RV-Archive.digest.vol-al
May 09, 1995 - June 09, 1995
>phone call to your Representatives local office will be of
>tremendous help. Tell your Representative that you are a voter
>and ask for his or her aid in supporting:
>
>H.R. 963 Licensing of Aviation, Maritime, and Personal Radio
>Service by Rule
>
>Explain to them that you currently do not receive any service
>from the FCC for the required $115.00 fee and that the license
>requirement is not in the best interest of the public or the
>user. Also, the removal of the licensing requirement will save
>money at the FCC by freeing them from the unnecessary work of
>licensing hundreds of thousands of general aviation aircraft and
>small boats. After contacting your Representative, call at least
>one friend that is a pilot or a boat owner and ask him or her to
>do the same. Every US Representative should receive at least ten
>calls on this issue. This is just one more step in ensuring the
>continuation of sport aviation.
>
>** End Quote **
>
>Dr. Guenther Eichhorn
>
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sanchez(at)took.ENET.dec.com |
| Subject: | Riveting spar(RV-3) |
A couple of months ago I riveted my spar together. Most of the
3/16" rivets were set using a large pneumatic squeezer mounted on a stand.
The only problem we had was that some of rivets could not be set because
the sets were too large to clear some of the vertical stiffeners made
from the 1/16" angle material. These rivets we set using the Avery tool
and a 3 lb. hammer. We put on hearing protection, eye protection and
my boyfriend gave each rivet four or five good blows and it was done.
To do them all that way would be a lot of work but should turn out ok.
Cheryl Sanchez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
Regarding riveting the main spars:
Several years ago there was a briefing builder's tip in Sport Aviation
diagramming a rivet squeezing tool using a 6 ton automotive jack. I built such
a device and it worked perfect for squeezing all the large rivets on my RV-4.
Several of our other local builders have used it with similar results.
If you or anyone else is interested, I'll gladly send you a drawing on how it
is built or a picture of it. You may need a local machine shop to cut some of
the heavy metal plate, but I think I built this for a total of about $40.
Doug Weiler, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Tech Question: Fuel gauges |
Has anybody installed sight gauges in a -6? Is there a good place to put
a clear tube in the cockpit area near the wing? Any ideas?
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 100.950509130406.832;
09 May 95 13:33:03 -700
| From: | "Jim Simmons" <SIMMONS-J(at)Darth.HSC.Colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Radio Station License Legislation |
You can find your representative's e-mail address at
http://www.house.gov
Jim Simmons
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Bloomberg <dougb(at)anchor.cs.colorado.edu> |
| Subject: | Riveting RV-6 spar |
Howdy,
A RV-6 spar is much easier to build than a RV-3's (Howdy Cheryl, how's the 3
coming?). To rivet mine I used Avery's dimple jig, I did buy the
reccomended support angle, which is needed. I borrowed from an EAA friend
a 4X rivet gun. The Avery jig has a rod which is turned down to fit
a rivet gun. I put the whole thing on the garage floor, supported
the long side of the spar which wasn't being riveted with wooden blocks.
The side being riveted provided support for the spar, my reasoning was
the weight of the spar would fully seat the rivet. I found that I had to
ream/drill some 3/16" holes so the rivets would move freely before
riveting, ensures a good set of the rivet. Actual riveting took about
1 1/2 hrs per spar, corrosion protection took 2 to 3 hours/spar the rest
of the work, lightening holes, tapering flanges, reaming holes took another
20 hrs per spar. Total was around 50 hours counting the time needed to
figure out how or what to do.
Would I do it again, yes. Would I help someone, yes.
FYI the spar comes with all rivet/bolt holes drilled, flanges fitted, you
just need to fit the spacers, taper the flanges, deburr the whole thing,
alumiprep, alodine, and zinc-chromate the whole thing before riveting.
Doug Bloomberg
RV-6A (Still in the womb) darn it...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
Could that riveting machine made with the 3 ton jack be used for other
riveting applications? Could it replace the Avery tool?
James
Not as frustrated as
before RV builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | *chatter* DO NOT SEND LIST REQUESTS TO RV-LIST!!!!! |
Pulleeeeezzzzeeeee,
Fellow RV'ers. When the time comes for us to part ways, and you decide
to leave this fine mailing list, for the love of mother and country
DO NOT send the GD unsubscribe requests to rv-list.
I have a certain patience for those making the mistake when subscribing,
because they don't know better...(read: haven't read the FAQ, or the
message sent out upon subscribing).
OK, so maybe I should'a had decaf today, but jeeze this is the umteenth
request this week.
Thanks.
James
Frustrated RV Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: 14 Years of RVator wing note |
On Mon, 8 May 1995, William Garrett wrote:
> I just recently received my copy of 14 Years of Rvator and was reading
> the section on building the wings when I saw a short blip about needing
> to leave space on the bottom of the inboard rib for nutplates to attach
> the belly skin to the wing rib in final assembly. The article implies
> that it is a mistake to use the 1 1/4" spacing for rivets some nutplates
> need to be installed here at 2 1/2" spacing. Since I had already fluted
> my inboard ribs and was ready to fit skins I was a bit concerned. In
> looking through the directions with the plans I finally found a reference
> to the nutplates that says they are to be installed BETWEEN the 1 1/4"
> spaced rivets. If anyone else has this concern, not to worry. I'm
But if the nutplates go in between the rivets, won't the flutes
interfere? I drilled and dimpled for rivets, installed every other rivet,
then remembered about the nutplates. So, I planned to redrill and redimple
every other hole to accept the nutplates. The plans are VERY sketchy on
this detail. The rivet layout drawings show 1 1/4 spaced rivets and the
plans say (but don't really show) to put nutplates at 2 1/2" spacing.
Yet in the "14 Years of RVator" there is an article by Van which seems to
scold a builder for installing ANY rivets along this edge claiming that
its "a detail that many builders miss"(!) No kidding!
It probably doesn't matter much how this is done as long as there is at
least one nutplate every 2 1/2" and one rivet every 1 1/4".
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting RV-6 spar |
On Tue, 9 May 1995, Doug Bloomberg wrote:
> A RV-6 spar is much easier to build than a RV-3's (Howdy Cheryl, how's the 3
> coming?). To rivet mine I used Avery's dimple jig, I did buy the
> reccomended support angle, which is needed. I borrowed from an EAA friend
> a 4X rivet gun. The Avery jig has a rod which is turned down to fit
> a rivet gun. I put the whole thing on the garage floor, supported
> the long side of the spar which wasn't being riveted with wooden blocks.
> The side being riveted provided support for the spar, my reasoning was
> the weight of the spar would fully seat the rivet. I found that I had to
> ream/drill some 3/16" holes so the rivets would move freely before
> riveting, ensures a good set of the rivet. Actual riveting took about
> 1 1/2 hrs per spar, corrosion protection took 2 to 3 hours/spar the rest
> of the work, lightening holes, tapering flanges, reaming holes took another
> 20 hrs per spar. Total was around 50 hours counting the time needed to
> figure out how or what to do.
This agrees pretty well with my own experience. Do make sure the rivet
is completely seated before driving, and hold the spar down with
sandbags, or get someone to hold it in the Avery tool so it doesn't
bounce. I had one bad bounce which caused a smile in a rivet head, and I
had several rivets which weren't fully seated. These were eventually fixed,
but caused MUCH anxiety in the meantime!
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
> Could that riveting machine made with the 3 ton jack be used for other
> riveting applications? Could it replace the Avery tool?
No way could it replace the Avery tool. It's only other possible use would be in
riveting the rear spar, the horizontal and vertical stabilizer spars, fuselage
bulkhead F-611, brake pedals, and one or two other places. You would still need
the Avery tool for dimpling and most everything else because a jack-operated
tool would be way too slow and awkward.
How long would it take you to make a jack-operated riveting tool? 6 hours? How
long would it take you to rivet a spar with this tool? About 1 1/2 hours? How
long does it take to rivet a spar with an Avery tool and hammer? 1 1/2 hours.
How good a job can you do with the jack operated tool? Very good if you are
careful in leveling the spar? How good a job can you do with the Avery tool?
Very good if you are careful in leveling the spar. So, if you make a
jack-operated riveting tool have you gained anything other than a good door
stop?
Sorry, I just got another lecture from Van about people who try to make things
harder than they need to be. By the way, the Avery tool is not fragile. At most
you will have to file off a slight mushroom from the top of the rod when you get
through riveting your spars, and that only if you use a hammer instead of a
rivet gun.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: *chatter* DO NOT SEND LIST REQUESTS TO RV-LIST!!!!! |
>--------------
>
> Pulleeeeezzzzeeeee,
>
> Fellow RV'ers. When the time comes for us to part ways, and you decide
> to leave this fine mailing list, for the love of mother and country
> DO NOT send the GD unsubscribe requests to rv-list.
>
> I have a certain patience for those making the mistake when subscribing,
> because they don't know better...(read: haven't read the FAQ, or the
> message sent out upon subscribing).
>
> OK, so maybe I should'a had decaf today, but jeeze this is the umteenth
> request this week.
>
> Thanks.
>
> James
>
>Frustrated RV Builder
>
>--------------
James is right. Please use "rv-list-request(at)matronics.com" when subscribing
and unsubscribing from the list. The RVator last month unfortunately listed
"rv-list(at)matronics.com" to subscribe to the list. Now who went and done that!
Thanks,
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
> The Avery tool looks just a little too fragile to me for this kind of
> work and I want it available and in good condition at $100 for all the
> dimpling I will be doing as the 6A takes shape.
It's not too fragile. Many many many people including me have used it
with good results. Mine isn't any worse for wear, except maybe for a
very slight mushrooming of the top of the shaft, which could be cleaned
up easily enough if you wanted to.
I'd say use what you have -- if you already have an arbor press use
that. If you have a 4x gun and Avery arbor use that. If you have a 4 lb
hammer and an Avery arbor that works FINE. Setting the rivets for both
spars with this method is only about 2-3 hours worth of work. No offense
to those who have chosen to do it differently, but I don't see spending
time running around looking for a better tool when there's a perfectly
good method right at hand.
Rion Bourgeois went out and bought a big pneumatic squeezer to do his
spars with and spent a lot of extra time and effort getting the thing
set up and dealing with keeping it supported perpindicular to the spar,
and says if he had it to do over he'd bag the fancy squeezer and go with
the hammer and Avery arbor method. (He was able to sell the squeezer
for what he paid for it however).
The key with this method is to use blocks of wood, fastened with screws
or clamps to the ends of the spar, to make sure the spar is supported
perpendicular to the arbor and at the proper height so the factory head
of the rivet rests in the female die.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | CONSTRUCTION - Re[2]: 14 Years of RVator wing note |
I also agree with Curt, and am going to drill out every other rivet for a
nutplate at the right time. With the #40 holes then created, I would think
that my "blind hole tranfer tool" would do an excellent job at this time of
marking the wing fairing strip.
At this time, it just doesn't seem like a detail to sweat over!
.. Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701, sweating over the very visible fuselage
interior details ....
>On Mon, 8 May 1995, William Garrett wrote:
>
>> I just recently received my copy of 14 Years of Rvator and was reading
>> the section on building the wings when I saw a short blip about needing
>> to leave space on the bottom of the inboard rib for nutplates to attach
>> the belly skin to the wing rib in final assembly. The article implies
>> that it is a mistake to use the 1 1/4" spacing for rivets some nutplates
>> need to be installed here at 2 1/2" spacing. Since I had already fluted
>> my inboard ribs and was ready to fit skins I was a bit concerned. In
>> looking through the directions with the plans I finally found a reference
>> to the nutplates that says they are to be installed BETWEEN the 1 1/4"
>> spaced rivets. If anyone else has this concern, not to worry. I'm
>
>But if the nutplates go in between the rivets, won't the flutes
>interfere? I drilled and dimpled for rivets, installed every other rivet,
>then remembered about the nutplates. So, I planned to redrill and redimple
>every other hole to accept the nutplates. The plans are VERY sketchy on
>this detail. The rivet layout drawings show 1 1/4 spaced rivets and the
>plans say (but don't really show) to put nutplates at 2 1/2" spacing.
>Yet in the "14 Years of RVator" there is an article by Van which seems to
>scold a builder for installing ANY rivets along this edge claiming that
>its "a detail that many builders miss"(!) No kidding!
>
>It probably doesn't matter much how this is done as long as there is at
>least one nutplate every 2 1/2" and one rivet every 1 1/4".
>
>Curt Reimer
From: William Garrett <wgarrett(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 22:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Garrett <wgarrett(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: Re: 14 Years of RVator wing note (fwd)
On Mon, 8 May 1995, I wrote:
> I just recently received my copy of 14 Years of Rvator and was reading
> the section on building the wings when I saw a short blip about needing
> to leave space on the bottom of the inboard rib for nutplates to attach
You responded:
> But if the nutplates go in between the rivets, won't the flutes
> interfere? I drilled and dimpled for rivets, installed every other rivet,
> then remembered about the nutplates. So, I planned to redrill and redimple
> every other hole to accept the nutplates. The plans are VERY sketchy on
> this detail. The rivet layout drawings show 1 1/4 spaced rivets and the
> plans say (but don't really show) to put nutplates at 2 1/2" spacing.
Curt Reimer
Thanks for the response! I never thought about the flutes for
straightening the ribs getting in the way of the nutplates. Now I know I'll
leave every other one without a rivet so that I can install the nutplates
as is to be done. I really enjoy building this plane but don't enjoy
"undoing" things that I shouldn't have done in the first place. Thanks
again.
Bill Garrett
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)Claris.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Station License Legislation |
Well, I just e-mailed my representative. One question though, if the FCC
stops issuing Radio Stations Licenses, will the FAA stop requiring them?
--
"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
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif623.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | RV6A progress update |
This is an update on my RV6A progress:
My last series of updates (in the Fall '94) had me battling the
System3 paint. I was not happy with the results, but since my
company sent me to Norway right after that, I have not been able to
complete the paint job. Well, I'm back in the USA, and started
reworking the paint job this week. Basically, the paint didn't
flow well on the fuselage and the top of the right wing. So I'm
sanding it down smooth (180,220,320,400,600 grit paper) and will
trying spraying it again. During the time I was gone (Nov->March) I read
that Gil was about to use the Sys3 on his RV. How did you make out, Gil?
Hope you had better luck with it. Sorry, never did get any good pictures to
send you (and Don) yet.
I am planning to take N615RV to the Gardner,MA airport on the weekend
of June 3rd, for final assembly, so the paint job will be completed by then.
