.
These are also some kind of Chroma
something Dupont paints.
I am still confused about alodine versus
alumiprep. It appears that alumiprep is
just a cleaner before using alodine. But if
I understand some people are using just the
alumiprep and then the Variprime. So the
alumiprep is just being used as a cleaner
instead of acetone.
Is alodine to better create a controlled
corrosion barrier on none alclad parts?
Do any of you guys in the NW know what the
big boys like Boeing do or is that not
relevant to us trying to keep the weight
down to a minimum. I live in Florida and
have seen several local RV's that are
starting to corrode after 3 years in
hangers. Both used Ditzler DP40 white
primer no etching.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
Text item:
>Concerning the discussion on wing tips, this is from the book "The
>Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics", 2nd Ed. by H. C. "Skip" Smith,
>pp 282-284:
>.
> TIP SHAPE EFFECTS
>John Henderson
>RV-6 23687
This makes me wonder what we are doing to ourselves by sticking our
position/strobe lights right on the sharp edge of the tip.
FKJ
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 11:01:39 -0600
From: John H Henderson <Eng.Auburn.EDU!johnh(at)matronics.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: insurance (fwd) |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
> Also, dropping the insurance after 6 months may not be smart.
> You have to decide if you can stand the full loss of the A/C.
Yes. That's about the time when complacency contributes to many
accidents. Having given tailwheel transition instruction for
many years, I believe a typical new taildragger pilot is most
likely to ground loop somewhere around the 50 hour mark!
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Local source for Alumiprep found |
mail.mei.com!JIM-SCHMIDT(at)matronics.com wrote:
[...]
> I am still confused about alodine versus
> alumiprep. It appears that alumiprep is
> just a cleaner before using alodine. But if
> I understand some people are using just the
> alumiprep and then the Variprime. So the
> alumiprep is just being used as a cleaner
> instead of acetone.
Yes, it is a cleaner, but also an etchant, so the alodyne can get into
the metal and the paint will stick better. If you don't alumiprep or
use a self etching primer, you should at least scuff with scotchbrite
or similar if you want the paint to stick well. It's still a good idea
to wipe with acetone first to make sure it gets good & clean.
>
> Is alodine to better create a controlled
> corrosion barrier on none alclad parts?
Yes, and also on alclad parts in places where the alclad
has been scratched.
>
> Do any of you guys in the NW know what the
> big boys like Boeing do or is that not
> relevant to us trying to keep the weight
> down to a minimum. I live in Florida and
> have seen several local RV's that are
> starting to corrode after 3 years in
> hangers. Both used Ditzler DP40 white
> primer no etching.
In the NW a lot of us are using Courtauld's Aerospace 2 part epoxy
primer, which is what Boeing uses. I personally etch, alodyne then
prime everything. The etch/alodyne process takes time but doesn't add
any weight, so if you're worried about corrosion I'd recommend it.
I won't go into detail about the pros & cons of priming, weight, and
which primer to use, as the the whole subject of etch/alodyne/priming
has been covered in detail on the list in a couple of previous
sessions. You should get ahold of the back postings from Matt, there's
a lot of good info there.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Alumiprep questions |
>
>I am still confused about alodine versus
>alumiprep. It appears that alumiprep is
>just a cleaner before using alodine. But if
>I understand some people are using just the
>alumiprep and then the Variprime. So the
>alumiprep is just being used as a cleaner
>instead of acetone.
>
The alumiprep is a lottle more than a cleaner,
it is an acid that actually etches the top
surface of the aluminum, and also penetrates
into any microscopic corrosion pits, and will
dissolve any corrosion (aluminum oxides).
Needless to say, any surface that has had its
top layer etched away is also as clean as
you can get (until you start touching it, or
leaving it exposed to the atmosphere). The
etching also creates a microscopically fine
"toothed" surface that is better for any
subsequent primer to grip on to.
>Is alodine to better create a controlled
>corrosion barrier on none alclad parts?
>
Yes ... and also on Alclad parts.
Boeing question ....
I will find my Mil Spec on corrosion control
for Navy aircraft (probably equivalent to
Florida weather) and post that later.
Gil Alexander RV6A #20701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: wingtip lights |
> >Concerning the discussion on wing tips, this is from the book "The
> >Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics", 2nd Ed. by H. C. "Skip" Smith,
> >pp 282-284:
> >.
> > TIP SHAPE EFFECTS
> >John Henderson
> >RV-6 23687
>
> This makes me wonder what we are doing to ourselves by sticking our
> position/strobe lights right on the sharp edge of the tip.
>
> FKJ
HEY! What are you, some kind of troublemaker?
Now I have yeet ANOTHER nit-picky thing to fret over! AAARRRGHHH!
:-)
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Local source for Alumiprep found |
>
> I am still confused about alodine versus
> alumiprep. It appears that alumiprep is
> just a cleaner before using alodine. But if
> I understand some people are using just the
> alumiprep and then the Variprime. So the
> alumiprep is just being used as a cleaner
> instead of acetone.
>
I use a degreaser (not acetone; it tends to leave a slight residue)
to get any remaining greases off the aluminum. Then I use the
alumiprep. You dilute it with water and the apply it to the aluminum.
I use a sponge to apply it and then a Scothbrite pad to rub it in
over the 5-7 minute period I let it etch. Remember, this stuff is an
acid! You can smell the fumes and it will also etch your skin and eyes;
so wear protection (Neoprene gloves and a face shield). The alumiprep is
not a cleaner but instead etches the aluminum surface. You then spray off
all traces of the stuff with a hose. At this point you've made a real nice
surface for the primer/paint to adhere to, but it offers absolutely no
additional corrosion protection (in fact you may have just removed some). If
you choose to use alodine, it adds the corrosion protection by converting the
aluminum surface to aluminum chromate (or some such substance). A somewhat
undesireable side-effect is the blotched gold color over the surface. I
recently heard that this could be a problem if you forgo the primer and
directly apply a topcoat that is light in color (Don W?); it could result in
a topcoat that is not quite uniform in color. A primer will take care of this
and also provide a good sanding base, although I believe Variprime is not a
good sanding base. I personally have used Variprime on much of my interior
parts, but not on the exterior.
> Is alodine to better create a controlled
> corrosion barrier on none alclad parts?
don't know
>
> Do any of you guys in the NW know what the
> big boys like Boeing do or is that not
> relevant to us trying to keep the weight
> down to a minimum. I live in Florida and
> have seen several local RV's that are
> starting to corrode after 3 years in
> hangers. Both used Ditzler DP40 white
> primer no etching.
>
>
I live in New England and do alot of my flying near/over the ocean. I am
concerned with corrosion and can live with the extra weight from the primer
(the alumiprep and alodine does not add any weight). In case you are
interested, the expoxy primer I am using adds about 5 lbs. for each gallon
applied. My plan is to drop my weight by 20 lbs. so that my plane and
myself can live a longer life. Heck, I've probably lost 10 in the past few
weeks from all the sanding I've been doing.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: insurance (fwd) |
>
> > Also, dropping the insurance after 6 months may not be smart.
> > You have to decide if you can stand the full loss of the A/C.
>
> Yes. That's about the time when complacency contributes to many
> accidents. Having given tailwheel transition instruction for
> many years, I believe a typical new taildragger pilot is most
> likely to ground loop somewhere around the 50 hour mark!
>
> Earl
>
This happened to me! I had my $17,000 Kitfox fully insured for the 1st
6 months (thru AVEMCO). It was about $1800/year. Since the coverage was a bit
too expensive, and I felt so confident in the plane and my ability to repair
it in case of an incident, I dropped the hull (but kept the liability). On
Memorial Day, 1990 I lost the engine on takeoff and landed in a swamp. No
personal injuries, but the plane was totaled. You better believe I'll have
hull coverage on my RV6A. I've got the builders policy right now and will
convert to a motion policy when I'm ready to start flying. Also, I believe
AVEMCO will cover the 1st 10 hours now (a recent change). There is another
insurance company that has been advertising in AOPA/EAA publications that they
cover the 1st fly hours also; they also will reimburse for your labor to
perform the repairs. When you've got that much time and money into an
airplane, I'd think real hard about dropping the hull coverage. I can think
of a whole lot of things I could have used that $17,000 for (and so can my
wife; she never lets me forget).
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re[2]: insurance - question? |
Jim S.
RV6 s/n 23082 SAID:---
>Avemco will insure you after 10 hours of
>flight time in your new RV and it is then
>approximately 10% of the hull coverage.
>You might want to pick up the insurance for
>6 months and then drop it once your gain
>confidence in the plane's integrity.
>
>I don't know where this topic came form
>but it so happens that I called the EAA in
>oshkosh to ask about registration,
>inspection and such and they are sending me
>circular 2027D from the FAA but also noted
>that they are going to send me two other
>programs that are going on. One they said
>involved using the Technical advisors to do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>pre-cover inspections and insurance.
This is interesting. How do you prove
that you have had an inspection?? When the
FAA did it, they signed your A/C logbook.
When my local EAA Tech Advisor came, he said
that EAA HQ told them not to sign anything
due to liability reasons.
Have any others had a similar experience??
Gil Alexander RV6A #20701
>Jim S.
>RV6 s/n 23082
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Local source for Alumiprep found |
*** previous mail ***
>>
>> I am still confused about alodine versus
>> alumiprep. It appears that alumiprep is
>> just a cleaner before using alodine. But if
>> I understand some people are using just the
>> alumiprep and then the Variprime. So the
>> alumiprep is just being used as a cleaner
>> instead of acetone.
>>
>I use a degreaser (not acetone; it tends to leave a slight residue)
>to get any remaining greases off the aluminum. Then I use the
>alumiprep. You dilute it with water and the apply it to the aluminum.
>I use a sponge to apply it and then a Scothbrite pad to rub it in
>over the 5-7 minute period I let it etch. Remember, this stuff is an
>acid! You can smell the fumes and it will also etch your skin and eyes;
>so wear protection (Neoprene gloves and a face shield). The alumiprep is
>not a cleaner but instead etches the aluminum surface. You then spray off
>all traces of the stuff with a hose. At this point you've made a real nice
>surface for the primer/paint to adhere to, but it offers absolutely no
>additional corrosion protection (in fact you may have just removed some). If
>you choose to use alodine, it adds the corrosion protection by converting the
>aluminum surface to aluminum chromate (or some such substance). A somewhat
>undesireable side-effect is the blotched gold color over the surface. I
>recently heard that this could be a problem if you forgo the primer and
>directly apply a topcoat that is light in color (Don W?); it could result in
*** comment ***
Stits sells an alodine that is clear in color (E-2300) if this is a
concern. It is harder to use since it does not color the metal to see if
you did a good job!! They also sell acid etch in a cream form for using on
vertical surfaces.
I have found that a light coat of yellow/green epoxy primer (I use a
McDonald Douglas spec. primer) covers any of the gold color present, so I
think this metal coloring should not be a concern, evening out the color
differnce between the whiteish fiberglass parts and the aluminum is
probably of more concern, and can probably only be fixed with an extra
layer of paint (or more primer). This may be the best argument for using a
white primer if your final color is not white.
Gil Alexander RV6A #20701
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Local source for Alumiprep |
>I thought I would try some Alumiprep on my
>aileron parts after reading the discussion
>on priming and etching. I have been wiping
>down with acetone and spraying with
>Variprime but have noticed that the
>aluminum is always a little smeary looking-
>most likely contamination from my rag. The
>Variprime seems to scratch quite easily
>also and when it comes off there isn't much
>sign of bonding. That alclad is smooth.
>
>Are there local sources? Bob Neuner
>mentioned that he found it at a local paint
>store. I have only found it a an automotive
>paint store where I purchase the Variprime.
>They want $10 a Qt. Which is double Bob's
>price. I would guess a gallon at $35 they
>don't seem to discount like they used to
>for gallons. Any ideas other than sending
>away. Is this stuff used in any industry
>other than Aircraft?
>
>Jim Schmidt
>RV6 s/n 23082
>Jupiter, FL.
>
>
The local source I mentioned is RODDA Paint, a Northwest manufacturer and
retailer of paints and home decorating products...nothing special. Alumiprep
should be able to be found in any dedicated paint store. The price IS
probably higher today. The last batch I bought was purchased over a year
ago. At that time the store clerk did mention a (slight?) price increase due
to increased costs in transporting "Hazardeous" material. Try a
"Sherwin/Williams" store. The most economical way to buy the stuff is by the
gallon.
It is my experience that Acetone leaves a film after drying, and does
nothing to prepare the surface. Alumiprep is nice because it not only chews
up any oily film. but also etches the surface giving it a little "tooth" for
the paint to hang on to.
Good Luck!
bobn(at)ims.com
Bob Neuner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: insurance - question? |
>This is interesting. How do you prove that you have had an
>inspection?? When the FAA did it, they signed your A/C logbook.
>When my local EAA Tech Advisor came, he said that EAA HQ told them
>not to sign anything due to liability reasons.
> Have any others had a similar experience??
> Gil Alexander RV6A #20701
That's true, not many folks will be willing to sign your logbook.
But, what we do is list in your logbook things like:
"June xx, 1993 - Had builder's group over to see project. Ken Scott
of Van's Aircraft had an opportunity to look at the progress on my
wings and commented on the good quality of workmanship."
This way you have a 'record' of someone reviewing your project, but no
exposure to someone else.
dw
PS - Any of you local builders are welcome to have any alodyne I have
left over, I don't want it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
tif312.ed.ray.com!bataller(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Local source for Alumiprep found |
>I recently heard that this could be a problem if you forgo the primer
>and directly apply a topcoat that is light in color (Don W?); It
>could result in a topcoat that is not quite uniform in color. A
>primer will take care of this and also provide a good sanding base,
>although I believe Variprime is not a good sanding base.
I only etched/alodyned a few parts early-on, then decided it was too
much time and effort. Instead I scotchbrite scuffed everything,
cleaned it well with Courtalds thinner, & used the Courtalds Aerospace
etching 2 part Epoxy primer. It sticks extremely well & is VERY
scratch resistant. It also makes an exellent paint base, never had
a single instance of reaction with another primer/paint. I used
regular PPG Acrylic Enamel on my grey interior and charcoal metallic
panel/roll-over-bar, right over the Courtalds.
On the exterior, I used a very similar epoxy primer, from a different
vendor, only because it was from the same mfgurer as the urethane
finish paint. The topcoat issue Gary mentions here is NOT etch or
primer caused, it's the color of the metal (very dark) as compared to
the gel coated fiberglass (very white). You want to be sure to make
the base coats consistent if you want the top coat to be constistent.
Be sure you have enough base coat to make the different materials all
the same color. This base coat is NOT the etching primer (which goes
on extremely light/thin, just for adhesion), it is a secondary
'filler' or 'color base' primer. I had to use up to 2 coats to get my
aluminum 'white' before painting the first white color coats.
BTW, I used the Sikkens system, because ALL of the coats/stages go on
within minutes of each other, AND, NO sanding is required between
coats. I wouldn't use it again, just because it was too expensive,
but I'm sure Dupont or one of the others have similar materials, and
lots of builders have had good results with them.
> Is alodine to better create a controlled
> corrosion barrier on none alclad parts?
don't know
>
> Do any of you guys in the NW know what the
> big boys like Boeing do or is that not
> relevant to us trying to keep the weight
> down to a minimum. I live in Florida and
> have seen several local RV's that are
> starting to corrode after 3 years in
> hangers. Both used Ditzler DP40 white
> primer no etching.
>
My experience early on with DP primers was very poor, it didn't stick
worth a darn. I did use it during final prep as a sealer/filler on
the fiberglass parts, where it worked very well. It IS very hard when
dry, and it stick well on porous materials, it just doesn't have the
stick and scratch resistance that the Courtalds has. I highly
recommend sealing your glass parts with any epoxy primer, it helps
locate pin holes and really provides a good base for your paint.
Also, don't be too concerned with little imperfections in your metal,
I didn't use a drop of filler on my metal, and all of the little dings
almost disappeared once the final paint was on. That is one of the
beauty things about riveted skins, they CAN'T be perfectly smooth, so
don't kill yourself with the surface prep like those glass plane
slobs do!
don w
> Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
Since there has been some discussion on the effect of weight on cruise
speed, I decided to plug some numbers into the equations and see what
is predicted.
I used the data from the RV-6 in Van's promotional package at 8000' ft
density pressure. I couldn't find the power used for that plane, but
its empty weight was listed as 960 lbs, so I assume that it is one
of the lightly-built prototypes, and assumed that the data was for the
O-320, since Van's seems to favor those.