I figure I've got another 3-4 months before I start taxi testing it. I'll
keep posting my progress. Also, nice to see Doug B back on the air. Bye.
Gary B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 14 Years of RVator wing note |
> short blip about needing
>to leave space on the bottom of the inboard rib for nutplates to attach
>the belly skin to the wing rib in final assembly. The article implies
>that it is a mistake to use the 1 1/4" spacing for rivets some nutplates
>need to be installed here at 2 1/2" spacing.
I have heard of some builders making a big deal of this just to upset the guys
who have already riveted their wing skins but haven't tried to mount their wings
yet. It's not. In my instructions I tell builders to leave out every other rivet
at the root rib on the bottom skin to save them a little work and worry. This
leaves a nice big space to hit when you are drilling the screw holes blind, and
the rivets that you put in the nutplates satisfy the rivet spacing requirement.
>If anyone else has this concern, not to worry. I'm
>having a great time building my 6A but tracking down these kinds of
>concerns so as not to mess something up is annoying and time consuming.
>Hope this info is helpful to someone else. I'm new to the bulletinboard
>but think it's a great idea.
It's helpful to me to hear this kind of thing. Whenever I see something like
this I often go back and add in explanations or alternate methods in the
instructions so that down the line somebody else will not waste any time
worrying about it.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | terrance.jantzi(at)canrem.com (Terrance Jantzi) |
Some time ago there was a discussion concerning smoking rivets on
180hp/RV-6's.
The general agreement was to place additional 1/8 rivets in the belly
skin. I decided that I was going to do that as soon as my fuselage was
on the gear allowing me to get under it. The time has come and I am
having a hard time drilling into that smooth shiny belly.
In a last ditch effort to avoid the job, I called the factory for a
definite answer for or against. They still have no offical position on
this problem. I was told "unofficially" that it might be a good idea to
add the extra rivets. This disturbs me somewhat. Does anyone know why
Van's has been so uncharacteristically silent on this matter?
It was only through this list that I became aware of the problem. I
would be really upset if I had to do these mods after the airplane was
painted. The one and only RV-6 (180hp 200+hours) at my home airport has
loose rivets and they were discovered after I showed him the batch of
letters that posted through this list. Up until then, he thought that
it was just oil stains behind the rivets. Unfortunately his airplane is
already painted.
I just wish that Van's would come clean on this. Not so much for me,
but for all those new builders out there that haven't got access to
this list.
Terry
180hp/RV-6
C-GZRV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Station License Legislation (fwd) |
My understanding is that the radio station license is NOT an FAA requirement
(i.e. not a FAR).
It is only a FCC requirement and the FAA does not really care.
>
> Well, I just e-mailed my representative. One question though, if the FCC
> stops issuing Radio Stations Licenses, will the FAA stop requiring them?
>
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Extra holes in F-604-C |
>
>When comparing the parts for my F-604 bulkhead to those shown
>on the plans, I noticed that my F-604-C parts have two extra
>holes in them.
Thanks, Dave and Russell. Those extra holes are supposed to be there, but they
are for wing attach bolts. In my kit they were larger than the rivet holes so I
assumed eveybody would understand their use and didn't mention them in my
instructions. I will go back and fix that.
I now advise people not to even mess with this bulkhead until they are ready to
mount it in the fuselage; there are some hole locations that need to be changed
from the drawings depending on what model you are building and it is easier to
install nutplates on the main part if you don't have it all riveted together.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Fried" <t42444(at)theo.dehavilland.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech Question: Fuel gauges |
>Chris Ruble
>
>Has anybody installed sight gauges in a -6? Is there a good place to put
>a clear tube in the cockpit area near the wing? Any ideas?
I have a DPS flow computer for my instrument panel. This unit gives fuel
quantity based on flow calculations and pre-programmed starting amounts. I
would rather like to avoid another panel mounted instrument to measure actual
quantity if possible.
While a sight gauge may be out of the way and awkward to see as a primary
quantity indicator, it has possibilities as a backup to the computer.
Numbers:
1. Depth of tank is roughly 13.5% of wing chord.
0.135 * 58 = 7.83 in.
2. Change in vertical location at outboard end relative
to
inboard due to 3 degree dihedral. Tank width =
48 in.
48 * sin(3) = 2.51 in.
>From the numbers it looks like there is 10 or so inches of fuel that may be
seen in some sort of a sight gauge. The problem becomes where to put the thing
so that enough of it may be seen without excessive contortions. I thought of
running the tubes parallel to F-602. They would need to be calibrated for level
and tail down as I am building the taildragger. The installation would have to
be robust enough to survive rubbing from my knees.
I'm open to other ideas as I have not commited to this scheme yet.
David Fried
DF-6 C-____
Tapered Wing
dfried(at)dehavilland.ca
************************************************************************
* Any ideas or thoughts expressed here are my own and are independent *
* of my employer. *
************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
for rv-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | hovan(at)apple.com (John Hovan) |
Hi All,
If you are bulding a Horizontal Stabilizer, you will be happy to know that
the "Dave Barnhart and Frank Justice Horizontal Stabilizer manual addition"
is now available for downloading on the RV Web page.
If you are getting ready to "Remove the Fuselage from the Jig," you will
be happy to know that Frank Justice's manual addition is available as well.
Please note that this manual addition is "work in progress. "
Also, for viewing pleasure and inspiration, Marvin Soward's RV-6 has been
added to the completed pictures. This plane is known as Yellowbird in the
Austin area. Take a look!
The RV Web address is ...
http://atlantis.austin.apple.com/people.pages/jhovan/home.html
enjoy,
John Hovan
Austin, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tech Question: Fuel gauges |
>
> >Chris Ruble
> >
> >Has anybody installed sight gauges in a -6? Is there a good place to put
> >a clear tube in the cockpit area near the wing? Any ideas?
>
> I have a DPS flow computer for my instrument panel. This unit gives fuel
> quantity based on flow calculations and pre-programmed starting amounts. I
> would rather like to avoid another panel mounted instrument to measure actual
> quantity if possible.
>
This is precisly what I have in mind except I was looking at the
Shandin (SP?) unit.
> While a sight gauge may be out of the way and awkward to see as a primary
> quantity indicator, it has possibilities as a backup to the computer.
>
> Numbers:
> 1. Depth of tank is roughly 13.5% of wing chord.
>
> 0.135 * 58 = 7.83 in.
>
> 2. Change in vertical location at outboard end relative
to
> inboard due to 3 degree dihedral. Tank width
=
> 48 in.
>
> 48 * sin(3) = 2.51 in.
>
> From the numbers it looks like there is 10 or so inches of fuel that
> may be seen in some sort of a sight gauge. The problem becomes where
> to put the thing so that enough of it may be seen without excessive
> contortions. I thought of running the tubes parallel to F-602. They
> would need to be calibrated for level and tail down as I am building
> the taildragger. The installation would have to be robust enough to
> survive rubbing from my knees.
This also what I had in mind. Since the fuel supply lines are
routed to this area they could be used as the connection to the bottom
of the gauge. The vent line could serv as the top connection.
ASS sells clear 125 wall tubing for use as sight gauges. It could be
shrouded in aluminum tubing to protect it. A slot could be milled in the
side to allow viewing of the fuel level. End caps could be made from 5/8"
thick aluminum. The aluminum tubing could be threded for male pipe
thred and the blocks for the female thred. The blocks could be drilled
and threded for an AN fitting for connection to the fuel/vent lines.
My only concern at this point is weather the bottom of the gauge could
be installed at a low enough point to be accurate at the E mark. Does
anybody out there have their airframe to the point that they could
mesure the distance from the bottom of the tank to the floor panel?
>
> I'm open to other ideas as I have not commited to this scheme yet.
>
> David Fried
> DF-6 C-____
> Tapered Wing
> dfried(at)dehavilland.ca
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Any ideas or thoughts expressed here are my own and are independent *
> * of my employer. *
> ************************************************************************
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LewinBSr(at)aol.com |
Dear Friends, Please unsubscribe me from the RV list.
Thank you.
Lewin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Extra holes in F-604-C |
>>
>>When comparing the parts for my F-604 bulkhead to those shown
>>on the plans, I noticed that my F-604-C parts have two extra
>>holes in them.
>
>Thanks, Dave and Russell. Those extra holes are supposed to be there, but they
>are for wing attach bolts. In my kit they were larger than the rivet holes
so I
>assumed eveybody would understand their use and didn't mention them in my
>instructions. I will go back and fix that.
>
>I now advise people not to even mess with this bulkhead until they are
ready to
>mount it in the fuselage; there are some hole locations that need to be
changed
>from the drawings depending on what model you are building and it is easier to
>install nutplates on the main part if you don't have it all riveted together.
>
>FKJ
>
Frank, I think Dave is talking about extra 1/8" holes not the 1/4"(?) holes
that match up with the spar (correct, Dave?). I have 15- 1/8" holes and 2-
1/4" on each F604C where it attaches to the F604A. The plans only show 13-
1/8" and 2- 1/4" holes. The extra holes are in the outboard column. I have
5 and the plans show 3. Of course, the plans also show the same spacing for
all these holes, but it appears that they had to change the spacing on the
bottom row to clear the spar bolts. Your current advice to save this
bulkhead until fuselage time is probably a good one. By the way- I don't
even want to know what holes your talking about moving. :-)
Well, breaks over- back to mounting wing ribs.
Russell Duffy
RV6A- 22407
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | M77004270(at)ACS.SAULTC.ON.CA |
| Subject: | Subaru powered RV-6A |
Hello fellow builders:
I am building a RV-6A and will be ppowering it with a 2.7 litre
6 cylinder Subaru engine. My empennage is complete and signed off. I am
now working on mounting the engine and systems. I purchased the stock
RV-6A dynafocal type 1 engine mount from Van's. This mount is bolted on
a sturdy fixture with a mock firewall and instrument panel. The engine
is in position and I am now in the process of making the metal brackets that
go from the engine up to the 4 dynafocal mounting points. My plan is to be a
able to hook up all the systems (fuel, exhaust, ignition and cooling) on this s
stand and get the engine running. I plan on using the stock fuel injection
and ignition systems.
The Ross planetary gear reduction looks like the most suitable unit
at this point, but I'm still looking. I have wrote to both Warp drive and
Ivoprop about a ground adjustable propeller, but unfortunately have not
recieved any response?.
Any thoughts or input on my project would be appreciated.
P.S. I'm a rookie at this internet stuff, please forgive any blunders!
Terry Mortimore
38 Cartier St.
Sault Ste Marie,
Ontario Canada
P6B-3K2
Terry Mortimore Email in%"m77004270(at)cis.saultc.on.ca
38 Cartier St.
Sault Ste Marie, 705-949-9116
Ontario, Canada
P6B-3K2
************************************
* "May you always have a tailwind" *
************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
| Subject: | Re: loose rivets |
>Some time ago there was a discussion concerning smoking rivets on
>180hp/RV-6's.
For those of us who have only recently been made aware of this problem
(..thanks..Dave Fried), could someone re-post the most critical items.
Thanks
Ken RV6-A
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Subaru powered RV-6A |
<01HQCIXPPD7S0011LO(at)ACS.SAULTC.ON.CA>
| From: | Mike Fredette <mfredett(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Terry,
>I have wrote to both Warp drive and
>Ivoprop about a ground adjustable propeller, but unfortunately have not
>recieved any response?.
Iwould recommend sticking with the more proven wooden props for
your Subaru aplication, ie, warnke, prince, pacesetter. Both Ivoprop and
Warp Drive have a VERY spotty history when installing their props in high
horsepower applications. The incedence of blade failures is really scary.
There was an article in Kitplanes not too long ago with a Subaru powered
Dragonfly, using, I believe a three blade Cato wooden prop with very good
results. Sorry I don't remember the exact month. Anyway, research VERY
carefully before putting one of the composite props on, I think you'll find
that the wood props are a better investment, with a long, and proven track record.
Good luck and let us all know how you're progressing.
Rgds
Mike Fredette RV4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Fuel sight gauges |
FYI, if you end up using some type of sight gauge, be advised
to not use the clear tygon tubing. There is a tygon tubing that
is made for fuel (gas) and it has a light yellow color.
I bought some for my Pitts from Wicks but I think several of the
other AC parts places carry it now. They also sell the clear but
you don't want the clear as the fuel makes it hard and it could
crack.
A sight gauge can be very simple but it adds another place for
fuel to leak if the tubing breaks for some reason.
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Extra holes in F-604-C |
>Frank, I think Dave is talking about extra 1/8" holes not the 1/4"(?) holes
>that match up with the spar (correct, Dave?). I have 15- 1/8" holes and 2-
>1/4" on each F604C where it attaches to the F604A. The plans only show 13-
>1/8" and 2- 1/4" holes. The extra holes are in the outboard column. I have
>5 and the plans show 3. Of course, the plans also show the same spacing for
>all these holes, but it appears that they had to change the spacing on the
>bottom row to clear the spar bolts. Your current advice to save this
>bulkhead until fuselage time is probably a good one. By the way- I don't
>even want to know what holes your talking about moving. :-)
Yes, that is correct. I'm sitting here holding the F-604-C in my hand.
It has two quarter-inch holes, six 3/16-inch holes, and fifteen
1/8-inch holes.
The 3/16" and 1/4" holes match up with bolt-holes in the spar. The
1/8" holes match up with those shown in the plans as rivet holes
EXCEPT that the plans show thirteen rivet holes and I have
fifteen. The extra two holes are in the outermost 'column'. The
outermost column of rivet holes shown in the plans is 'missing'
two rivets when compared to the other two columns.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[4]: Extra holes in F-604-C |
> Your current advice to save this
>bulkhead until fuselage time is probably a good one. By the way- I don't
>even want to know what holes your talking about moving. :-)
Don't worry about it. It's just the holes in the side plate that holds the front
and back halves of the F-604 together. The spacing between the front and back
half may be slightly off which could make for a tight fit getting the spar in,
and there are some gussets and other things that attach to the F-604 in the same
area where you might have rivets. When you get there, just drill out any
offending rivets and put in new ones. The leftover holes are covered by skin.
>Yes, that is correct. I'm sitting here holding the F-604-C in my hand.
>It has two quarter-inch holes, six 3/16-inch holes, and fifteen
>1/8-inch holes.
I'll look again and talk to the spar manufacturer to see if I can figure out
what is going on here and write it up. It appears you do have some holes that I
don't.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru powered RV-6A |
>I am building a RV-6A and will be ppowering it with a 2.7 litre
>6 cylinder Subaru engine.
Why? Is the engine cheaper, more reliable, more power to weight, less
fuel consumption, less aggravation, less building time?