I had to estimate or extract some of the parameters. I came up
with a flat plate area of about 2.3 ft^2, which makes the RV-6 slicker
than a Mooney 201 which is one of the more efficient factory-builts with
a flat-plate area of 2.81 ft^2. I assumed that the planform
coefficient (used in induced drag calculation) was about 0.4. This
seemed to match given power-speed curves well. This coefficient
is dependent upon the planform, with an elliptical wing being the most
efficient with about 0.318. If anybody knows what this factor really
is for a rectangular wing, please let me know. I also assumed a
maximum prop efficiency of 80% across the entire speed range. This
may be a good assumption for a well-operated C/S installation, but
if the peak in efficiency for a fixed-pitch prop occurs around typical
cruise speeds, this estimate should be good for these calculations.
I calculated a power-speed curve for a 1320 lb plane (1000lb plane, 20 gals
of fuel, and one medium size (200lb -- let's be serious -- I've seen
us at flyins) pilot.
The verdict: Add one 200 lb passenger at 55% cruise, lose almost 4 mph.
-- 50lb C/S stuff, shouldn't be even 1 mph.
Sometimes people have expressed their hopes that Van might design
a more efficient tapered wing. Even more efficient than that is
an elliptical wing. However, my calculations show that an elliptical
wing of the same span would give only a 2 mph increase over the
rectagular plan, if that much. Would seem that Van knows what he's doing.
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to be an aerospace engineer, and there is
definitely a chance of error somewhere in my calculations. Also,
equations often are a simplification of the real world, so your mileage
my vary.
This was fun. I guess that 3 years into my PhD program in electrical
engineering is a little late to change my major.
Are propellers supplied with efficiency curves? I would like to see
some efficiency curves for typical RV propellers so I can play
more with the aerodynamic equations. (Fly in my computer until I
can fly in my plane.)
John Henderson
RV-6 23687
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Milestone reached (finished a wing) |
Well I reached a milestone yesterday, pulled the left wing out of the
jig and stored it away, and am starting now on the right wing.
I can't actually say the wing is DONE, since I haven't riveted the
bottom skins on yet, but they're all ready to go, and I'm just leaving
them off to get to the aileron/flap brace rivets when the time comes.
Wing tip is also not on there yet, but everything else is essentially
done, and it sure LOOKS like a wing to me! I installed a heated
pitot-tube, and ran the wing wiring conduit and the pitot-tube
line, and installed a stainless steel eye bolt for the tie-down.
The second wing should go a LOT faster (I keep saying), as I built both
spars and skeletons in parallel, including the fuel tank skeleton, and
fabricated and primed all the parts I could for both wings. I expect
the second wing to be like a "super fast build" kit, should be fun!
Randall Henderson
RV-6X (STILL waffling)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Milestone reached (finished a wing) |
Text item:
Congratulations!!!....keep going and it won't be long you will be like
that Don Wentz guy, if you want to see him you'll have to look up.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Milestone reached (finished a wing)
Date: 11/7/94 2:36 PM
Well I reached a milestone yesterday, pulled the left wing out of the
jig and stored it away, and am starting now on the right wing.
I can't actually say the wing is DONE, since I haven't riveted the
bottom skins on yet, but they're all ready to go, and I'm just leaving
them off to get to the aileron/flap brace rivets when the time comes.
Wing tip is also not on there yet, but everything else is essentially
done, and it sure LOOKS like a wing to me! I installed a heated
pitot-tube, and ran the wing wiring conduit and the pitot-tube
line, and installed a stainless steel eye bolt for the tie-down.
The second wing should go a LOT faster (I keep saying), as I built both
spars and skeletons in parallel, including the fuel tank skeleton, and
fabricated and primed all the parts I could for both wings. I expect
the second wing to be like a "super fast build" kit, should be fun!
Randall Henderson
RV-6X (STILL waffling)
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: Milestone reached (finished a wing)
From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 13:44:45 PST
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Milestone reached (finished a wing) (fwd) |
A word of advice. I found I was more likely to make a mistake
on the second part I build. I found I took more care on the first part
and then I think you take it for granted that you know what you are
doing, and thats when you get into trouble.
So, don't put it on autopilot. Herman.
> From root Mon Nov 7 16:36:06 1994
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 13:44:45 PST
> From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
> Message-Id: <9411072144.AA04818(at)edt.edt.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Milestone reached (finished a wing)
>
>
> Well I reached a milestone yesterday, pulled the left wing out of the
> jig and stored it away, and am starting now on the right wing.
>
> I can't actually say the wing is DONE, since I haven't riveted the
> bottom skins on yet, but they're all ready to go, and I'm just leaving
> them off to get to the aileron/flap brace rivets when the time comes.
> Wing tip is also not on there yet, but everything else is essentially
> done, and it sure LOOKS like a wing to me! I installed a heated
> pitot-tube, and ran the wing wiring conduit and the pitot-tube
> line, and installed a stainless steel eye bolt for the tie-down.
>
> The second wing should go a LOT faster (I keep saying), as I built both
> spars and skeletons in parallel, including the fuel tank skeleton, and
> fabricated and primed all the parts I could for both wings. I expect
> the second wing to be like a "super fast build" kit, should be fun!
>
> Randall Henderson
> RV-6X (STILL waffling)
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Milestone reached (finished a wing) (fwd) |
I thought I was the only one who did that!
Excellent advice Herman. dw
A word of advice. I found I was more likely to make a mistake
on the second part I build. I found I took more care on the first part
and then I think you take it for granted that you know what you are
doing, and thats when you get into trouble.
So, don't put it on autopilot. Herman.
> From root Mon Nov 7 16:36:06 1994
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 13:44:45 PST
> From: edt.com!randall(at)matronics.com (Randall Henderson)
> Message-Id: <9411072144.AA04818(at)edt.edt.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Milestone reached (finished a wing)
>
>
> Well I reached a milestone yesterday, pulled the left wing out of the
> jig and stored it away, and am starting now on the right wing.
>
> I can't actually say the wing is DONE, since I haven't riveted the
> bottom skins on yet, but they're all ready to go, and I'm just leaving
> them off to get to the aileron/flap brace rivets when the time comes.
> Wing tip is also not on there yet, but everything else is essentially
> done, and it sure LOOKS like a wing to me! I installed a heated
> pitot-tube, and ran the wing wiring conduit and the pitot-tube
> line, and installed a stainless steel eye bolt for the tie-down.
>
> The second wing should go a LOT faster (I keep saying), as I built both
> spars and skeletons in parallel, including the fuel tank skeleton, and
> fabricated and primed all the parts I could for both wings. I expect
> the second wing to be like a "super fast build" kit, should be fun!
>
> Randall Henderson
> RV-6X (STILL waffling)
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Milestone reached (finished a wing) (fwd) |
Text item:
> A word of advice. I found I was more likely to make a mistake
> on the second part I build. I found I took more care on the first part
> and then I think you take it for granted that you know what you are
> doing, and thats when you get into trouble.
> So, don't put it on autopilot. Herman.
Randall doesn't do that. He gets even more fanatic on the second one than he
does on the first one.
FKJ
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 17:40:48 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Milestone reached (finished a wing) (fwd)
From: austin.ibm.com!dierks(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Milestone reached (finished a wing) (fwd) |
> Text item:
>
> > A word of advice. I found I was more likely to make a mistake
> > on the second part I build. I found I took more care on the first part
> > and then I think you take it for granted that you know what you are
> > doing, and thats when you get into trouble.
> > So, don't put it on autopilot. Herman.
Yeah I'll have to watch that. I'm already realizing that I don't remember
as much as I thought I would about how I did the first one (and what mistakes
to avoid).
>
> Randall doesn't do that. He gets even more fanatic on the second one than he
> does on the first one.
>
> FKJ
Thanks Frank.... I think.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
Please subscribe me to the rv mailing list.
Thanks,
Monty Cadenhead
-------------------------------------------
cmc2(at)delphi.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits |
Text item: Text_1
I have heard quite a few complaints from builders that they had to move
the rear half bulkheads around and reshape or shim them to get straight
skin lines. I would like to hear more details about this, such as: was
it all of the bulkheads or just one? was it a just a width or just a
height issue, or were both out at various points when the bulkheads were
in the specified position? were your bulkheads the size called out in
the drawings? was the arror 1/32" or 1/2"?
In mine, all the bulkheads from the baggage rear (F-606) to the
rear-most one are in line except F-608, which is the right width but
about 3/4" too short. Is this common or do problems vary from one
builder to another?
Any comments appreciated; if there is a common problem here that
everybody will see then we can work out a standard fix for it and save
everybody some time. We might even be able to get a bulkhead size
changed if that is the answer.
Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
> In mine, all the bulkheads from the baggage rear (F-606) to the
> rear-most one are in line except F-608, which is the right width but
> about 3/4" too short. Is this common or do problems vary from one
> builder to another?
Frank,
3/4"!!! I'd say the problems must vary, because I didn't have anything
off that much. Maybe 1/8" - 3/16" but not 3/4" Are you sure you didn't
substitute F-609 for F-608 Frank? :-)
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
ccm.ssd.intel.com!Frank_K_Justice(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits |
Text item:
I know on my RV4 the bottom flanges had to be cut off and new ones built
and riveted on to the bulkhead as the belly pan did not meet otherwise.
The distance was significant, probably about 3/4" I don't know if the 4
still has this problem but it was in the instructions and also a drawing
as I remember. It was just part of the construction process with the 4
at the time I was building.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits
Date: 11/8/94 10:49 AM
> In mine, all the bulkheads from the baggage rear (F-606) to the
> rear-most one are in line except F-608, which is the right width but
> about 3/4" too short. Is this common or do problems vary from one
> builder to another?
Frank,
3/4"!!! I'd say the problems must vary, because I didn't have anything
off that much. Maybe 1/8" - 3/16" but not 3/4" Are you sure you didn't
substitute F-609 for F-608 Frank? :-)
Earl
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
From: "Earl Brabandt" <ichips.intel.com!earlb(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 09:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Bulkhead Misfits |
>> In mine, all the bulkheads from the baggage rear (F-606) to the
>> rear-most one are in line except F-608, which is the right width but
>> about 3/4" too short. Is this common or do problems vary from one
>> builder to another?
>
>Frank,
>
>3/4"!!! I'd say the problems must vary, because I didn't have anything
>off that much. Maybe 1/8" - 3/16" but not 3/4" Are you sure you didn't
>substitute F-609 for F-608 Frank? :-)
>
>Earl
I can believe these dimensions. The fitting of the rear bulkeads
is a multi-variable problem.
The items that can be adjusted easily are:
1. Fore and aft location on the jig relative to Vans plans dimensions.
2. Width of bulkheads relative to using the guide holes. (i.e. more or
less overlap.
Some guidelines are given though.... the skin lines and the
longerons from F606 to the aft bulkhead are all straight lines, so use an 8
ft straight edge for alignment. I found that you could adjust both 1 and 2
above simultaneously to make these skin lines straight.
In my case, the F607 bulkhead needed to be almost 1/2 inch further
forward than the plan dimension, and also over 3/16 inch more overlap
(narrower) than the predrilled guide holes. The F608 needed about the same
overlap, but met the plans fore and aft dimension. The others only needed
slight adjustment, but I believe I had to trim a little off them (about
1/16) at the longeron end to get the heights in the jig correct. Note that
all of this does not get the tops (turtledeck) of the bulkheads straight
... I guess I'll fix that at a later time. (but .. if you look closely at
the photos in the construction manual.. you can see that someone has cut
and spliced the upper portions of these bulkheads!)
Talking to other builders, the -6 problem is less than the original
-4 problem, which Van fixed by revising the fore and aft dimensions in a
plans change.
hope this helps ... Gil Alexander #20701 RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: More travels in N790DW |
Don W. and Richard B. thread ....
>Oops, thought that might generate a question. I meant the 'flat' top
>surface of the fiberglass wing tips. The thin material immediately
>begins to sag and get a wavy appearance, not pretty.
>
>The best solution I have seen is to laminate a 1/8" layer of 'non-resin-
>absorbing' foam to the entire underside of the upper tip surface, with
>one layer of 9 oz cloth over it. This is what Jerry Herrold's optional
>tips have. I have these on my -6 and they are still as straight as the
>day I installed them. The non-absortive foam prevents adding a lot of
>weight.
>dw
>
>
>>really nice. I did notice that he didn't have the Jerry Herrold
>>'stabilized' wing tips with the built-in warp resistance. You all need
>>to either get some of his, or modify yours to match, to prevent that
>>waviness that RV wingtips have. His are already getting wavy. We had a
>
>
>Not familar with "stabilized wingtips" - explanation?
>
Interesting point. The local builder who bought wings pre-made by
Phlogiston had a modification we (those who built our own wings) noticed.
Phlogiston had added riveted angle strips (similar to the fuel tank
stiffeners) to the inside of the upper surface of the fibreglass tips.
They ran spanwise and are about 9 inches apart. Even then, as the glass
"aged", the locations of these strips can be clearly seen. It seems some
sort of internal stiffening is needed, but I think I would use 1 inch sq.
foam strips, and lay glass over them if I were to add stiffeners. The 1/8
foam method described above is the best, but it will not straighten any tip
that is already wavy!!
One of my tips is trashed (either badly made, improperly stored, or
a bit of both), so I think I will buy some Herrold tips. I wish I knew
about them when I bought the wing kit!!
Gil Alexander #20701 RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif312.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: More travels in N790DW |
> sort of internal stiffening is needed, but I think I would use 1 inch sq.
> foam strips, and lay glass over them if I were to add stiffeners. The 1/8
> foam method described above is the best, but it will not straighten any tip
> that is already wavy!!
> One of my tips is trashed (either badly made, improperly stored, or
> a bit of both), so I think I will buy some Herrold tips. I wish I knew
> about them when I bought the wing kit!!
>
> Gil Alexander #20701 RV6A
>
I've been following this thread about wavy wing tips and would like to add my
own observations.
I've never actually seen this problem on any RV's. My own wingtips (thank
goodness, they're finally painted!) don't seem to have this problem (yet?).
The reason I'm writing this is that I phoned J.Herrold several months ago.
I was responding to an advertisement I saw in General Aviation (sp?)
newspaper about some fiberglass parts for RV's. Turns out he actually made
my wingtips (they were made Summer '93), as per his initials on the wingtips.
He mentioned that Van had somebody else making them now; I think the issue
was cost/schedule, but I don't know the details. Anyway, if your tips have
a J.H. initial on them, J. Herrold made them. Maybe I just got one of the
good ones, but they are very well made and look good. Hope I don't get
the wavies after a while in the sun.
Also, I put the strip-NAV antennae in the top of each wingtip. They're
fastened with several poprivets. Hopefully, they will add a bit of
stiffening to the tips, but probably not enough to stop the wavies if
they were to occur.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[4]: More travels in N790DW |
See further response below...
>Don W. and Richard B. thread ....
>Oops, thought that might generate a question. I meant the 'flat' top
>surface of the fiberglass wing tips. The thin material immediately
>begins to sag and get a wavy appearance, not pretty.
>
>The best solution I have seen is to laminate a 1/8" layer of 'non-resin-
>absorbing' foam to the entire underside of the upper tip surface, with
>one layer of 9 oz cloth over it. This is what Jerry Herrold's optional
>tips have. I have these on my -6 and they are still as straight as the
>day I installed them. The non-absortive foam prevents adding a lot of
>weight.
>dw
>
>
>>really nice. I did notice that he didn't have the Jerry Herrold
>>'stabilized' wing tips with the built-in warp resistance. You all need
>>to either get some of his, or modify yours to match, to prevent that
>>waviness that RV wingtips have. His are already getting wavy. We had a
>
>
>Not familar with "stabilized wingtips" - explanation?
>
>Interesting point. The local builder who bought wings pre-made by
>Phlogiston had a modification we (those who built our own wings) noticed.
>Phlogiston had added riveted angle strips (similar to the fuel tank
>stiffeners) to the inside of the upper surface of the fibreglass tips. They
>ran spanwise and are about 9 inches apart. Even then, as the glass "aged",
t>he locations of these strips can be clearly seen. It seems some sort of
>internal stiffening is needed, but I think I would use 1 inch sq. foam
>strips, and lay glass over them if I were to add stiffeners. The 1/8 foam
>method described above is the best, but it will not straighten any tip that
>is already wavy!!
>One of my tips is trashed (either badly made, improperly stored, or
>a bit of both), so I think I will buy some Herrold tips. I wish I knew
>about them when I bought the wing kit!!
>Gil Alexander #20701 RV6A
I have seen many kinds of 'attempts' at curing this problem, from spanwise to
lengthwise 'stiffeners' as you described, to diagonal. This RV-6 I saw in CA
had diaganol stiffeners, and they were obvious as heck, even tho the thing had
only 6 hours on it.