Please don't think I'm ridiculing your decision. I'm all in favor of
updating the technology in our engines. I just don't understand the
benefits of *not* using a lycoming.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | majorst(at)oslonett.no (Trond Amlie) |
unsubscribe rv-list
trond amlie
majorst(at)oslonett.no
____________________________________________________________________________
MajorStudio AS
Trond Amlie
Boks 5949, Majorstua
0308 Oslo
Norway
Phone +47 22 46 22 99
__________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James A. Cone" <73644.136(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | proposal for handling rv mail for those that have to pay for it |
Great Idea but it would take a lot of work by Matt. I switched to America On
Line because there is no charge for mail, you get five hours of service per
month for the basic charge and extra time is only $2.95 per hour. Using "flash
sessions", you can get all of your mail in two or three minutes, log off, read
them off line, compose replys, save for later delivery, and when finished
reading the mail, activate another "flash session" to send the replys. Chances
are you will not exceed the five hours per month that way. Internet access is
also included at no cost on AOL. It is part of the basic services.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
What are most people using as nuts to hold on the fuel senders? I
didn't install platenuts for those since I figured I'd probably be
taking off the whole cover anyway if I needed to get to the sender.
But are nylon lock nuts impervious to fuel?
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Used Lycoming prices? (mostly chatter) |
I must confess that I am also looking into the possibility of using a
non-Lycoming (Mazda Rotary) engine in a 6A. I doubt it will work out to be
a better deal for me, though. I like the idea of being able to write a
check and get things that are already made to fit (exhaust, motor mounts,
airboxes, cowls etc). Cost might be the deciding factor though.
My questions to the group are:
1. What is a realistic price for a 1000 hour O-320? I keep hearing this
"urban legend" about being able to get one for $5000. This seems very low
to me.
2. What is a realistic price for a certified, guaranteed rebuild or 0-timed
remanufactured O-320?
3. Has anyone tried to rebuild a Lycoming? Would you save any real money
over paying an A&P or Rebuild shop to do the work?
4. I remember reading that Superior Air Parts (I think) was going to be
putting out a kit to build a complete engine from almost all new parts. Did
it ever happen and what do you think they would they charge for it?
Thanks in advance for your help. And because I can't resist-
Question- Why are Lycoming engines so expensive?
Answer- Antiques are always overpriced.
Sorry,
Russell Duffy
RV-6A 22407 (both wing skeletons clecoed together in the jig. Finally looks
like a wing!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bonorden(at)lagrange.amd.com (David Bonorden) |
| Subject: | Used Lycoming prices? (mostly chatter) |
>I must confess that I am also looking into the possibility of using a
>non-Lycoming (Mazda Rotary) engine in a 6A. I doubt it will work out to be
>a better deal for me, though. I like the idea of being able to write a
>check and get things that are already made to fit (exhaust, motor mounts,
>airboxes, cowls etc). Cost might be the deciding factor though.
>
>
>Question- Why are Lycoming engines so expensive?
>Answer- Antiques are always overpriced.
>
>Sorry,
>Russell Duffy
>RV-6A 22407 (both wing skeletons clecoed together in the jig. Finally looks
>like a wing!)
>
I must make the same confession. While I'm in a confessing mood, I'll
also confess that I should be spending more time building and less time
thinking about engines and electronics :)
I think the disadvantages of a non-lyc engine have been addressed
already. The attractions:
1) overhaul/operating costs I'll agree that it won't save $ up front,
but off the shelf parts availability and a $1000 overhaul sounds attractive.
2) smooth operation
3) no shock cooling concerns
4) it IS experimental (but for my 1st plane, I'm more interested in
flying than developing engine installations).
I'll be a customer for a proven firewall forward package of 160+ hp if
there's one availble when I'm ready. Maybe Van's will be the only
supplier of such things, but I hope not.
Dave Bonorden
RV-4 #2562
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Used Lycoming prices? (mostly chatter) |
Since I plan to put an O-360 in my RV-6, I've been watching
prices for 360's, not 320, but the following comments may be
helpful.
The going price for a runout O360 with a guaranteed crankshaft
is about $6000 - $6500 today. (a runout O320 seems to go for
$4000-$5000)
A run-out O-360 with no guarantees can sometimes be found for
as little as $4000.
A mid-time O360 seems to be going for about $9000, give or take
a grand. 0SMOH or remans are $15K and up.
As for rebuilding: I plan to overhaul it myself. I have assisted
with a couple of teardowns, and I have A&P friends who have overhauled
several Lycomings, and under their close supervision, I expect it won't
be a big deal.
I have noticed two factors that significantly affect the price of
the used engine:
1. Solid crankshaft vs hollow crank. Engines with solid cranks
cost a lot less.
2. The Bendix D4xx-2yyy dual magneto. This is the one that has
two mags in the same housing sharing the same drive train.
Engines that use this magneto cost a lot less.
Both of these factors work in my favor. I plan to use a fixed-
pitch prop. And I will also probably use the Lightspeed
Ignition in place of one of the mags.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lynnk(at)bernard.com (Lynn Kasel) |
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Busick <rbusick(at)nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Source for Pro Seal |
I have been looking for a source for proseal. The only place I have
found it is aircraft spruce. In their catalog they do not have much of a
selection. Just what is this stuff (I know what it is for) and where can I
get the quanities that I need. How long is the self life?
Thanks
Bob Busick
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)CCGATE.HAC.COM |
| Subject: | Low Cost Engines. |
I picked up a high time O-320 for $2,600. It was cheaper to buy a wrecked
airplane that had a good engine that it was for the engine by itself. I am
attending a local college night class on aircraft engine overhaul to learn how
to overhaul the engine. I have disassemble the engine, magnafluxed the crank,
and dimensionally checked it at school. The Lycoming Overhaul manual has most of
the data needed to overhaul it. I also subscribed to Lycomings' annual update
service of Service Bulletins, Instructions and Letters.
Aircraft engine overhaul is just as easy as overhauling your lawn mower, only
the parts are more expensive. (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!) If you can build an
airplane, you should be able to overhaul your own engine.
If you look abound, you can fine good aircraft engines at a price more
attractive than auto conversions!
Gary RV-6 #20480
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Used Lycoming prices? (mostly chatter) |
>Russell Duffy *** said ***
>
>4. I remember reading that Superior Air Parts (I think) was going to be
>putting out a kit to build a complete engine from almost all new parts. Did
>it ever happen and what do you think they would they charge for it?
>
At our local EAA Chapter 40 meeting last month, the owner of a
major local engine rebuilding facility (3 to 5 engines per week) gave a
talk. He mentioned Superior Air Parts and that they are tooling up to
produce O-360 cases and crankshafts at much reduced prices. I guess the
market for cranks is going up becuse of the "sludge AD". He said that, in
general, the PMA (Parts Manufacturing Authority - this makes them certified
replacements) parts are equal or better than Lycomings because they are
re-engineered to later standards than the original (1950's??) design.
He said that he expected soon for Superior Air Parts to have all of
the components available for a "do-it-yourself" O-360 engine. This sounds
ideal, you assemble a new engine yourself (easier than a rebuild) from all
"yellow-tagged" parts. What you don't get is a Lycoming data plate and a
factory logbook ... just like the airframe, the engine manufacturer becomes
"Alexander" (in my case, of course!), but you end up with a new engine at
less cost. If I remember last years rumour correctly, it was for an O-200
engine, after they announced new entire piston/cylinder assemblies, but the
speakers opinion was that they would go for the O-360 market first because
it is much larger -- that's why a used O-360 cost much more than a used
O-320, even though the new price percent difference through Vans is quite
small.
Some questions remain, such as do I buy parts one at a time, or
will they offer an entire kit at a reduced cost? I presume that there is
nothing stopping me - except cost - from making my own O-360 now from spare
parts, either from Lycoming or Superior Air Parts.
Wild speculation -- If this happens, it will be announced at Oskosh
this year. If this is correct, anyone want a O-320 with 1800 hrs TT ??
(only used on Sundays by a little old lady from Pasedena)
.... just hoping ... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob_Seibert-R18643(at)email.sps.mot.com |
| Subject: | Lycoming Costs (chatter) |
Subject: Time:1:18 PM
OFFICE MEMO Lycoming Costs (chatter) Date:5/12/95
My experience with O-320 costs are what I consider to be reasonable.
I bought a 1575 hour O-320-E2D for $4000 minus starter and alternator.
(This was in 1991 so factor in some price escalation)
I got it from Bobby Osborne in Mineral Wells, Tx. I don't have his phone
number but directory assistance probably has it under "Bobby's Planes &
Parts" He has provided lots of engines to the homebuilders in this area
and has a good reputation.
I flew this used engine for 2 years with no trouble. (400 hours)
In November of 1994 I pulled the engine and overhauled it myself. ( I
have overhauled quite a few non-aircaft engines) I replaced everything
with measurable wear and AD's. New pistons, valves and "NuChrome" cylinders from
Sentry in Ft. Worth. The bill was around $4000 for pretty much a zero time engine.
Total investment approx. $8000 and I have a 2000 hr TBO engine.
I admire automotive conversions but at this point in time it is hard to
imagine any sure savings with an alternative engine. As far as reliablity
is concerned we all need to remember that the RV's are high performance
aircraft that find themselves over some pretty hostile terrain at times.
Like I said, I admire auto conversions but I LOVE the reliability reputation
when it's my butt out over those mountains.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MIKE PILLA" <mpilla(at)ccsmtplink.espinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost Engines. |
I found an O-320-E2D that had 3200 hours (1200 on a Mattituck major) for
around $2,800 (conditional upon crank passing, ...)
At last year's Sun'N'Fun, I attended Mattituck's seminar on engine overhaul
and realized that it was considerably simpler than when I used to work on
car engines (I'm not a mechanic by training, ...). The lawn mower analogy
is pretty darn accurate; that is the technology of the O-320. There were
a
couple of minor tricks shown; e.g., the crankcase "gasket" is nothing more
than a piece of silk thread.
The manuals from Lycoming are pretty inexpensive, the tools are not a
factor, ...
BTW, I found my engine through TAP. I felt ghoulish because I always
looked just after a natural disaster. E.g., the recent flooding in New
Orleans might reveal some "trashed" planes. Find a Skyhawk and get
yourself a nice O-320. Or, call FBOs, insurance companies, ... Soon, TAP
will have engines. Mine came from a hurricane Andrew wreck.
Mike Pilla
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Low Cost Engines.
Date: 5/12/95 10:20 AM
I picked up a high time O-320 for $2,600. It was cheaper to buy a wrecked
airplane that had a good engine that it was for the engine by itself. I am
attending a local college night class on aircraft engine overhaul to learn how
to overhaul the engine. I have disassemble the engine, magnafluxed the crank,
and dimensionally checked it at school. The Lycoming Overhaul manual has most of
the data needed to overhaul it. I also subscribed to Lycomings' annual update
service of Service Bulletins, Instructions and Letters.
Aircraft engine overhaul is just as easy as overhauling your lawn mower, only
the parts are more expensive. (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!) If you can build an
airplane, you should be able to overhaul your own engine.
If you look abound, you can fine good aircraft engines at a price more
attractive than auto conversions!
Gary RV-6 #20480
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Steffens" <res6246(at)des.dukepower.com> |
Conversion-With-Loss: Prohibited
I have some questions about engines, especially for Don Wentz. I've read Don's
comments about the problems associated with having an injection servo mounted on
the back end of the sump. I'm building a -6 and have obtained a runout
HIO-360-B1A for $3500. I've torn it down and it looks and mics out good for a
runout (from a military helicopter). One thing though - the injection servo is
on the back of the sump. I talked with Air Flow who can overhaul my Bendix servo
and can provide an elbow to turn the servo down, but according to Don, there
will still be problems. Looks like I need another sump or perhaps I can modify
the existing sump to move the servo to the bottom front which seems to be the
best location. Anyway, I'd be grateful for comments and if anyone knows where I
can get a sump with a front servo/carb mount, please let me kmow.
Dick Steffens
res6246(at)des.dukepower.com
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost Engines. |
Gary, is it possible you could post a list of the costs you encountered in
doing your own overhaul? There has been a reasonable amount of discussion in
the local area about the pro's and con's of doing it yourself. I am
concerned that after you spend $2,500 to $4,000 for a core, $800 ea. for
exchange cylinder packages (total of $3,200), gasket sets, bearings,
lifters, push rods, crank work, cam rebuild, bolts, etc., the cost vs value
of a homebuilder doing a rebuild would far exceed the cost vs value of a
good time engine.
It would also be interesting to find out what the cost on some of the
services, like having the crank checked out, if you didn't have access to a
local college. Does anyone have any idea what the cost of xiglowing
(spelling?) a crankcase is?...the cost of checking and overhauling a
crank?... the cost of an exchange or regrind of a cam shaft?
bobn(at)ims.com
Bob Neuner RV6
>I picked up a high time O-320 for $2,600. It was cheaper to buy a wrecked
>airplane that had a good engine that it was for the engine by itself. I am
>attending a local college night class on aircraft engine overhaul to learn how
>to overhaul the engine. I have disassemble the engine, magnafluxed the crank,
>and dimensionally checked it at school. The Lycoming Overhaul manual has
most of
>the data needed to overhaul it. I also subscribed to Lycomings' annual update
>service of Service Bulletins, Instructions and Letters.
>
>Aircraft engine overhaul is just as easy as overhauling your lawn mower, only
>the parts are more expensive. (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!) If you can build an
>airplane, you should be able to overhaul your own engine.
>
>If you look abound, you can fine good aircraft engines at a price more
>attractive than auto conversions!
>
>Gary RV-6 #20480
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)CCGATE.HAC.COM |
ENGINES:
According to the FAA Overhauled means: Disassembled, Cleaned, Inspected,
Repaired as necessary to meet manufacture's SERVICEABLE specifications. Rebuilt
means returned to manufacture's NEW limits. It costs quite a bit more for new
limits. Most overhaul shops do not rebuild. Make sure what the shop is
including.
As for Superior coming out with parts that are much less than Lycoming, I would
not hold my breath. New Superior cylinders studs sell for $100 more than
Lycoming. Their cylinders for O-320 and O-360 have been talked about for about
3 years. They just hit the market in October '94. Shopping around, I found new
Lycoming cylinders built up with PMA parts for $250 LESS than new superior
cylinders. By the way, new Lycoming cylinders with PMA parts to build to stud
ass'y were $900. Yes, it is more than a rechrome and welded heads. New
Superior cylinders list for $1,900 each. EAA members get 35% off.
An example of parts pricing:
Connecting rod bolts $48 each.