At the homecoming, or Oshkosh, anywhere you see lots of RVs in one place, you
can see all kinds of failed attempts at curing this. The material always sags
in-between the stiffener locations. So, get Jerry's or do a similar mod to your
own, it really looks better in the long run.
dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Wingtips: was - More travels in N790DW |
>> sort of internal stiffening is needed, but I think I would use 1 inch sq.
>> foam strips, and lay glass over them if I were to add stiffeners. The 1/8
>> foam method described above is the best, but it will not straighten any tip
>> that is already wavy!!
>> One of my tips is trashed (either badly made, improperly stored, or
>> a bit of both), so I think I will buy some Herrold tips. I wish I knew
>> about them when I bought the wing kit!!
>>
>> Gil Alexander #20701 RV6A
>>
>I've been following this thread about wavy wing tips and would like to add my
>own observations.
>I've never actually seen this problem on any RV's. My own wingtips (thank
>goodness, they're finally painted!) don't seem to have this problem (yet?).
>The reason I'm writing this is that I phoned J.Herrold several months ago.
>I was responding to an advertisement I saw in General Aviation (sp?)
>newspaper about some fiberglass parts for RV's. Turns out he actually made
>my wingtips (they were made Summer '93), as per his initials on the wingtips.
>He mentioned that Van had somebody else making them now; I think the issue
>was cost/schedule, but I don't know the details. Anyway, if your tips have
>a J.H. initial on them, J. Herrold made them. Maybe I just got one of the
>good ones, but they are very well made and look good. Hope I don't get
>the wavies after a while in the sun.
>Also, I put the strip-NAV antennae in the top of each wingtip. They're
>fastened with several poprivets. Hopefully, they will add a bit of
>stiffening to the tips, but probably not enough to stop the wavies if
>they were to occur.
>
> Gary B
Mine do not have a JH initial on them (they have no marks) ....
Some local builders have had to split the tips at the trailing edge, and
reglue them to take a twist out (one tip only .. can't remember which one).
This has been a long, ongoing problem, and probably vendor specific as you
say ...
..... Gil A.
So ... if you haven't taken delivery of a wing kit, ask Vans for no tips,
take a credit, and put an order in early with Jerry Herrold (503)
647-0829, and you won't have to buy them twice!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antennae & Things |
In response to:
>Also, I put the strip-NAV antennae in the top of each wingtip. They're
>fastened with several poprivets.
Get ready for another thread here. (Funny how new topics come about.) I'm
finishing up on the RV-6A horiz. stab. and will be ordering the wing very
soon. But now I wonder when I should start making purchases for radios and
things. I want an IFR platform, but do not want to dedicate too much $$$
right now considering the extremely fast pace of radio/GPS technology. Who
knows what'll be required in two years.
Yeah, I'd like to get set up for the King Radios, but in two years will I
still need the standard 2 OBS(NAV) & NDB radio setup with a VFR King GPS. Or
should I figure on going with the new approach certified King and lesser on
the OBS/NDB setup. (Only 1 OBS and no NDB).
Finally, when I make a decision, when do I buy the antennae, and wiring, and
hardware, etc.?
Comments please.....
Shawn Chaney,
Fremont, OH.
RV-6A Someday....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
I'm thinking along the same lines as Shawn -- IFR down the road, but
don't want to go overboard. I plan to wait and see what prices are,
and where GPS technology has progressed. I expect to buy one Nav/Com
and a GPS, or maybe a GPS/Com and one nav, and use a handheld for a
backup COM. I hope to skip the NDB although that little needle sure can
be handy to back up the rest, or on its own. But it's a lot of $$$ for
just one needle!
As for planning ahead -- I'm planning on NAV antannae in the
wingtips, but not planning on finishing the wingtips till late in the
game, so mainly I'm just running conduit out the wings and expect to
pull the lighting and antaenna wires thru there when the time comes. If
you don't run conduit it will be a bit more difficult to put this off.
Options abound for whether and where to run wing wiring conduit and
what kind to use, I ended up getting 1/2" flexible polyethelene and
running it through the leading edge ribs, just forward of the spar, and
aft of the wing tank. This required drilling through the 2 rib
reinforcing angles just inboard of the tank, to avoid a severe bend in
the tube there. Check out the back postings to this group for more
info and opinions on wing wiring.
Note that some GPS units come with the antenna and enough coax to get
to it, so you may not need to buy as much as you think.
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
> Shawn Chaney wrote:
>
> Get ready for another thread here. (Funny how new topics come about.) I'm
> finishing up on the RV-6A horiz. stab. and will be ordering the wing very
> soon. But now I wonder when I should start making purchases for radios and
> things. I want an IFR platform, but do not want to dedicate too much $$$
> right now considering the extremely fast pace of radio/GPS technology. Who
> knows what'll be required in two years.
>
> Yeah, I'd like to get set up for the King Radios, but in two years will I
> still need the standard 2 OBS(NAV) & NDB radio setup with a VFR King GPS. Or
> should I figure on going with the new approach certified King and lesser on
> the OBS/NDB setup. (Only 1 OBS and no NDB).
>
> Finally, when I make a decision, when do I buy the antennae, and wiring, and
> hardware, etc.?
>
> Comments please.....
>
> Shawn Chaney,
> Fremont, OH.
> RV-6A Someday....
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thu, 10 Nov 94 9:45:06 +800
| From: | "Corwin Nichols" <CORWIN(at)microtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Antennae & Things |
> Message-Id: <9411091925474302210(at)aol.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Antennae & Things
>
> In response to:
>
> >Also, I put the strip-NAV antennae in the top of each wingtip. They're
> >fastened with several poprivets.
>
> Get ready for another thread here. (Funny how new topics come about.) I'm
> finishing up on the RV-6A horiz. stab. and will be ordering the wing very
> soon. But now I wonder when I should start making purchases for radios and
> things. I want an IFR platform, but do not want to dedicate too much $$$
> right now considering the extremely fast pace of radio/GPS technology. Who
> knows what'll be required in two years.
When I finally get around to this decision, my plan is to install
dual comms, and dual GPS units only. No VOR or ADB. With the
rapid acceptance of GPS, and the vastly improved capability
provided, I see no reason to rely on these inferior technologies.
Some may argue that this leaves one at the mercy of a single system
(the satellites) which can be completely deactivated by the toss of
a switch. I seriously doubt that the GPS array will be deactivated
in the next 30 years. By that time GPS-II (my term for some future
replacement technology) will be in place. By installing
differential capable GPS receivers, Category I approaches for a
large percentage of the major airports will be in place by the year
2000. I plan to be flying my RV-6 well beyond that time. Hell, I
can only hope to be finished by then :-).
corwin(at)microtech.com
Corwin Nichols - MicroTech Conversion Systems
415-424-1174
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | More on Pre-Punched Wing Skins |
Text item: Text_1
Gentlemen:
I went out to Van's yesterday to get the instruction sheet on the
prepunched wing skins so I could fold that into what I am writing.
Discovered that it is even better than I thought. I hate it when he does
that after I have already passed a particular stage.
Anyway, the prepunched skin also has the aileron bellcrank access hole
cut out and the skin is joggled in that area. This means that you do not
have to do the reinforcing ring stuff on the skin and the reinforcing
angle on the rib. Savings? about 5 to 10 hours.
Also, they include a full sized template for fluting the ribs; this will
save maybe one or two hours.
With the total time saved now hovering at about 20 hours and the cost of
the option at $150, it is a much better deal than the Phlogiston spar.
There does not seem to be any reason not to buy this option.
Interestingly enough, the instructions provided with this option are
much better than most of what is in the construction manual. They are so
good that there is no reason for me to expand on them in my own.
Unfortunately, there is no way you can get this option after you have
taken delivery of your wing kit and you should not even think about it.
You would have to buy a new spar and spar bulkhead as well as the skins,
since the old spar holes are not located accurately enough to work with
the prepunched skins, and Van cannot take back the old pieces for
credit.
Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Hi RVators,
Randall's technique>
> Options abound for whether and where to run wing wiring conduit and
> what kind to use, I ended up getting 1/2" flexible polyethelene and
> running it through the leading edge ribs, just forward of the spar, and
> aft of the wing tank. This required drilling through the 2 rib
> reinforcing angles just inboard of the tank, to avoid a severe bend in
> the tube there.
My technique>
I decided that I'd rather cut a hole in the spar web inboard of the
fuse and run behind the spar for a straight shot. I bought the flexible
poly conduit from Vans and routed it through the lightening holes
because I had not cut conduit holes in the wing ribs during assembly.
To secure the conduit, I made 11 mounting tabs per wing out of .032 scrap.
I cut all the large conduit holes in a sheet with a unibit before
I cut the rectangular tabs out. I positioned the tabs on the conduit,
routed it through the lightening holes right up next to the stiffener
ring, (keep it away from the aileron control) and riveted the tabs with
two pop rivets per tab. A dab of RTV should help keep it from buzzing
around too even though the fit is good.
I don't know which is better, but I felt better about putting a hole
in my spar web rather than the 2 rib reinforcing angles. No
engineering analysis, it's just how I felt.
I'm holding on radios too. It's not that the price is falling so much
as the features are increasing. My current dream stack is:
TKM nav/com w/GS (Vans) good performance--a bit heavy
TKM com (Vans)
Terra xpnder (light weight)
Terra ADF (light weight)
Some kind of TSO c129a GPS (ala' Garmin 155 at present)
VOR/LOC/GS/GPS annunciator nav head switchable to the TKM or GPS.
If the budget is tight, the IFR capability in the GPS is the
first thing I'd lose. Next would be the ADF.
The TKM nav/com that Van sells also has a bright LED display for
VOR/LOC/GS built-in, but it would probably be best to have it
switchable to the real head too. Likewise the panel GPSs have
built in displays, but they are more usable on a real head too.
One nice thing about the TSO c129a (IFR approved) GPS is that
it can operate just like a VOR. The OBS on the nav head even
works!
I probably will not always keep the GPS database up to date for
approaches--what a rip-off! And the Jeppesen monopoly is going to
keep it that way.
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif396.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
>
> When I finally get around to this decision, my plan is to install
> dual comms, and dual GPS units only. No VOR or ADB. With the
> rapid acceptance of GPS, and the vastly improved capability
> provided, I see no reason to rely on these inferior technologies.
> Some may argue that this leaves one at the mercy of a single system
> (the satellites) which can be completely deactivated by the toss of
> a switch. I seriously doubt that the GPS array will be deactivated
> in the next 30 years. By that time GPS-II (my term for some future
> replacement technology) will be in place. By installing
> differential capable GPS receivers, Category I approaches for a
> large percentage of the major airports will be in place by the year
> 2000. I plan to be flying my RV-6 well beyond that time. Hell, I
> can only hope to be finished by then :-).
>
> corwin(at)microtech.com
> Corwin Nichols - MicroTech Conversion Systems
> 415-424-1174
>
I think that Cat I precision approaches are several years away from being
legally implemented. The implementation of differential (WAAS, or whatever)
is several years away from widespread usage. I agree that the non-precision
approaches are pretty much here now (well, kind of). So, to do any precision
approaches for the next few years, you will need a VOR/wGS. Also, having
a VOR receiver for crosschecking is probably a smart thing to do.
My company is competing for the WAAS component of the GPS landing system; I
can't send any details (its competitive), but user access is many years away.
In my case, I bought a used KX170B with GS head (still need to get a GS
receiver). Cheap solution, but a pretty bullet-proof solution. Buying an
ADF at this time might be questionable, but if you are flying a GPS-overlay,
you still need the ADF to be legal.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: More on Pre-Punched Wing Skins |
I'm glad to see your comments, Frank. I picked up my pre-punched wing
kit just two days ago. I haven't even had time to unpack it and examine
the goodies.
It will probably be a few months before I get to drilling and skinning,
but I'll post my experience with it when I do. If anyone else out there
beats me to the pre-punched skin installation, please let us know how
it goes.
- Dan Benua
Frank K. Justice writes:
>
> Text item: Text_1
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> I went out to Van's yesterday to get the instruction sheet on the
> prepunched wing skins so I could fold that into what I am writing.
> Discovered that it is even better than I thought. I hate it when he does
> that after I have already passed a particular stage.
>
> Anyway, the prepunched skin also has the aileron bellcrank access hole
> cut out and the skin is joggled in that area. This means that you do not
> have to do the reinforcing ring stuff on the skin and the reinforcing
> angle on the rib. Savings? about 5 to 10 hours.
>
> Also, they include a full sized template for fluting the ribs; this will
> save maybe one or two hours.
>
> With the total time saved now hovering at about 20 hours and the cost of
> the option at $150, it is a much better deal than the Phlogiston spar.
> There does not seem to be any reason not to buy this option.
>
> Interestingly enough, the instructions provided with this option are
> much better than most of what is in the construction manual. They are so
> good that there is no reason for me to expand on them in my own.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no way you can get this option after you have
> taken delivery of your wing kit and you should not even think about it.
> You would have to buy a new spar and spar bulkhead as well as the skins,
> since the old spar holes are not located accurately enough to work with
> the prepunched skins, and Van cannot take back the old pieces for
> credit.
>
> Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
I've heard all sorts of numbers as to Van's success, but was wondering just
what are the actual statistics. How many of each model kit has he sold? How
many does Van's ship each month? What does that break down to in dollars.
How many are Flying?, etc... Does anyone know for sure?
I saw a note in the local rag this morning that LanceAir is claiming that
they are the leader in the single engine kit plane market. (I've heard Van
sells at least twice as many Kits.) With their new "multimillion" dollar
facility, they are planning to move into single engine production plane
market dominated by Cessna, Beech, and Piper. (not mentioning that Cessna
hasn't built a single engine piston plane since the mid 80's, Beech only
turns out a handful of Bonanzas a year, and Piper has been in bankruptcy for
most of this decade.)
I would like to provide them with a little better information and need some
help.
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone have a copy of KitPlanes from about September? I am looking for
the first article in the series discussing COM antennas.
bobn(at)ims.com
Bob Neuner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schulte <chris(at)smtplink.ashtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
In response to:
> But now I wonder when I should start making purchases for radios and
>things. I want an IFR platform, but do not want to dedicate too much $$$
>right now considering the extremely fast pace of radio/GPS technology. Who
>knows what'll be required in two years.
>
>Yeah, I'd like to get set up for the King Radios, but in two years will I
>still need the standard 2 OBS(NAV) & NDB radio setup with a VFR King GPS. Or
>should I figure on going with the new approach certified King and lesser on
>the OBS/NDB setup. (Only 1 OBS and no NDB).
>
>Finally, when I make a decision, when do I buy the antennae, and wiring, and
>hardware, etc.?
>
>Comments please.....
>
>Shawn Chaney,
>Fremont, OH.
>RV-6A Someday....
>
I design and work on the certification of GPS for aviation products. Save your
money... By the day you fly the airplane, as late as possible, There are many
new units coming out on the market, and the TSO is become more stringent meaning
that tomorrow's product will have to be better then today's! Another thing,
don't buy and ADF! ADF's are $2000.00 and every single ADF approach will have
a
GPS overlay by the end of 1995! Not to mention, save your money on DME, GPS is
more accurate, and will be even more accurate when WAAS (Wide Area Argumentation
System) has been implemented.
Precision GPS approaches are on the way too.... Another thing, the Garmin 155
is terrible.. Fly it and see, but that's just a product of being first on the
market. I hear the King 90B is pretty god but I haven't flown that one yet.
There is now news on whether the FAA will remove the requirement to have a VOR
to fly into class B airspace, and regardless you still need a VOR to fly IFR,
even if you have an IFR certified GPS. But there is no reg that says you have
to turn the VOR on!!
Chris.
RV-6 #21390
San Jose CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
> I design and work on the certification of GPS for aviation products. Save your
> money... By the day you fly the airplane, as late as possible, There are many
> new units coming out on the market, and the TSO is become more stringent meaning
> that tomorrow's product will have to be better then today's! Another thing,
> don't buy and ADF! ADF's are $2000.00 and every single ADF approach will have
a
> GPS overlay by the end of 1995!
Well, it depends on how you look at it. Given that to fly legal
GPS-only NDB approach overlays requires an outlay of ~$600/year
for the database, and I doubt that's going to change soon unless
the people at Jeppesen come to their senses, a $2k ADF is cheap!
An installed IFR GPS will cost you at least $2k extra over a VFR
unit anyway. You can use a non-IFR GPS to help keep the ADF needle
(and your heading) steady and use the GPS for "backup" information.
But I totally agree with the don't buy until you need to philosophy.