Crank: Regrind .003 under, nitrite, convert to constant speed, new drive lugs
$450
Balance Crank: $100
Steel Oil fitting for crankcase to connect C/S prop$28
There are many areas that costs can be saved. Most of the Lycomings will run
4,000 + hours without work on the bottom end. It is up to the builder to get
what he wants. I will have a rebuilt, blueprinted, balanced, engine that is
thousands less than new. I do not expect an overhauled engine to make TBO. I
do expect a rebuilt engine to go the distance if it is properly maintained. It
all breaks down to what is the life cycle cost? Save now, pay later. Pay now,
save later.
I have spent a lot of time (and money) building this aircraft. I will not cut
corners on any thing that can result in loss of it or MY LIFE! I know 3 people
who have perished in RV accidents. I WILL NOT BECOME ONE BECAUSE I CUT CORNERS.
Gary
RV-6 #20480
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Fredette <mfredett(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Howdy,
Could whoever it was who posted the info about Ivo Props
and their accident history/denial thereof, please repost. My dad
is just finishing a kitfox(poor slob), and has and in flight adjustable
Ivoprop. He got a bit concered when I mentioned their problems, and
would like as much info as possible.
Thanks
Mike Fredette RV4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Source for Pro Seal |
>
> I have been looking for a source for proseal. The only place I have
> found it is aircraft spruce. In their catalog they do not have much of a
> selection. Just what is this stuff (I know what it is for) and where can I
> get the quanities that I need. How long is the self life?
>
> Thanks
> Bob Busick
> RV-6
Van's will sell it to you, or did you know that? What quantities DO you need?
One quart will do two tanks. Or if you're looking for other options, you might
try:
Courtaulds Aerospace
14126 NE 190th St.
Woodenville, WA 98072
206-483-3999 (voice) 206-483-3993 (fax)
I believe they also have the small pre-measured kits as well.
Randall Henderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Parry <dparry(at)wchat.on.ca> |
Please take my name off your list until such time that I get an airplane kit.
The information is good but your plugging up my mailbox and right now I
don't have the time to read all the data.
Thanks
Regards Dave Parry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hsutphin(at)ix.netcom.com (Harold Sutphin) |
| Subject: | Vert Stab Jig question |
I am about to mount the vertical stab in the jig. The manual says move
the existing brackets over that were used for the horizontal stab. The
hinges are not all the same height on the vert stab - so the spar will
not be parallel to the jig. Does it matter? I will compensate for this
when I measure..or should new brackets be made to mount vert stab in
jig? What did everyone else do?
Thanks
Harold
RV-6A
/horizontal stab skinnned!!/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Busick <rbusick(at)nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Low Cost Engines. |
Gary
How long will it take to overhaul the engine?
Bob Busick
RV-6
On Fri, 12 May 1995 CCGATE.HAC.COM!gasobek(at)matronics.com wrote:
> I picked up a high time O-320 for $2,600. It was cheaper to buy a wrecked
> airplane that had a good engine that it was for the engine by itself. I am
> attending a local college night class on aircraft engine overhaul to learn how
> to overhaul the engine. I have disassemble the engine, magnafluxed the crank,
> and dimensionally checked it at school. The Lycoming Overhaul manual has most
of
> the data needed to overhaul it. I also subscribed to Lycomings' annual update
> service of Service Bulletins, Instructions and Letters.
>
> Aircraft engine overhaul is just as easy as overhauling your lawn mower, only
> the parts are more expensive. (MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE!) If you can build an
> airplane, you should be able to overhaul your own engine.
>
> If you look abound, you can fine good aircraft engines at a price more
> attractive than auto conversions!
>
> Gary RV-6 #20480
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
GS> I would be interested in how to build this jack squeezer. Please send
GS> to
GS> Gary Standley
GS> 23565 SW Lois Street
GS> Hillsboro, OR. 97123
Gary: I'll make up some drawing (probably crude) and send you a copy early
next week. If anyone else wants a copy, let me know.
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vert Stab Jig question |
Harold,
>I am about to mount the vertical stab in the jig. The manual says move
>the existing brackets over that were used for the horizontal stab. The
>hinges are not all the same height on the vert stab - so the spar will
>not be parallel to the jig. Does it matter? I will compensate for this
>when I measure..or should new brackets be made to mount vert stab in
>jig? What did everyone else do?
>
I just used the same brackets for mine and it worked fine. The vert stab is
a very irregular shape so it doesn't really matter what angle it's in the
jig. Watch the measurements carfully on this piece though (since it's so
odd). Congrats on the finished horz stab! Isn't it amazing how sturdy it
gets when it's riveted? Good luck on the vert stab.
You may have gotten this twice. I hit reply last night and forgot to change
the address. It may have found it's way to you anyhow. I'm still pretty
new to this e-mail address business so please forgive.
Russell Duffy
RV-6A (both wing skeletons primed and in the jigs- ready for skin)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | engine rebuild costs |
There has been a lot of discussion on engine rebuild costs lately.
I posted this on rec.aviation three years ago and thought that
this group may find it interesting.
I overhauled a Lycoming 0320-E2D about three years ago and kept
records of my expense. I am not sure how much the costs of parts
and labor have changed. This should give you a rough idea of some
of the costs involved.
Enjoy
Wayne
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
< Wayne E. Westerhold wester@dg-rtp.dg.com >
< Data General Corporation Research Triangle Park, NC >
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Due to necessity I really make an effort to keep
the cost of owning our Cessna as low as possible.
I have just completed the overhaul of my Lycoming 0320-E2D and
thought that the net might be interested in the results.
The Lycoming is out of our 1975 Cessna 172M.
Total time on engine and aircraft was 2000 hours.
The engine was still running strong and was using about
1 quart of Shell 15-50 every 4 hours. Compression was around 70/80.
A significant factor in the decision to do the overhaul now
versus later was an outstanding AD (AD 81-18-04) on the oil pump.
The AD (oil pump impeller replacement) required the removal of the
accessory case (major $$). The overhaul option was chosen since
a lot of the same labor cost would have to be repeated in the
near future if only the AD was complied with.
I called several engine shops (Mattituck, G&N, FireWall Forward)
The prices ranged from 9k to 10k. These numbers were only for
the engine. A lot of additional funds are required for the engine
removal and installation, engine mounts, prop, shipping, etc.
The engine shop selection was made easily by my wife.
We were not going to spend big bucks on the overhaul.
I am very active in performing the majority of the maintenance
on the Cessna. I did as much of the overhaul labor as was legal
and contracted the rest of the work to the following services.
The prop:
------------------------------------------------------------------
The prop is the original 75" McCauley. Years ago I picked up a rock
on the very end of one tip. The ding was about 1/2 the size of a dime.
US Propeller Service reconditioned the prop and reshaped the tips.
I was very pleased with the results. The prop looked like it had
just come new from the factory (even new McCauley decals). I could
no longer tell which end of the prop had the ding. Total cost $295.00
US Propeller Service
Piedmont Triad International Airport
P.O. Box 35195
Greensboro, NC 27425 (919) 668-0750
Fuel and oil lines:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Both oil lines and fuel line were replaced. The total cost for 3 lines
and new fittings was $71.42. Air Transport are the most pleasant people
you will ever find to work with.
Air Transport
360 Airport Road
Campbellsville, KY 42718 (502) 465-7757
Bottom End Inspection and Rework:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I chose El Reno Aviation to do the inspection and rework of the
bottom end. Every engine part in the bottom end and accessory case
was crated up and sent to them.
I worked with Neal at El Reno. Neal has been in the aviation engine
business for a long time and has seen a lot of Lycoming and Continentals
pass through his doors. The overall condition of the engine
parts was very good. No real surprises were found (less $$).
The cam, crank, and cam followers were machined to new specifications.
The following parts were red tagged (no longer serviceable) and will
be replaced.
- oil pump shaft and impellers
- piston pins plugs
- rocker arms shafts
The cases were painted. All parts came back with yellow tags
(ok to return to service) and were covered with oil and vacuumed packed
in individual plastic bags. The red tagged parts were returned and were
not replaced by El Reno. I was very satisfied with the work performed
by El Reno Air. Total cost $1183.05.
El Reno Aviation Inc.
1004 S. Country Club Road
P.O. Box 760
El Reno, OK 73036-0760 (405) 262-2387
Top End Inspection and Rework:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I originally decided to have the cylinders cermichromed. The turn around
time at Engine Components Inc was around 6 weeks. A company called
Sentry Chrome has a process called New Chrome that is very similar
to Engine Components Inc cermichrome process. I chose to have the
cylinders done at Sentry Chrome. My brother is a commercial pilot
in Dallas and has had very good success with their work.
I shipped the cylinders to my brother who then hand carried them
to Sentry Chrome.
The cylinders were disassembled before they were sent to Sentry Chrome.
All of the choke was gone (remember the cylinders had 2000 hours on them).
I was really glad to hear that NO welding was required on ANY of the
cylinders (less $$). Sentry Chrome replaced the bushing in the
rocker arms, cleaned, inspected, New Chromed, painted, installed new
guides, installed new valve seats, installed new stubs, and yellow tagged
all four cylinders for a total of $955.80.
I feel Sentry Chrome did a good job, but I never really had an
opportunity to deal directly with them (brother took care of cylinders).
Sentry Chrome
2025 E. Rosedale National Watts 1 (800) 433-7647
Fort Worth, TX 76104 Texas (817) 531-2729
Buying parts:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Air Parts was chosen to supply the replacement parts.
I called several parts houses asking them for an itemized list
of common parts and prices needed for an O320-E2D overhaul. None of
the other parts houses bothered to give much of a response. Bill
Cannon at Superior called back and faxed me a very complete list of
parts and prices. The service, prices, and parts list were excellent.
The following parts were used. Total Cost approximately $1200.00.
The following parts were replaced. The majority of these parts are
certified PMA.
Description Quantity Unit Cost Description Quantity Unit Cost
----------- -------- --------- ----------- -------- ---------
Piston 4 34.97 Exhaust Valve 4
98.33
Intake Valve 4 34.97 Ring Set 1 78.32
Main Bearing 8 10.96 Rob Bearing 8
3.79
Exhaust Valve Key 8 2.21 Exhaust Valve Cap 4 3.52
Intake Valve Key 8 .44 Major Gasket Set 1 61.17
Tappet 8 18.89 Push Rob Hyd Unit 8
5.44
Outer Valve Spring 8 6.37 Inner Valve Spring 8 4.83
Oil Pump Impeller Kit 1 118.86 Intake Hose 4 1.68
Rocker Drain Hose 4 .46 Piston Pin 4 26.22
Piston Plugs 8 3.26 Tappet Body 8
29.40
Oil Relief Ball 1 .98 Oil Relief Spring 1
7.04
Connecting Rob Bolt 8 13.34 Connecting Rob Nut 8 3.34
Oil Pump Shaft 1 69.92 Rocker Arm Shaft 4
7.90
Superior Air Parts
15050 Beltwood Parkway East
P.O. Box 363
Addison, TX 75001 (214) 233-4433
Reassemble:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I talked with damn near every engine shop between North Carolina
and Dallas, Texas. After all this I picked a shop that was only 10
miles from our house. We live close to Raleigh South Airport
(small GA airport). Jim Rembach and his son Dan run an engine
shop on the field.
Jim received a crate of parts and was assigned the task of making
this engine look like it did about 6 months ago. Jim was more then
happy (actually encouraged) me to watch and ask questions as they
reassembled the Lycoming. It took about 5 days for the two of them
to complete. The engine was reassembled without any surprises.
Jim's shop is not a huge facility. The only employees are Jim and Dan,
but together they turn out some of the highest quality overhauls I have
ever seen. Jim started overhauling engines 28 years ago at G&N.
Back then G&N was a small organization with dirt floors. Several years
and a zillion engines later Jim and Dan started their own business.
One of the mags was the original Slick 4251 (impulse). The other
mag was a non impulse Slick 4250. The 4250 had been rebuilt
by Slick and had about 300 hours on it. Jim feels that the customer
is better served by replacing Slick mags with new ones rather then
pay the shop rate to rebuild them. Both mags were replaced with new
Slick 43xx series mags. The 43xx series mags have a stronger case and
better bearing design then the original 42xx series. The harness was
original and looked like hell. The total cost for 2 new mags and a
new Slick harness came to $722.00 including installation.
My engine still has the original wire screen for an oil filter.
Jim highly recommends that I replace the wire screen with a new
spin-on cartridge. The thermostic valve in my wire screen adapter
has a reputation for sticking and spin-on cartridges do a much
better job of filtering. An improved thermostic valve (required
for the cartridge oil filter adapter) and cartridge oil filter
adapter will set you back an additional $285.00.
Feel free to contact either Jim or myself if you have any questions
on the build-up of the engine. I highly recommend Rembach's.
4370 Slick Mag
4371 Slick Mag
Slick Harness 722.00
Misc parts 35.80 Total Parts 757.80
Total Labor 1000.00
Jim Rembach's Aircraft Engine Service Inc.
3008 Air Park Road
Fuquay Varina, N.C. 27526 (919) 552-9625
Engine Installation:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Jim and Dan did such a good job on my engine that I had
them haul the engine over to my home base (Oxford, NC) and install it.
Lord engine mounts 275.00
New engine mount bolts, nuts 25.00 Total Parts 300.00
Total Labor 700.00
Misc Parts:
------------------------------------------------------------------
rebuild starter 110.00 rebuild alternator 92.00
air filter bracket 73.71 Champion REM40E plugs 102.00
The air filter bracket (one ounce piece of plastic) has got to
be the most over-priced part available from Cessna.
Total Misc 377.71
Shipping:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I made a very sturdy engine crate that fits Lycoming 4 cylinders.
It's ugly but it's strong. Anyone is welcome to use the engine
crate as long as you return it.
Total shipping cost including insurance 361.02.
Total Cost:
------------------------------------------------------------------
cylinders 955.80
engine parts: 757.80 (ignition) + 1200.00 (internal)
engine labor: 1000.00
Misc parts: 377.71
total engine 4291.31
prop overhaul: 295.00
shipping: 361.02
installation: 1000.00
total overhaul 5947.33
The decision to parcel out the tasks of my engine overhaul has
several tradeoffs. Following are some advantages and disadvantages
that I considered relevant. These tradeoffs may not apply due to your
aviation interests, your engine/aircraft, your free time, or your
bank account.
Advantages
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I saved some money.
2. I was able to spread the cost out over time. It's a
lot easier on our family to write 5 checks of
one thousand dollars each then to come-up with
the grand total all at once.
3. I believe the quality of the overhaul was as good or better
then overhauls done by big name engine shops.
I unconditionally replaced several
parts not automatically replaced by most engine shops
(e.g. intake valves and new mags). I know the people
working on my engine were seasoned veterans. It's
reassuring to know and have faith in the people who
assemble your engine.
4. I learned a lot about my engine and airframe.
5. I enjoyed it.
Disadvantages
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. No warranty. Normally a shop makes a significant profit
from an overhaul. From this they can afford to offer
a warranty. If my engine eats itself right after
startup then I am out of big bucks. However, I only fly
about 75 hours a year and most engine warranties
quickly expire due to time instead of hours anyway.
2. If turn-around time is a major concern, then the engine
exchange option may be better. Most large engine shops
offer this service. The engine exchange option does not
appeal to me. I knew that my old engine was well cared
for and never had any catastrophic problems. I preferred
that any reused parts come from my old engine rather then
from one of questionable history.
3. It takes time, tools, and patience.
Hope you found this interesting.
Wayne "don't mail this to my wife" Westerhold
I have no relationship what-so-ever with any of the above
organizations other then being a satisfied customer.
Wayne E. Westerhold
Data General, 62 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919)-248-6306
wester@dg-rtp.dg.com or ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!wester
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)CCGATE.HAC.COM |
| Subject: | Answer: Angle valaves vs parallel. |
How long does it take to overhaul an engine? I have been doing a piece at a
time for the last 2 years. It can be done in about 60 man hours over a 6 week
period. I pay as I can.
Someone asked the question about the difference between O-360 parallel valve
verses angle valve:
I asked at an aircraft engine rebuild shop what the difference is and was told:
"The crankshaft connecting rod journal is 1/8" larger. The angle head engines
produce more power due to the better flow and higher compression. Other than
that, they are the same." My comments: More power = more wear, more heat,
shorter engine life.
Gary #20480
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vert Stab Jig question |
HS> I am about to mount the vertical stab in the jig. The manual says move
HS> the existing brackets over that were used for the horizontal stab. The
HS> hinges are not all the same height on the vert stab - so the spar will
HS> not be parallel to the jig. Does it matter? I will compensate for this
HS> when I measure..or should new brackets be made to mount vert stab in
HS> jig? What did everyone else do?
Harold:
I guess you could successfully compensate your measurements as you mentioned,
although it might be easy to get confused in translating the measurements on
the plans.
What I did was to use the same brackets and just put wood shims under them as
appropriate to get the proper dimensions such that the vert stab rear spar was
parallel to the jig cross-piece.
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parts Costs! |
>I have spent a lot of time (and money) building this aircraft. I will not cut
>corners on any thing that can result in loss of it or MY LIFE! I know 3 people>who
have perished in RV accidents. I WILL NOT BECOME ONE BECAUSE I CUT CORNERS
This is one of the most intelligent and sane comments I've heard in awhile.
I'm always amazed when I witness people approach homebuilding and flying
with a relazed cavalier attitude.
If I have the urge to "experiment" with an engine, I'll build a kit-car or
move somewhere with lots of open flat space (for dead sticks). But here
in the Northeast, the terrain tends to be unforgiving.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
Gary:
I riveted my spar with a "Jack Squeezer" like that from the Sport Aviation
article. It was a lot of work and I still have most of the important pieces.
I could save you some time. The advantage I found from using it is that a
"feeler" gauge can be used to get an accurate shophead. It took at least an
eight ton bottle bottle jack.
If I had it to do all over again I wouldn't waste my time building the Jack
Squeezer. The "riveting arbor" like the ones Avery, U.S. Tool, and others
make will do just as good a job, and a LOT faster.
If you're still interested, let me know I can set you up with most of the
pieces you will need to build an all metal one.
Bob Neuner
bobn(at)ims.com
>To: Gary Standley
>
> GS> I would be interested in how to build this jack squeezer. Please send
> GS> to
> GS> Gary Standley
> GS> 23565 SW Lois Street
> GS> Hillsboro, OR. 97123
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Answer: Angle valaves vs parallel. |
>
>I asked at an aircraft engine rebuild shop what the difference is and was told:
>"The crankshaft connecting rod journal is 1/8" larger. The angle head engines
>produce more power due to the better flow and higher compression. Other than
>that, they are the same." My comments: More power = more wear, more heat,
>shorter engine life.
>
>Gary #20480
>
>
I think there is more to it than that. The IO-360 looks completly different
from the O-360.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle (Matt G. Dralle 1+ 510-447-9886) |
| Subject: | Aircraft Wire... |
Okay, so I ask this question a while back but lost the responses that I
got. So here goes again. What type of wire is typically accepted for
use in Aircraft installations? I'm looking through the Newark Catalog
but there appears to be about 1001 choices. I'm looking for sheilded pairs
cable in the 22 gauge range. Thanks for all input. Please post responses
to the list; that way I can find them in the archive next time... :-)
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: loose rivets |
Terry, there is a local RV-6A with 160hp, wood prop. It has several
hundred hours, mosltly cross country. This airplane has never been
upside down or done ANY aggressive flying, they use it like the Bonanza
they used to fly.
What I am getting at, is that I inspected it carefully last week and
could not find a SINGLE rivet working loose under the floor, firewall,
or spar carrythru. I expect that big engines, grass strips, and
aerobatics contribute a lot to the issue. Also, the -6A has the mains
attached to the spars, while the -6 mains attach to the firewall and I
bet that contributes to the -6 problems.
So, RV type, engine, prop, rough strips, and flying styles will
contribute to the problem (it has happened to 150 and 160hp -6s). I
recommend you do something about it now. Even though I had to remove
my battery/box, carpets, etc., it wasn't that hard to drill out the bad
and add the new. Do it now...
don wentz (rivet repairs still holding :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING(at)fire.ca.gov |
>From RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING Mon May 15 10:17:07 0700 1995 remote
from fire.ca.gov
From: RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING(at)fire.ca.gov (RUSS NICHOLS)
Subject: Primer, getting started
Hello All!
After months of waiting, saving, and dreaming, I am now the proud
owner of an RV-6 empenage kit. I spent the weekend doing the
inventory and carefully rewrapping everything in plastic (per a
suggestion in the package). I felt like a kid at Christmas! Now, I'm
feeling like a parent... "I have to put this together..."
I know this question is pretty basic, but I'm still at that end of the
spectrum. I currently live in Sacramento, CA. I'm not sure where
I'll be in 5 years. I'm also not sure how much corrosion protection
I'll need, but I want to have "enough".
In mail from the past year or so, I've found references to a lot of
primers. This area is pretty much over my head. I understand that
Zinc Chromate is the defacto aviation standard. Avery also carries
Zinc Oxide. From this group, I've seen references to epoxy-based
products, and MIL spec conformity. I also found a note that warned
against mixing different products.
Now... the questions...
What is the best way to go??? I currently have a compressor, but
don't yet have a spray gun. Is the small aerosol can a viable option
for now, or should I buy a gun and mix 2-part primers.
Also, being very uninitiated, I'm not sure of the actual process.
If I use Zinc something, do I need to etch first? I think the answer
is no. Is Alumiprep just an etch or is it a cleaner to be used before
any of the primers?
Are the commercially available primers much better?
I apologize for the simple questions. Please feel free to send any
responses directly to me if you wish to avoid pollution the list with
trivia.
thanks for the help,
russ nichols
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: Answer: Angle valaves vs parallel. (fwd) |
There are a number of things different between the angle and parallel valve
IO-360 engines. The crank is larger, the rods are different, the rod bolts
are different, the Cylinder/heads are different (angle vs parallel), etc.
I expect the pistons and valves are also different but have not checked.
On paper, the IO-360 angle valve engine looks superior and is the 200HP engine.
What people like Monty Barrett have told me is that the angle valve engine
does not produce the power on the dyno that it is claimed to have.
They can typically get more power out of the parallel valve engines after
they hop them up and they are lighter in weight. That is why most of the
aerobatic folks prefer the parallel valve engine.
Monty blueprints and builds up engines for a lot of the top aerobatic aircraft.
He does normal engine rebuilds and engine work as well at his shop in Tulsa OK.
Again, Van does not recommend the 200HP IO-360 engine in RV's, but there are
a few out there.
>
> >
> >I asked at an aircraft engine rebuild shop what the difference is and was told:
> >"The crankshaft connecting rod journal is 1/8" larger. The angle head engines
> >produce more power due to the better flow and higher compression. Other than
> >that, they are the same." My comments: More power = more wear, more heat,
> >shorter engine life.
> >
> >Gary #20480
> >
> >
>
> I think there is more to it than that. The IO-360 looks completly different
from the O-360.
>
> Chris
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | CONSTRUCTION - Re[2]: loose rivets |
Terry,
When I did my firewall/floorboard joint 6 to 8 weeks ago, I
substituted 1/8 rivets at about a 1 inch spacing. It was no harder to do
than the 3/32 rivets, and the joint looks much stronger. Just watch for
edge distance where the two internal angles are at the battery box/inner
engine mount location (4 inches to 6 inches from the centerline). I used a
couple of 3/32 rivets here. Also dimple the floorboard and countersink the
firewall angle for added strength. The 0.040 floorboard is easy to dimple
with the Avery tool, just use a slightly bigger hammer. :-)
More to the point, the 1/8 rivets seem to pull down the floorboard
tighter against the firewall angle in the center where they do not lie
flush.
As Don says ... "Do it now..."
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... fitting baggage area stuff
>Terry, there is a local RV-6A with 160hp, wood prop. It has several
>hundred hours, mosltly cross country. This airplane has never been
>upside down or done ANY aggressive flying, they use it like the Bonanza
>they used to fly.
>
>What I am getting at, is that I inspected it carefully last week and
>could not find a SINGLE rivet working loose under the floor, firewall,
>or spar carrythru. I expect that big engines, grass strips, and
>aerobatics contribute a lot to the issue. Also, the -6A has the mains
>attached to the spars, while the -6 mains attach to the firewall and I
>bet that contributes to the -6 problems.
>
>So, RV type, engine, prop, rough strips, and flying styles will
>contribute to the problem (it has happened to 150 and 160hp -6s). I
>recommend you do something about it now. Even though I had to remove
>my battery/box, carpets, etc., it wasn't that hard to drill out the bad
>and add the new. Do it now...
>don wentz (rivet repairs still holding :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Re: how long to overhaul |
>
> How long will it take to overhaul the engine?
>
> Bob Busick
> RV-6
>
I would plan on about 2 months from tear down to assembly.
A lot depends on the time to turn the Cylinders around from the Cyl shop
and this depends on if they need welding and or chroming.
3 to 4 weeks on the Cyl may be typical but could go out to 6 weeks.
Most things like the crank, rods, cam to get inspected/reworked will
take 2 to 3 weeks. If you send the cases in for overhaul they will
probably take 2 to 4 weeks as well (this is to check for cracks,
lap and line-bore).
Most of the shops I used took longer than they quoted initially.
Also, some times parts are in short supply and this can cause
some delays. When I went to Superior, they had all the parts I needed
except the rod bolts it that was going to be a 6 week wait.
I used Lyc Rod bolts.
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
>I have some questions about engines, especially for Don Wentz. I've read Don's
>comments about the problems associated with having an injection servo
>mounted on the back end of the sump. I'm building a -6 and have obtained a
>runout HIO-360-B1A for $3500. I've torn it down and it looks and mics out good
>for a runout (from a military helicopter). One thing though - the injection
>servo is on the back of the sump. I talked with Air Flow who can overhaul my
>Bendix servo
>and can provide an elbow to turn the servo down, but according to Don, there
>will still be problems.
The problem is that even with the elbow (which they made for me for about $100)
is that it didn't clear the rear cross member on the engine mount. Another $60
to get that modified (buy Van's original supplier, so I trust it) and some more
$$ for an extra adapter from Airflow, and I was ready to install the $90
standard elbow to get my servo pointed forward. You can now see why I say that
I shouldn't have passed-up the $250 A1A sump when I had the chance.
> Looks like I need another sump or perhaps I can modify the existing sump to
>move the servo to the bottom front which seems to be the best location.
>Anyway, I'd be grateful for comments and if anyone knows where I
>can get a sump with a front servo/carb mount, please let me kmow.
You should be able to find a suitable sump, just get TAP and call anyone
that rebuilds or sells used engines.
If you get a std A1A type sump, you should be able to get a 90 degree
elbow from Airflow that will make your installation easy.
A local builder here did exactly that: Bought an A1A from Van's, bought
a used Bendix injection setup, sent it to Airflow for overhaul, then
installed it with their guidance.
His name is Bill Drake, (Randall, can you help with the #?). Give him a
call.
Don RV-6 20369 N790DW
Dick Steffens
res6246(at)des.dukepower.com
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Parry <dparry(at)wchat.on.ca> |
Please Take Me Off this Mailing List..!!!!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lynnk(at)bernard.com (Lynn Kasel) |
Please unsubscribe me from the mail list.
Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JEFFREY A. HALL" <76476.733(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | reply to primers question |
(Is the small aerosol can viable?)
Most emphatically yes... It will most likely be a while before you need to do
anything of great enough size that you will need anything but spray cans.
Alclad surfaces technically don't need any primer at all, the only time I can
imagine needing any on those areas would be if the aircraft was tied down
outside in a coastal area. I flew for years, in many different planes, that
didn't have any primer on the alclad surfaces, and never saw any corrosion that
wasn't the fault of a bad paint job or neglect. This was in the swamp atmosphere
of Michigan. You will find that some builders prime the entire structure of the
plane, skeleton and skins, but most seem to rough up the mating surfaces of ribs
etc. and corresponding rivet lines on the inside of the skins, due to fact that
drilling and deburring etc. removes the alclad in those areas. A fine grade of
Scothbrite pad and a good cleaning after the scuffing should suffice, and a very
light scuffing is all that is necessary, just so the primer will adhere.
Remember, if you use spray cans, all the cleaning that is needed after a small
priming job is inverting the can and a short blast to clear the orofice. If you
go the gun route, there is considerable more cleanup, and usually for a very
small job. But, hey, this is only the way I'm doing it, get some more opinions
and form your own from them all.
Jeff Hall
Ft. Collins, Co.
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
OK guys... What follows is probably the crudest drawing every transmitted on
the RV-List. But maybe you can all make some sense of my Wing Spar Rivet
Squeezer. Here is a description:
This consists of three 6" x 12" x 5/8" steel plates drilled in each of the four
corners to accept a 1/2" diameter threaded rod (approx 18" long). (Position
the holes as far outboard as possible to allow for enough room to insert the
spar).