As GPS-only approaches come on-line, it may become worthwhile, but
I think that's quite a few years off and of course dependent on one's
budget. The price of admittance to the IFR GPS club may keep a lot of
GA airplanes out. Unfortunately, that's the way things seem to
be going and I dread the day all the cheap alternatives are
decommissioned.
I also think that where the FAA was unreceptive and slow when it
came to LORAN, it may be going a bit too fast on GPS. There
are still a lot of approaches where I'd feel a whole lot safer
with an ADF too. I'm worried about line of sight with satellites
when you get down in the mountains. Some approaches in Southeast
Alaska (KTN for example) require the precise identification of one
or sometimes two NDBs down in those fjords and they'd have me
sweating without an ADF! Anomalies have been reported in other
test installation sites. I think there is just too much momentum
in the GPS business with the public, the manufacturers, and the
FAA that I worry about people owning-up to possible problems.
DME interference is just one problem I know about. How many
don't I know about?
By the way, it's not that I'm against GPS. I just bought an
Apollo 920+. Works great as "backup" to my primary VOR and
ADF. The price was right and it'll work on any approach--GPS
overlay or not.
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | one more thing on when to buy avionics |
Another problem with buying now is that the warranty period
usually starts from the date of purchase. If it sets for
two years it will be out of warranty before it is used.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Herman Dierks, Dept. D29, AWSD Austin, Texas
AIX Network Performance Measurement/Analysis
phone: TL 678-2831 outside: (512) 838-2831
ZIP: 9632 fax: 512-838-1801
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VNET: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John H Henderson <johnh(at)Eng.Auburn.EDU> |
________________________________________________________________________________
completed/flown as reported by the manufacturer. It is my understanding
that Van's reports those they know about, and they might not know about
all of them.
RV-3 230
RV-4 470
RV-5 1 (that I know of)
RV-6 60
RV-6A 125
RV-8 0 (only imaginary)
-----------
Total 886
As I said earlier, it's hard for me to believe that there are more -6As
at this point than -6s.
Lancair reports 224 total aircraft.
Stoddard-Hamilton reports 518 total aircraft.
The only company I think can beat Van's is the KitFox at 1001.
There are a BUNCH of Long-Ezes out there, but I don't have numbers on
them since I don't think there is a company involved.
---- New subject -----
Someone asked Brian Cooper how he did his 3D signature. I once
asked him that and told me to look on a system for some files.
Turns out they were on my system here.
FTP to ftp.eng.auburn.edu, log in as anonymous, cd to pub/3d and
get the files there. Also, there was an article on stereograms
in the September Popular Science.
John Henderson
RV-6 23687
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansen(at)risc.austin.ibm.com (William Hansen) |
What's an RV-5?
__Bill Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hansen(at)risc.austin.ibm.com (William Hansen) |
| Subject: | Re: RV Statistics |
What's an RV-5?
__Bill Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
for rv-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Bill Downey <billd(at)ibmoto.com> |
> Does anyone have a copy of KitPlanes from about September? I am looking for
> the first article in the series discussing COM antennas.
>
>
> bobn(at)ims.com
>
> Bob Neuner
>
While we're on this subject. It is my understanding that a quarter wave
antenna has a natural impedance of 75 ohms and a dipole antenna has an
impedance of 300 ohms. Yet in these articles, both antennas are run into 50
ohm coax without any impedance matching. Maybe someone, with a little more RF
knowledge than I, can comment on this. Do these antennas need impedance
matching and if so what is the proper way??
Bill
| Bill Downey International Business Machines |
| billd(at)ibmoto.com SOMERSET Design Center |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
I'm about where Shawn is, so I've also given this a little thought.
My first advice is: don't buy anything avionics-related until the
last possible moment. For one thing, the Bendix-King Warranty is
18 months from the time of purchase. By the time you get to actually
fire up the radios, the warranty will have long expired.
Assume that you will eventually install antennas at:
- Top of Vertical Stab
- Tail Cone below Horizontal STab (maybe)
- Belly
- Each WIngtip
and make provision for easy installation of electrical and antenna
wiring in those places later, you'll be fine.
The Orndorf (sp?) empennage video shows a couple of good ideas
along this line.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 SN 23744
Empennage under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's an RV-5? |
Text item:
A mistake, but it's hanging in Van's hangar and I did see it fly once.
I think it had a ROTAX in it.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: What's an RV-5?
Date: 11/11/94 8:59 AM
What's an RV-5?
__Bill Hansen
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: What's an RV-5?
From: risc.austin.ibm.com!hansen(at)matronics.com (William Hansen)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 10:30:38 -0600
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
Text item:
>While we're on this subject. It is my understanding that a quarter wave
>antenna has a natural impedance of 75 ohms and a dipole antenna has an
>impedance of 300 ohms. Yet in these articles, both antennas are run into 50
>ohm coax without any impedance matching. Maybe someone, with a little more RF
>knowledge than I, can comment on this. Do these antennas need impedance
>matching and if so what is the proper way??
I noticed this too but decided not to make a big deal out of it. I did think it
was a little strange that the author did not also describe a very simple and
well-known matching technique that just uses a short length of coax hooked up in
a wierd way. The mismatch of impedances causes some of the energy to be
reflected back, but at a 50 ohms/75 ohms junction you only lose about 10 to 15%
of range. This may not be a problem for some people. Antenna placement seems to
be a lot more critical. A regular dipole is not 300 ohms (that's a folded dipole
like TV antennas); as best I can remember a true dipole like a nav antenna is
also about 75 ohms.
Frank J.
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
From: Bill Downey <ibmoto.com!billd(at)matronics.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 08:31:44 -0600
for rv-list(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave.Bonorden(at)amd.com (Dave Bonorden) |
| Subject: | Trip to Portland Area |
Hey Portland area RVers,
I'm attending a class at the Marriot Courtyard in Beaverton next week.
The class ends Wed aft, and I plan to leave as late as possible Thurs
(convinced 'em it would take all day to travel back to Austin anyway). I'm
planning to visit Mecca (Van's) of course, but I sure would like to see
some other folks' RVs while I'm around.
How 'bout it Earl, Frank, Randall?
Dave Bonorden
(800) 538-8450 x55647
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
As I recall, I had to install little impedance matching 'donuts' in the
cable-ends when building them for my nav/com installations.
dw
>While we're on this subject. It is my understanding that a quarter wave
>antenna has a natural impedance of 75 ohms and a dipole antenna has an
>impedance of 300 ohms. Yet in these articles, both antennas are run into 50
>ohm coax without any impedance matching. Maybe someone, with a little more RF
>knowledge than I, can comment on this. Do these antennas need impedance
>matching and if so what is the proper way??
> noticed this too but decided not to make a big deal out of it. I did
>hink it
>as a little strange that the author did not also describe a very simple
>nd well-known matching technique that just uses a short length of coax
>hooked up in
>a wierd way. The mismatch of impedances causes some of the energy to be
>reflected back, but at a 50 ohms/75 ohms junction you only lose about
>10 to 15%
>of range. This may not be a problem for some people. Antenna placement
>seems to
>be a lot more critical. A regular dipole is not 300 ohms (that's a
>folded dipole
>like TV antennas); as best I can remember a true dipole like a nav
>antenna is also about 75 ohms.
>Frank J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
risc.austin.ibm.com!hansen(at)matronics.com, rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: What's an RV-5? |
A pop-riveted little single seater kind of reminiscent of a MiniMax, I
saw it fly once also. not impressive at all.
dw
A mistake, but it's hanging in Van's hangar and I did see it fly once.
I think it had a ROTAX in it.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: What's an RV-5?
Date: 11/11/94 8:59 AM
What's an RV-5?
__Bill Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schulte <chris(at)smtplink.ashtech.com> |
| Subject: | GPS and Jeps updates... |
Text item: Text_1
BTW...
If you are thinking of cost, the 28 day database update for IFR.
There is a little hook to this! You can legally fly GPS approaches
with an expired database!!! The requirements is that you check the
information is correct before you execute the approach, not that you
have a database that is in date. You can verify the data via NOAA or
JEP plates.
As for lack of satellite coverage at the destination airport. If the
GPS unit you buy is certified under TS0 C129 or beyond, a new rev (a)
of this document is in the works, the receiver will have predictive
RAIM. Predictive Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring will let
the pilot know at least 15 minutes, and in most cases much sooner, to
reaching the destination airport that there will be enough working
satellites in view to not only triangulate a position but also
cross-check it's position via RAIM techniques.