Jam nuts are situated on the threaded rod either side of all three plates. A
machinist friend helped with this by turning a bucking anvil with a base of 2"
in diameter and a step of 3/4" in diameter. The 2" diameter side was drilled
and tapped to accept a 1/2" bolt.
The top plate is about 4" about the middle plate which is about 11 inches
above the bottom plate. The whole thing sits on a piece of wood about 12" by
24" and 3/4" think. Four holes are drilled in the wood base base to
allow for the base of the threaded rods and associated jam nuts.
The 1/2" hole in the top plate is drilled to align with another 1/2 hole
drilled in the middle plate. A 1/2" diameter rod is drilled at one end to
accomodate a 3/16 cupped rivet set. This rod will slide up and down with
motive force supplied by a 6-ton auto jack.
I squeezed the spar on my work bench with the spar inverted supported by stacks
of old encyclopedias (I knew they would come in handy someday)!! You are very
much in control of the squeezing process and with a gooseneck light
illuminating the shop head, you can see just how much you need to squeeze.
Don't panic when you see how much the plates flex and bow; they seem to return
right back to their original position.
This hole apparatus was built for about $40 including the machining costs.
If I can clarify anything, let me know.
Doug Weiler
* * * * * * * * * *
__ Bolt thru hole in plate __
|//| tapped into bucking anvil |//|
_|//|_ nut ___ _|//|_ nut
__|______|_____________________|___|___________________|______|__
|________________________________|_|______________________________|
|_ __ _| jam nut | | |_ __ _| nut
|//| |__ __| |//|
|//| -> 1/2" dia threaded | |-> machined bucking |//|
|//| rod | | anvil |//|
|//| |___| |//|
|//| _ |//|
_|//|_ nut |_| -> 3/16 cupped set _|//|_ nut
_|______|______________________|_|____________________|______|__
|_______________________________|_|______________________________|
|_ __ _| | | |_ __ _|
|//| nut | | -> 1/2" rod drilled |//| nut
|//| _|_|_ at top to accept |//|
|//| |_____| 3/16 cupped set |//|
|//| | | |//|
|//| __| |__ |//|
|//| / \ |//|
|//| | | |//|
|//| | | -> 6 ton hyd |//|
|//| _| |_ auto jack |//|
_|//|_ | | _|//|_
_|______|_________________|___________|_______________|______|__
__ |________________________________________________________________|__
| |_ __ _| |_ __ _| |
| |//| wood base (12x24x3/4) |//| |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Hyde <nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu> |
| Subject: | RBibb...stii out there? (chatter) |
Rich Bibb, are you still out there? I've (finally) got some free time in the
next few weeks, and I'd like to take a look at your project.
Dave Hyde
nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu
davehyde(at)tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | majorst(at)oslonett.no (Trond Amlie) |
unsubscribe rv-list
Trond Amlie
____________________________________________________________________________
MajorStudio AS
Trond Amlie
Boks 5949, Majorstua
0308 Oslo
Norway
Phone +47 22 46 22 99
__________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
fi> In mail from the past year or so, I've found references to a lot
fi> of primers. This area is pretty much over my head. I understand
fi> that Zinc Chromate is the defacto aviation standard. Avery also
fi> carries Zinc Oxide. From this group, I've seen references to
fi> epoxy-based products, and MIL spec conformity. I also found a
fi> note that warned against mixing different products.
fi>
fi> Now... the questions...
fi>
fi> What is the best way to go??? I currently have a compressor, but
fi> don't yet have a spray gun. Is the small aerosol can a viable
fi> option for now, or should I buy a gun and mix 2-part primers.
fi>
fi> Also, being very uninitiated, I'm not sure of the actual process.
fi> If I use Zinc something, do I need to etch first? I think the
fi> answer is no. Is Alumiprep just an etch or is it a cleaner to be
fi> used before any of the primers?
fi>
fi> Are the commercially available primers much better?
fi>
fi> I apologize for the simple questions. Please feel free to send
fi> any responses directly to me if you wish to avoid pollution the
fi> list with trivia.
fi>
fi> thanks for the help,
fi>
fi> russ nichols
fi> @Via ifmail 1:2245/1@fidonet, Mon May 15 1995 at 18:46 (2.8c)
Russ:
Don't apologize for the simple question. Those are the ones that I can at
least attempt to answer!
I'm sure there will be many opinions on primers and this is one area that
always
gets my attention. Just over the weekend, I was discussing this same topic
with our builder's group technical advisor, Tom Berge, and we had similar
thoughts...
Consider the following:
1) Try to keep the weight under control. I would steer away from
priming interior parts with epoxy primers (like Ditzler DP-40 and
Dupont Corlar). Save the epoxy primers for the final exterior paint.
2) Granted there are certainly some areas of the RV that must be
primed (non-alclad parts like spar webs for example). But also
consider that most of your production light aircraft were not primed
(my 1959 Cessna 180 has very little signs of corrosion after all these
years).
3) Will the airplane be based near salt water? If so then corrision
proofing is much more of a factor.
4) In our local RV community, I have seen three methods of interior
priming:
a) Alodine dipping: This was kind of popular around here a few
years ago. Several of our builders used a set-up of 55-gal plastic
drums: 1 with metal-prep (for etching), 1 with clean water, 1 with
alodine, 1 with clean water. Parts were dipped successively in
each drum. The advantages is that little weight is added. The
problem is disposing of these chemicals at the end of the project
(harzardous waste). Also the last builder to use this method had
to twist the local chemical company's arm to sell him the metal
prep and alodine in these quantities to a private individual. He
said he wouldn't go through the hastle again.
b) Sherwin-Williams Industrial Wash Primer. 2 part mix. Goes on
with a rather transluscent finish. Art Chard at Van's used this on
one of our member's aircraft which Art built for him. Rather
inexpensive although Sherwin Williams does not consider this an
anti-corrisive primer.
c) My favorite that I use is DuPont's Vari-Prime (615S and 616S
Converter). It is readily available through a DuPont automotive
paint supplier. Quarts and gals available (about $40/qt kit). A
simple two part-mix (50-50). No thinning required. Cleans up
easily with lacquer thinner. Once mixed will last several days.
I use this technique:
1) Clean the parts to be primed with Dupont's 3812 enamel
reducer (removed finger prints and such). Use paper towels.
2) Buff the part with a Scotchbrite pad (roughens the
surface).
3) Clean again with 3812 reducer.
4) Spray with Variprime (light tack coat followed with a
medium coat). You really don't need a heavy covering (think
weight!)
5) Variprime dries in just a couple minutes and you are done.
Lastly, always use a good respirator. My favorite is a 3M Easi-Care Dual
Cartridge Respirator. p/n 7053ATD (Large size). About $15 again at most auto
paint supply houses. Also rubber gloves protects the hands.
Good luck!
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
Russ:
The most popular primer around here is Variprime, a DuPont product.
Get one of those sray guns that uses a paper cup as the paint
reservior (Avery sells them). They are inexpensive (about $27)
and there is almost no cleanup (saves time and money on gun cleaning
fluid). I use this for almost all my priming. It does contain
zinc. It is a self-etching primer, so the only thing you need to
do before aplying it is to clean the surface well. Most people
use Alumiprep for this. Your local automotive paint supply
house will carry Variprime and Alumiprep (The PPG version of
Alumiprep is DX533).
For touch-up priming, I keep an aerosol can of Marhyde around.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
Building the left wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | carl(at)drcpdx.stt3.com |
| Subject: | Vert Stab jig question |
Harold:
I have my vert stab in the jig and am in the process of skinning it. I am using
the
same brackets as for the horiz stab and it has worked fine. As far as I can see
the only
reason to level the spar is so that you can use the carpenter's level method to
set the
angle of the tip rib, VS406, as in Fig 6.12 of the manual. Instead, I set the
angle by
cutting a piece of cereal box cardboard to the 97.5 degree angle and used this
as a
"square". I also made one for checking the angle of the root ribs, VS404/VS405
relative
to the spar (85 degrees).
Other points from my experience:
In skinning the vert stab I found that the best fit (overhang of the rear spar)
was when
I slid the skin all the way toward the tip end, with the root end of the skin flush
with
VS404/VS405. Thus only the tip (top) end had to be trimmed.
As in the horiz stab, keep the end bracket far enough away from VS406 to allow
at least
the one-half inch overhang, preferable more.
Include some wire routing capability if you think you might ever want a strobe
or VOR
antenna, etc, on the vert stab.
Carl Weston
RV-6 23876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
>
> Russ:
>
> The most popular primer around here is Variprime, a DuPont product.
> Get one of those sray guns that uses a paper cup as the paint
> reservior (Avery sells them). They are inexpensive (about $27)
> and there is almost no cleanup (saves time and money on gun cleaning
> fluid).
Variprime has worked well for me. It tends to go on a little dry so use
the recomended retarder to slow the dry time on hot days. I clean the parts
with detergent and water followed by lacquer.
If you are going to use Variprime in the paper cup gun, make sure
the paper cup is not the wax covered type. Variprime is a lacquer bassed
primer and will desolve the wax.
I converted my gun to use baby food jars by riveting a jar lid to the
gun top. The first conversion I attempted was for Snapple jars. It didn't
work due to the depth of the jar. The venturi effect wasn't strong enough
to pull the fluid up to the spray gun.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Primers (chatter) |
> I converted my gun to use baby food jars by riveting a jar lid to the
>gun top.
Does that mean I don't have to dribble paint all over my garage floor any more?
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Chris Ruble wrote:
> Variprime has worked well for me. It tends to go on a little dry so use
> the recomended retarder to slow the dry time on hot days. I clean the parts
> with detergent and water followed by lacquer.
^^^^^^^
Do you mean lacquer thinner?
- Alan
____________________________________________
| Alan Reichert - Wannabe RV-6 Builder |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Preview plans received! #24179 |
| Study...study...look for tools...study.... |
|____________________________________________|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Arnold <tarnold(at)clarify.com> |
| Subject: | Subscribe request |
subscribe arnold(at)clarify.com
Please add me to your list of RV builders. I'm pretty far along with an
Avid Mark IV and would think that many tips shared (painting etc..) would be
common.
Regards,
Tom Arnold
arnold(at)clarify.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Primers (non-technical) |
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Chris Ruble wrote:
> The first conversion I attempted was for Snapple jars. It didn't
> work due to the depth of the jar.
Sorry, but somehow this conjures up mental images of Snapple
squirting out the spray gun onto the airplane.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
Building the left wing
________________________________________________________________________________
by ono.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V4.3-13 #7492)
| From: | Stephen Bell <steve(at)discus.lincoln.ac.nz> |
| Subject: | components: Fuel system & wing lights |
Hi Guys,
I'm about to order my RV6 wing kit & was considering my requirements
for the fuel system & wing lighting.
I recall reading about the LE landing lights in the vans options catalog
there was a comment that they were adjustable for both taxying & landing
angles, how is this adjustment made?, how would the tilt mechanism stand
up to a little aerobatics & mountain rotor turbulence (separately of
course :). Is it adjustable in flight?.
I'm planning on having an inverted fuel system. I wanted to use a non
mechanical fuel level sender, is anyone using the capacative senders
with success, I know the messages on this subject in recent weeks
mention problems with them.
Anyone care to offer some genaral hints & tips /recomendations on fuel
level metering or wing lighting (landing lights & tip strobes).
TIA
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Stephen Bell |
Lincoln University, \--------------------(*)--------------------/
Canterbury,
New Zealand. NIMBUS II - Driver XX
E-Mail: RV-6 - Slowly filling the garage
S.Bell(at)ono.lincoln.ac.nz (work)
steve(at)discus.lincoln.ac.nz (rv'ers)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Garrett <wgarrett(at)mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us> |
| Subject: | Has April RVator been received yet? |
Has anyone received their April RVator yet? I don't want to call Van's
and ask for one if it hasn't been published yet. I sometimes think
someone in my post office is a "closet" airplane builder. On occasion
some of my aircraft magazines seem to disappear. Can't totally blame a
person for such vices though!
Thanks.
Bill Garrett
1571 Old Ridge Road
Pottstown, PA 19465
(610) 469-6048
Mathematics Teacher
RV-6A (airplane) Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)Claris.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Primers (non-technical) |
> > The first conversion I attempted was for Snapple jars. It didn't
> > work due to the depth of the jar.
>
> Sorry, but somehow this conjures up mental images of Snapple
> squirting out the spray gun onto the airplane.
"Ayup, she don't rust none, but boy does she pick up flies."
All this talk about spray guns and clean up reminds me of a cheap hobby spray
gun that I have. It uses what they call an external mix. I.E. the tube
leading from the paint ends in a little point that is held up in the stream
of air and the paint gets sucked up and spattered out by Bernouli magic.
This is different from the type where the paint and air meet before they get
to the nozzle.
This type is extremely easy to clean, but there is very little one can do to
adjust the spray-can like flow.
--
"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
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Primers (non-technical) (Splatter Chatter) |
> The first conversion I attempted was for Snapple jars. It didn't
> work due to the depth of the jar.
}Sorry, but somehow this conjures up mental images of Snapple
squirting out the spray gun onto the airplane.
Maybe you should write a letter to the Fat lady behind the desk... They
could use your project in a commercial!
Have Fun!
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Sleigh @ Sikorsky Aircraft" <SIKJES(at)rcinet.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Re:RE: Re[2]: Riveting Main Spar (RV4) |
Damn, that was great ASCII art. Did you actually "draw" that at the
keyboard?
Very impressive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[3]: Primers (chatter) |
>> I converted my gun to use baby food jars by riveting a jar lid to the
>>gun top.
>Does that mean I don't have to dribble paint all over my garage floor any more?
>FKJ
Yes, I did the same thing to mine and it works easier/better than the paper
cups. I even did some touch-up polyurethane painting using that little set-up.
Really helps reduce paint waste.
dw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike casmey <102023.1363(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | priming exterior skins |
I've just completed my empenage and am starting the wings on my rv-4. I used
dupont variprime for all the internal parts. I want to use something better like
epoxy on my exterior skins and in the cockpit. However I did cover the tail
feathers with variprime before I hung them on the wall for safe keeping. Will I
have to strip it off and reprep them when I want to use something better, or can
I put epoxy over variprime? And do you really need to prime the skins to protect
them while your project is under way?
Mike Casmey RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Primers (non-technical) |
*** Richard Chandler said ***
>
>All this talk about spray guns and clean up reminds me of a cheap hobby spray
>gun that I have. It uses what they call an external mix. I.E. the tube
>leading from the paint ends in a little point that is held up in the stream
>of air and the paint gets sucked up and spattered out by Bernouli magic.