Chris.
RV-6 #21390
San Jose CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schulte <chris(at)smtplink.ashtech.com> |
Text item: Text_1
I can remember reading in Sport Aviation about a month ago that today
there are more RV's being completed in the world then any other single
airplane. The article said a new RV take to the skies every three(3)
days.!!
Does anyone have any statistics on the average build time for these
800 some RVs? 4 years? 5 years? I think I got 3 years in mine... and
it looks like another 3 before it flies :)
Chris.
RV-6 #21390
San Jose CA
PS I think there are more 6's then 6A's too, I bet they got that
number backwards. There were 35 RV-6's and 0 RV-6A's flying by the
end of 1991 and I'm sure there has been more then 25 6's take to the
skies in the past 3 years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
"David A. Barnhart" wrote:
> Assume that you will eventually install antennas at:
> - Top of Vertical Stab
> - Tail Cone below Horizontal STab (maybe)
> - Belly
> - Each WIngtip
>
What antenna goes where? What would you put at the top of the VS?
I see the possibilities as:
- Top of VS: NAV or Glideslope?
- Tail Cone below HS: NAV or Glideslope?
- Belly: transponder, marker beacon, possibly COM
- Wingtips: NAV (and possibly COM)
- Canopy: COM (strip antenna)
- Top of fuse: GPS and possibly COM
________________________________________________________________________________
antennas in the wingtips but haven't quite come up with the optimal
solution yet. In their factory demonstrators they use a strip antenna
on the inside of the canopy.
Randall Henderson
RV-6X
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS and Jeps updates... |
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <earlb(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Chris Schulte posts:
> There is a little hook to this! You can legally fly GPS approaches
> with an expired database!!! The requirements is that you check the
> information is correct before you execute the approach, not that you
> have a database that is in date.
This seems reasonable to me, but I asked the Garmin rep about it at AOPA Expo
and he said it would only be usable for enroute with an expired database
and the jury was still out on even this gray area. It appears that the FAA
has gone from a total mistrust of electronic data in favor of hand entry,
to a total mistrust of anything but electronic data. I guess if it checks
out manually, no one's gonna know anyway.
>
> GPS unit you buy is certified under TS0 C129 or beyond, a new rev (a)
> of this document is in the works, the receiver will have predictive
> RAIM. Predictive Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring will let
> the pilot know at least 15 minutes, and in most cases much sooner, to
> reaching the destination airport that there will be enough working
> satellites in view to not only triangulate a position but also
> cross-check it's position via RAIM techniques.
Does it take surrounding terrain into account? What is the lowest usable
angle for an approach anyway?
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another Antennae Question |
I understand that the COM antennae should be placed in the vertical position
to work best. Since most of the vertical surfaces on an RV are aluminium, we
usually have them sticking out of the top or bottom of the airplane.
Has anyone tried gluing a stripe antennae to the fiberglass cowl? I can
imagine one glued to the inside of the lower half of the cowl near the
firewall. Would there be static from the plug wires? Has anyone tried it?
Would anyone want to do some experiments?
I've seen the ones stuck to the inside if the canopy, but they are very visable.
Any thoughts?
bobn(at)ims.com
Bob Neuner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
I wrote:
> > Assume that you will eventually install antennas at:
> > - Top of Vertical Stab
> > - Tail Cone below Horizontal STab (maybe)
> > - Belly
> > - Each WIngtip
> >
And Randal Henderson then asked:
>
> What antenna goes where? What would you put at the top of the VS?
Well, I'm no expert, but I have done a little avionics work.
Here's where I would put things:
- Top of VS: NAV (a 'cat's whisker' dipole)
- Tail cone below HS: Not my favorite place, but I have seen NAV
Antennas installed there.
- Belly: Com, Transponder, Marker Beacon, DME (I all
my years, I've never seen the last three mounted
anywhere but the belly.)
- Wingtips: Nav or Com (But not my favorite place, due
the close proximity of the strobes. It's
likely that inductive coupling will cause some
strobe noise in the COM if the COM antenna
is out there.
And diploes are typically 75 ohms when the two 'arms' are straight
out (pointing in opposite directions). As the two arms are moved toward
making the dipole a 'V' shape (in any orientation), the impedance drops
down to about 52 ohms.
But even with the arms straight out, the 75/50 ohm mismatch is not
important at the low power levels used in our radios.
Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 SN 23744
Empenage under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | New Avery RIvet Squeezer |
At the Copperstate fly-in yesterday, I got a look at Avery's new
hand rivet squeezer. He really has done a nice job:
- Handles about 2 inches longer than the Tatco
- Cushioned hand grips
- Utilizes pneumatic squeezer yokes
- Quick-release pins for changing yokes
- Nice blank powder-coated finish
I'd trade my Tatco for one any day.
Prices:
Squeezer w/ 1-1/2" yoke $145.00
Squeezer w/ 2-1/2" yoke $169.00
Squeezer w/ 3" yoke $180.00
Squeezer w/ 4" yoke $189.00
1-1/2" yoke only 65.00
2-1/2" yoke only 95.00
2-1/2" no hole yoke 100.00
2-1/2" longeron yoke 115.00
3" yoke 105.00
4" yoke 115.00
4" no hole yoke 120.00
Handle assy only (no yoke) 95.00
Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 SN 23744
empennage in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another Antennae Question |
On Fri, 11 Nov 1994 bobn(at)ims.com wrote:
> Has anyone tried gluing a stripe antennae to the fiberglass cowl? I can
> imagine one glued to the inside of the lower half of the cowl near the
> firewall.
The problem with mounting a com antenna inside the cowl (aside from the
fact that the heat and vibration would kill the coax pretty quickly)
is that the remainder of the airplane would act as a big 'shield'.
I once helped a guy who had a com antenna mounted behind an aluminum
bulkhead inside a fabric-covered airplane. When the ground station
was off the side or rear of the airplane, his radio worked great.
But if the ground station was off the nose, forget it.
My personal choice for the com antenna is out in the clear under the belly.
Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 SN 23744
EMpennage under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae & Things |
Hi Dave, highly recommend NOT putting cat whiskers in the VS: too
many poked-out eyeballs!!! That's why they are under the HS (unless
you're building a -6A, but it still looks better underneath). Mine is
under the HS and it works well, although I may try one in a wing tip,
just to get that weight off of the tail. dw
"David A. Barnhart" wrote:
> Assume that you will eventually install antennas at:
> - Top of Vertical Stab
> - Tail Cone below Horizontal STab (maybe)
> - Belly
> - Each WIngtip
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trim tab plans for RV-4 |
One of the things I've always felt would be the ultimate in luxury in an
airplane is electric three-axis trim. With this in mind I ordered the Van's
electric pitch-trim kit.
After looking at the trim kit plans, I wasn't very happy with the
design, plus there are several errors on the drawings. Because of this, I've
decided to design my own trim set-up for the elevator.
In addition, I figured now would be a good time to design my own trim
set up for the rudder and ailerons. I'm going to have all the trim tabs
integral with the control surfaces (I've never understood why aircraft
designers make nice tidy elevator trim tabs and then hang ugly tabs off the
rudder and aileron.) and, of course, electro-servo driven.
I've already started drawing up the plans, but I thought I'd check the
'net to see if anyone has already done this. If you have, or if you just
want to compare notes, let me know by e-mail. I'll have the plans done by
Ted (L.A.-RV-4)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schulte <chris(at)smtplink.ashtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Antennae & Things |
>Here's where I would put things:
>- Top of VS: NAV (a 'cat's whisker' dipole)
>- Tail cone below HS: Not my favorite place, but I have seen NAV
> Antennas installed there.
>- Belly: Com, Transponder, Marker Beacon, DME (I all
> my years, I've never seen the last three mounted
> anywhere but the belly.)
>
There is no reason to mount transponder, MB, DME antennas anyplace but the
bottom of the airplane, due to the fact the station is always below you!! Com
antennas are mounted on top of airplanes, especially larger ones so that they
can reach ground facilities, tower, center, more easily & with better reception
while they are on the ground.
Chris.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Schulte <chris(at)smtplink.ashtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: GPS and Jeps updates... |
>
>> GPS unit you buy is certified under TS0 C129 or beyond, a new rev (a)
>> of this document is in the works, the receiver will have predictive
October 06, 1994 - November 14, 1994
RV-Archive.digest.vol-ag