>This is different from the type where the paint and air meet before they get
>to the nozzle.
>
>This type is extremely easy to clean, but there is very little one can do to
>adjust the spray-can like flow.
I use one of these ( "cheap hobby spray gun" )for small parts and
final (before riveting) touch up work. It's easy to mix up just 1 oz of
the epoxy primer I use, and it saves money with the primer being $70 for 2
gallons.
kit) from model/hobby stores. They are designed to run from compressed gas
(freon?, CO2?) cans, but come with an adapter to connect their miniature
1/8 air hose to your compressor. There are now two sizes available, one
comes with 1 oz and 2 oz jars (air brush), and the slightly bigger version
(mini hobby sprayer) has an 8 oz jar.
I also have a "Docken" gun, but prefer my smaller Badger air brush.
If I'm spraying more than 4 oz in a priming session, then I would rather
use my no-name-brand touch up spray gun, and get all of the spray
adjustment features. At a $28 cost for the touch up spray gun, I don't
worry too much about cleaning, which seems to take up most of the time in a
spraying session!
... keep on spraying ... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
... just bought some Imrom for the interior, and it was $29 for a qt. of
light gray, $25 for a pint of activator, and $27 for a qt. of flattening
agent (0 to 60% mix). A trip to the paint store is getting expensive!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daveiator(at)aol.com |
unsubscribe rv-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: priming exterior skins (semi-technical) |
Mike Casmey RV-4 *** said ***
>I've just completed my empenage and am starting the wings on my rv-4. I used
>dupont variprime for all the internal parts. I want to use something better
>like
>epoxy on my exterior skins and in the cockpit. However I did cover the tail
>feathers with variprime before I hung them on the wall for safe keeping. Will
I
>have to strip it off and reprep them when I want to use something better, or
>can
>I put epoxy over variprime? And do you really need to prime the skins to
>protect
>them while your project is under way?
I've wondered about this too, and want to know what are other slow
builders doing. My empenage (now over 4 years old) is showing some signs
of surface corrosion, even though it has been kept in the garage in the
fairly benign weather of Los Angeles.
This summer, I was planning to prime all of my external parts
(including the wing and fuselage) with epoxy primer, after an etch and
alodine.
I would probably use PPG DP70/DP701 primer, since this meets the
MIL-23377 specification. The spec. allows for any kind of topcoat to be
put on later, but some surface prep. (red ScothBrite?) is needed after the
primer has hardened for 24 hours. This primer is $150 for a 2 gall. kit,
but some other local builders have been thinking of the same thing, and we
could probably save some money and hold a "RV Priming Party" in my
driveway, putting my HVLP system to good use.
Can anyone see any flaws in this logic, or have any other ideas??
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... slow, but progressing
Mike -- specific answer - Yes, you can put epoxy primer over Variprime.
This info. came from Randolph Paints before I painted a local RV6A
with Randolph Aircraft Lacquers. Some parts had exposed Variprime (such as
the tailplane spar), and lacquer over the enamal base of Variprime would be
bad news. In this case, a coat of PPG DP40/DP401 epoxy primer prevented
any problems, with DP40 being selected to match the primer on the wings,
which were built by Pholgiston. The DP70/DP701 is a little harder to get
(the auto guys can order it if you ask nicely) but has the highest chromate
content (best for aluminum protection) of all of the DP series of primers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Technical Question about Brake Pedal Problem |
Gentlemen (and Cheryl and others, of course):
A question came up before about the angle of the brake pedals in the
RV-6 with overhead pedals. It was not clear just how big a problem this
is although I can feel it sitting in an RV myself. I have figured out a
way to change the angle but it would require a lot of rework if you
already had your pedals built.
Questions for frequent flyers: is the pedal angle bad enough that you
can't get used to it, and should I therefore describe a fix in the
instructions? And if there is a problem, is it small enough that you
could fix it just by building up the rudder pedal by covering it with a
piece of heater hose or similar?
Please reply just to me and I will put out a digest of results. This
should help the people who have to pay for messages.
Frank J.
frank(at)ssd.intel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | carl(at)drcpdx.stt3.com |
| Subject: | strobe on vert stab |
Does a single strobe atop the vertical stabilizer of an RV (RV-6 in my
case) meet the legal requirements for a strobe lighting system? In looking
at drawings of the RV-6 it appears that the nose would shadow the area forward
and below the aircraft, preventing compliance to the requirement of visibility
30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the aircraft. Yet I know some RV's
do have only the one strobe on the vert stab.
Furthermore, any comments as to whether this is an advisable thing to do?
Is the strobe flash through the clear canopy annoying at night?
Carl Weston
RV-6 23876 vert stab.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: Primers (chatter) |
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Frank K Justice wrote:
> > I converted my gun to use baby food jars by riveting a jar lid to the
> >gun top.
>
> Does that mean I don't have to dribble paint all over my garage floor any more?
Thats why I stopped using the paper cup spray gun. Too many drips. I find
a touch up gun works a lot better and really doesn't take much effort to
clean up. I always shot some thinner through the paper cup gun to clean
the nozzle, so for me, it wasn't a "no-cleanup" gun in the first place.
The baby food jar idea is a good one, but as a bachelor I don't have any
baby food jars. Would beer bottles work? :)
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: strobe on vert stab |
If you look in the Spruce catalog, they show everything you need to know
about what is/isn't 'legal'. My interpretation is that a single strobe on
the vertical stab won't cover it.
I used the 3in1 lights on the wingtips for simplicity, but for those of you
who want it in the stab, I saw a neat installation when I visited Raleigh
NC a couple weeks ago. The glass tip had about a 4" chunk of the center
section removed with a metal panel held-on by a screw on either side
replacing the removed section. The strobe protruded thru the metal panel.
Very clean and easy to service. The thing to watch out for is trying to
prevent line of sight from the strobe to the canopy.
dw
PS - Don or Wayne, can you get me Denny's address or phone #? I lost his
card and need to contact him. thx for hosting me while there. dw.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: strobe on vert stab |
>
> Does a single strobe atop the vertical stabilizer of an RV (RV-6 in my
> case) meet the legal requirements for a strobe lighting system? In looking
> at drawings of the RV-6 it appears that the nose would shadow the area forward
> and below the aircraft, preventing compliance to the requirement of visibility
> 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the aircraft. Yet I know some RV's
> do have only the one strobe on the vert stab.
>
The guidelines for lighting systems published in the Aircraft Spruce catalog
indicate that this would meet the minimum requirements for most aircraft,
although I agree the fuselage would at least partially block the flash.
I've seen several RVs with the strobe sitting down in a "well" cut out of
the fairing at the top of the vertical stab, to block the flash from the
cockpit. Seems to me this would block the flash from everywhere else too
though.....
>
> Furthermore, any comments as to whether this is an advisable thing to do?
> Is the strobe flash through the clear canopy annoying at night?
>
Personally I like the "three way" wingtip strobe/tail/nav lights that Whelen
sells -- kind of expensive, but simpler to install, no messing around with
wiring in the tail, won't flash into the cockpit, and they comply with the
regs.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kvap(at)solar.sky.net (Kevin E. Vap) |
| Subject: | Builders' Workshops |
Does anyone have some experience (as well as opinions) on workshops for RV
(sheet metal airplane) building? Such as: Van's, Alexander Aero, Sky
Struck, etc.
I am wondering if they are worthwhile, or if a somewhat technically inclined
person (with access to 4 or 5 other RV builders in the area) could get along
just as well without them.
- Kevin
RV-6 starting soon
kvap@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~kvap
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: strobe on vert stab |
*** previous discussion ***
>>
>> Does a single strobe atop the vertical stabilizer of an RV (RV-6 in my
>> case) meet the legal requirements for a strobe lighting system? In looking
>> at drawings of the RV-6 it appears that the nose would shadow the area
>>forward
>> and below the aircraft, preventing compliance to the requirement of
>>visibility
>> 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the aircraft. Yet I know some RV's
>> do have only the one strobe on the vert stab.
>>
>The guidelines for lighting systems published in the Aircraft Spruce catalog
>indicate that this would meet the minimum requirements for most aircraft,
>although I agree the fuselage would at least partially block the flash.
>
I believe that Vans recommendations for mounting a "wing tip"
strobe assembly on the vert. stab. has a major problem.
If you look at a wing tip strobe (while it is correctly mounted on
a wing tip), the glass cover is actually a lens, with a thicker band of
glass in a horizontal plane around the strobe tube. I am sure this is
there to concentrate the flash output into the +/- 30 degrees from
horizontal zone to meet the light output requirements.
If you take this "wing tip" design and mount it on the vertical
stab. as shown in the plans, then the lens effect will be in the forward,
upward and aft directions, not in the horizontal plane as originally
designed.
I haven't had time to check the FARs, but perhaps Van's suggestion
is for a "non-legal" VFR daytime only system. Aren't strobes only legally
needed for night flight?
I too personally like the 3-in-1 wingtip systems (look at a Boeing
jet wingtip - and I thought they were designed for Vari-Ezes!).
... keep flashing ... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
PS. I used to work in a lab that had all of the equipment to measure this
stuff (United Detector Technologies), but my contact there just retired, so
I can't run tests to verify the above.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Composite props |
IvoProp continues to deny that there is no problem with their props even
though ther have been several crashes, including at least two fatalities,
that resulted from their prop blades failing at the bolt holes. The blade
departs the aircraft and leaves a short stub inside the bolts. The resulting
vibration causes the engine to shake violently and sometimes results in
engine mount failure. Bob Treuter is lucky to be alive and tells a horifying
story of his crash. You can contact Bob at 745 Quixote Avenue, North,
Lakeland, MN 55043, Phone (612) 436-8471. He has been gathering information
about the many blade failures and spreading the word about IvoProp's
continued denial of any problems with their props. I personally feel that
IvoProp should be put out of business by spreading the word about their
defective and dangerous props. Anyone who flies with an IvoProp is betting
their life on a liar.
As Bob says, friends don't let friends fly behind IvoProp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: strobe on vert stab |
On Thu, 18 May 1995 carl(at)drcpdx.stt3.com wrote:
>
> Does a single strobe atop the vertical stabilizer of an RV (RV-6 in my
> case) meet the legal requirements for a strobe lighting system?
If it doesn't then the beacons sitting atop the tails of almost every
production airplane done meet them either.
> Furthermore, any comments as to whether this is an advisable thing to do?
> Is the strobe flash through the clear canopy annoying at night?
If you can get a strobe that has a split lens (half red, half white),
do so. The other thing you should do is to block (with paint or tape)
the forward 30 degrees of the strobe lens
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | strobe on vert stab (fwd) |
>
> Furthermore, any comments as to whether this is an advisable thing to do?
> Is the strobe flash through the clear canopy annoying at night?
>
I would not advise any strobe on the top of the VS as you will get a lot
of reflections in the cockpit off the top of the wings and off the inst.
pannel. This would require blocking off (with tape or whatever) the
front part of the strobe (say about 30 to 45 degrees of the lense).
This would not be a problem in the daytime but at night it would be
a big problem.
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kksys!showpg!jpl (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Re: strobe on vert stab |
> From: rassp.hac.com!gil(at)matronics.com (Gil Alexander)
>
> I believe that Vans recommendations for mounting a "wing tip"
> strobe assembly on the vert. stab. has a major problem.
>
> ...
>
> I haven't had time to check the FARs, but perhaps Van's suggestion
> is for a "non-legal" VFR daytime only system. Aren't strobes only legally
> needed for night flight?
Actually, the FARs say nothing about strobes at all. What they want are
position lights. Solid red/green/white in the appropriate places. The
red/green should be visible through 110 degrees, and the white through
through 180 degrees, or some numbers like that. Thus, the white
light can be mounted on the back of the rudder like it is on a lot of
production aircraft.
Unless, of course, the FARs were changed since '93 when I last paid
any attention to them. (Guess who has is biannual coming up this year.)
I've been renting a Beech Sundowner lately. No strobe -- it has a beacon.
The beacon is on a separate switch from the position lights. And it's
red, not white.
Furthermore, I was hanging out at the FBO a few years ago, and noticed
some of the aircraft in the pattern had strobes a-strobin', and some
didn't. This is at a field with a tower. I asked one of the flight
instructors how they got away with that and was informed strobes were
optional.
I consider them as optional as landing lights, of course. You don't
need those, either, according to the FARs. Anyone ever landed at night
at a strange airport out in the country with no landing light? I have.
The landing itself basically sucked, but trying to taxi around with no
taxiway edge lights was *real* interesting. The event was hubris on
my part. During the preflight, I carefully checked all the lights. One
of the flight instructors at the FBO gave me a hand - he flipped switches
while I checked the lights. No landing light. "Oh, I won't need it.
It's not required."
Yeah, right.
I wonder if I can just mount a bunch of halogen bulbs along the leading
edge of each wing. Properly airfoil shaped, of course, :-)
-J
--
Joe Larson jpl(at)showpg.mn.org 612-595-9690(w)
Showpage Software, Inc.
435 Ford Rd, Suite 315
St. Louis Park, Mn 55426 Future RV-6A pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Peaslee <jpeaslee(at)lmc.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Builders' Workshops |
You don't need a workshop with 5 or 6 builder's nearby
Spend your $$ on tools and
GO FOR IT
- JP -
----------
From: kvap
Subject: Builders' Workshops
Date: Thursday, May 18, 1995 5:45PM
Does anyone have some experience (as well as opinions) on workshops for RV
(sheet metal airplane) building? Such as: Van's, Alexander Aero, Sky
Struck, etc.
I am wondering if they are worthwhile, or if a somewhat technically inclined
person (with access to 4 or 5 other RV builders in the area) could get along
just as well without them.
- Kevin
RV-6 starting soon
kvap@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~kvap
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Peaslee <jpeaslee(at)lmc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Composite props |
Buy a Hartzell and forget the rest
- JP -
----------
From: JamesCone
Subject: Re: Composite props
Date: Thursday, May 18, 1995 11:35PM
IvoProp continues to deny that there is no problem with their props even
though ther have been several crashes, including at least two fatalities,
that resulted from their prop blades failing at the bolt holes. The blade
departs the aircraft and leaves a short stub inside the bolts. The
resulting
vibration causes the engine to shake violently and sometimes results in
engine mount failure. Bob Treuter is lucky to be alive and tells a
horifying
story of his crash. You can contact Bob at 745 Quixote Avenue, North,
Lakeland, MN 55043, Phone (612) 436-8471. He has been gathering information
about the many blade failures and spreading the word about IvoProp's
continued denial of any problems with their props. I personally feel that
IvoProp should be put out of business by spreading the word about their
defective and dangerous props. Anyone who flies with an IvoProp is betting
their life on a liar.
As Bob says, friends don't let friends fly behind IvoProp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | inverted fuel, flop tubes |
FYI, anyone that is using inverted fuel system with 'flop tubes'.
I belong to IAC and they have published tech advisories on this before.
I also have first hand experience from an acro-sport and a Pitts.
Most flop tubes are built with a fuel hose with a heavy weight at
the end. This weight is usually brass but could be aluminum.
You need the weight on the end so it will fall to the 'bottom'
of the tank (bottom if upright or top if inverted).
Some of these are designed with a 'O' ring on the weight so it
does not damage the tank and it acts as a bumper.
This weight bangs around inside your tank and this can chip away
small pieces of aluminum from the skin. These flakes of AL will
end up in you fuel screen. In the worst case it can lead to a
hole in the tank and resulting fuel leak.
On the Acro-Sport I had the O ring had came off (very common)
and the flop tube wt. caused a lot of metal to show up in the
fuel filter. I could see the O ring laying in the bottom of the tank.
Just be aware of this and check the filter. I don't know how
Van's flop tube is designed. The RV tank is much thinner than
a Pitts tank which is probably 20 inches or so deep as it mounts
in the fuselage. With the thinner RV wing tank, the flop tube
would not have as much energy when it hits so it may not be
as much of a problem. I also expect the RV's will not do as
agressive of aerobatics as we do with the Pitts, etc.
Just something to be aware of.
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | carl(at)drcpdx.stt3.com |
| Subject: | Builder's Workshops |
Kevin wrote:
> I am wondering if they are worthwhile, or if a somewhat technically inclined
> person (with access to 4 or 5 other RV builders in the area) could get along
> just as well without them.
________________________________________________________________________________
building experience, I would characterize builder's workshops as desirable,
certainly worthwhile, but not necessary. When I started I wanted to take Van's
workshop but could not spare the time off the job, plus I would have had to
wait several months before the next open workshop. I have wasted a lot of time
stewing over things and (probably unnecessarily) redoing things that would have
been answered in such a workshop. Whenever a task comes up that I haven't done
before, I spend several hours practicing on scraps to acquire some minimal
expertise before proceeding. This time would be minimized by attendance of a
workshop. The workshop will also teach your short cuts and rules of thumb that
will speed up and improve your project.
If you can read and understand plans, are careful, have some understanding of
mechanical things, and have other builders to ask, you will be OK without a
workshop. You will spend more time and perhaps have some (hopefully minor)
departures from best construction practices.
Carl Weston
RV-6 23876 emp kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown |
Here is an item that I sent before but was returned "addresseeUnknown".
---------------------
From: Mailer-Daemon(at)matronics.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Date: 95-05-11 14:04:56 EDT
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 internet:rv-list(at)matronics.com... User unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
From: JamesCone(at)aol.com
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 12:31:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Subaru powered RV-6A
I built a Sea Hawker and used a three blade Warp Drive prop on a 160 hp Lyc.
After a few hours, the paint started cracking at the blade root. Warp Drive
sent me a new four blade prop by next day air and I had no further problems.
Warp Drive does not recommend the three blade prop for high hp applications;
the blades need too much pitch to work well and then can't handle the power
pulse of the engine. The four blade gives better acceleration and climb
performance at the cost of top speed. I cruised at 122 knots with the three
blade but could only get 110 knots with the four. They are working on a
blade for higher hp applications. Warp Drive is a very good company to work
with.
The same cannot be said for the folks at Ivo Prop. Last year at Oshkosh they
were still denying any problems with their props even though there have been
several crashes because of blade failure and separation, including two fatal
crashes. If you call Ivo Prop today, they still say that there has never
been
a problem with any of their props. I would avoid dealing with them. They
don't care about their customer's lives, and don't distinguish between the
truth and an outright lie. They will do anything for a buck. Aviation has
enough dangers without deliberately seeking them. I wish them nothing but
failure.
Jim Cone RV-6A builder and editor of Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing
Newsletter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
I built a Sea Hawker and used a three blade Warp Drive prop on a 160 hp Lyc.
After a few hours, the paint started cracking at the blade root. Warp Drive
sent me a new four blade prop by next day air and I had no further problems.
Warp Drive does not recommend the three blade prop for high hp applications;
the blades need too much pitch to work well and then can't handle the power
pulse of the engine. The four blade gives better acceleration and climb
performance at the cost of top speed. I cruised at 122 knots with the three
blade but could only get 110 knots with the four. They are working on a
blade for higher hp applications. Warp Drive is a very good company to work
with.
The same cannot be said for the folks at Ivo Prop. Last year at Oshkosh they
were still denying any problems with their props even though there have been
several crashes because of blade failure and separation, including two fatal
crashes. If you call Ivo Prop today, they still say that there has never
been
a problem with any of their props. I would avoid dealing with them. They
don't care about their customer's lives, and don't distinguish between the
truth and an outright lie. They will do anything for a buck. Aviation has
enough dangers without deliberately seeking them. I wish them nothing but
failure.
Jim Cone RV-6A builder and editor of Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing
Newsletter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: strobes @ nite |
The single tail strobe on my -4 doesn't flash into the cockpit, but it does
flash a little on the outer wing area. Not a big problem, tho.
Ain't these regs a hoot!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: inverted fuel, flop tubes |
Right, I try to NEVER go negative. Also, I tried to use some
proseal to 'glue' the o-ring on, as I had heard of what you
described.
dw
>I also expect the RV's will not do as agressive of aerobatics
>as we do with the Pitts, etc.
>Just something to be aware of.
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)gar.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Strobe lights - FARs |
Guys
... this is what the Feds want for night operation. If you fly day VFR,
I guess you don't need to meet these requirements.
Get your calculators and old math text books out and see if that
fin mounted light meets the "less than 0.5 steradians solid angle obstructed"
...... or get your teenager to do it!!
**** direct copy of FAR ****
Sec. 23.1401 Anticollision light system.
(a) General. If certification for night operation is requested, the airplane
must have an anticollision light system that--
(1) Consists of one or more approved anticollision lights located so that their
light will not impair the flight crewmembers' vision or detract from the
conspicuity of the position lights; and
(2) Meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
(b) Field of coverage. The system must consist of enough lights to illuminate
the vital areas around the airplane, considering the physical configuration and
flight characteristics of the airplane. The field of coverage must extend in
each direction within at least 75 degrees above and 75 degrees below the
horizontal plane of the airplane, except that there may be solid angles of
obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.5 steradians.
------ snip --------- snip --------
***** more paragraphs on intensity, color + flash rate
For those of you with WWW access, go to:
http://acro.harvard.edu/GA/FAR/part23/section_23.1401.html
for the full text.
... keep flashing ..... Gil Alexander
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Lambert <75462.3645(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV List Request |
Hello, RV guys (and gals)-
I am forwarding a message from Matt Dralle. I would like to thank all
contributors for giving your time to share your thoughts, ideas and
experiences for all to use. In a lot of respects, this forum is as good
or better than a whole bunch of Tony's articles in Sport Aviation.
I haven't yet subscribed to the list, but would be happy to receive
any feedback from others.
Keep up the good work, and keep em flying.
Ed Lambert
SEE (El Cajon, CA).
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: RV List Request
Date: 19-May-95 at 16:51
--------------
>Matt-
>I have recently downloaded the RV archive list. I have not gone through it
>completely (about 2/3 so far). I am building a Thorp (just like an RV-6, only
>older). I would like to know if I could take some of the information from the
>past postings and use as the basis for an article or two for the T-18 Mutual Aid
>Society Newsletter. I can give credit to authors or not as you might see fit.
>A great deal of the info is certainly applicable to either aircraft. The RV's
>current popularity gives some more insight on some of the latest state of the
>art materials and processes, as compared to some of the Thorp's 30 year old
>advice (the finishing and painting info is real good).
>I just may sign up for the rv-list (haven't decided quite yet).
>
>I am a aerospace engineer by trade, currently a practicing Rocket Scientist on
>commercial launch vehicles (there are not many of us left). If I could offer any
>suggestions, or you would like to talk, feel free to reply. I can be reached
>here on CIS, or at
>ed_lambert(at)qmsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com
>
>Best regards
>Ed Lambert
>
>--------------
Hello Ed,
Sure, no problem on the reprint. I ask only that you credit the
rv-list(at)matronics.com and the respective author.
I think that you should post to the rv-list that line above where you
said "...Thorp (just like a RV-6..."... That would cause quite a discussion!
:-)
Matt Dralle
rv-list Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chuck.jasicki(at)tclbbs.com (Chuck Jasicki) |
Doug that drawing was very impressive. I would imagine it took you a
little while to do that. Probably could have drilled a wing skin in
that time. I think you have too much free time on your hands, you must
be an airline pilot or something. Take care Chuck
* OLX 2.1 TD * Hello, I am part number
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chuck.jasicki(at)tclbbs.com (Chuck Jasicki) |
Hello everyone,
I have been working on my rudder, and have noticed that dimpling
the thin skins of the rudder, is stretching the holes ever so slightly.
Is this normal because of the thin skins? (I didn't have this problem
with the vertical stab skin.) Or, is my dimpling procedure flawed? The
stretching is less than 1/32 because a -4 rivet won't fit in the holes.
These are my tools and procedures:
1. I am using the Avery C-type dimpling tool, and dies
2. I am using a 2 lbs. wooden mallet
3. I have the male die on the bottom (stationary)
4. I have been using 2 light blows on each hole. I tried using
softer blows, and only one blow with the same results.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Chuck
* OLX 2.1 TD * Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Lambert <75462.3645(at)compuserve.com> |
O.K.
This is a second try
Ed Lambert :>})
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Ed Lambert <compuserve.com!75462.3645(at)matronics.com>
To: rv-list
Subject: Re: RV List Request
Message-Id: <950520152041_75462.3645_FHQ39-1(at)CompuServe.COM>
Hello, RV guys (and gals)-
I am forwarding a message from Matt Dralle. I would like to thank all
contributors for giving your time to share your thoughts, ideas and
experiences for all to use. In a lot of respects, this forum is as good
or better than a whole bunch of Tony's articles in Sport Aviation.
I haven't yet subscribed to the list, but would be happy to receive
any feedback from others.
Keep up the good work, and keep em flying.
Ed Lambert
SEE (El Cajon, CA).
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: RV List Request
Date: 19-May-95 at 16:51
To: Ed Lambert <75462.3645(at)compuserve.com>
--------------
>Matt-
>I have recently downloaded the RV archive list. I have not gone through it
>completely (about 2/3 so far). I am building a Thorp (just like an RV-6, only
>older). I would like to know if I could take some of the information from the
>past postings and use as the basis for an article or two for the T-18 Mutual
Aid
>Society Newsletter. I can give credit to authors or not as you might see fit.
>A great deal of the info is certainly applicable to either aircraft. The RV's
>current popularity gives some more insight on some of the latest state of the
>art materials and processes, as compared to some of the Thorp's 30 year old
>advice (the finishing and painting info is real good).
>I just may sign up for the rv-list (haven't decided quite yet).
>
>I am a aerospace engineer by trade, currently a practicing Rocket Scientist
on
>commercial launch vehicles (there are not many of us left). If I could offer
any
>suggestions, or you would like to talk, feel free to reply. I can be reached
>here on CIS, or at
>ed_lambert(at)qmsmtp.rdyne.rockwell.com
>
>Best regards
>Ed Lambert
>
>--------------
Hello Ed,
Sure, no problem on the reprint. I ask only that you credit the
rv-list(at)matronics.com and the respective author.
I think that you should post to the rv-list that line above where you
said "...Thorp (just like a RV-6..."... That would cause quite a discussion!
:-)
Matt Dralle
rv-list Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | crogers(at)InterServ.Com (Chris Rogers) |
unsubscribe rv-list
Chris Rogers | The only thing to figure out
crogers(at)interserv.com | about life is "how to live it".
| Please don't confuse my opinions with those
| of my companies' - the two rarely agree.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
Chuck:
I don't recall having this problem (or maybe I didn't notice it). I used
exactly the same technique you did except for using a regular hammer.
Personally, I would shy away from using a wood or rubber hammer when dimpling
using Avery's machine. I used a rubber hammer initially and was very, very
suprised to find out later that the quality of the dimple was substandard (too
much rebound). Two or three hits with a regular steel hammer worked just fine.
Doug
CJ> 1. I am using the Avery C-type dimpling tool, and dies
CJ> 2. I am using a 2 lbs. wooden mallet
CJ> 3. I have the male die on the bottom (stationary)
CJ> 4. I have been using 2 light blows on each hole. I tried
CJ> using softer blows, and only one blow with the same results.
CJ> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Chuck
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Busick <rbusick(at)nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | RV-6 Rear Spar, front or rear |
The plans are not too clear on what is the front or rear of the rear
spar. I have determined that the flange on the top points to the front
while the flange on the bottom points to the rear. If this is so I am
confused as to why Van's put a protective film on the inside or front
side of the rear spar. The film I assume is to protect from scratches,
but no one will see the inside front of the spar. The back side does not
have the film on it and will be visible after the wing is built.
Can someone confirm this for me before I build the spars upside down!
Thanks
Bob Busick
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
> Hello everyone,
> I have been working on my rudder, and have noticed that dimpling
> the thin skins of the rudder, is stretching the holes ever so slightly.
> Is this normal because of the thin skins?
Yes.
> (I didn't have this problem
> with the vertical stab skin.) Or, is my dimpling procedure flawed? The
> stretching is less than 1/32 because a -4 rivet won't fit in the holes.
> These are my tools and procedures:
> 1. I am using the Avery C-type dimpling tool, and dies
> 2. I am using a 2 lbs. wooden mallet
> 3. I have the male die on the bottom (stationary)
> 4. I have been using 2 light blows on each hole. I tried using
> softer blows, and only one blow with the same results.
> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Chuck
>
Sounds right to me. You probably won't over-stretch the hole at all by
over-dimpling, although you could weaken the skin. You want to make
sure not to _under_ dimple either. Look at the front side of the
dimpled skin at an angle such that the light reflects off of the
dimple. If you see a noticeable "fisheye" where the skin is distorted
wider than the dimple itself then you need to hit it again. Also, a
lot of people use a #41 instead of #40 drill for holes to be dimpled,
to partially make up for the widening that occurs.
Sounds like you're on the right track though!
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
<4228611443(at)f101.n2245.z1.ftn>
| From: | Ed Weber <ebw(at)hpfiebw.fc.hp.com> |
I am having good luck with what's called a 'dead blow' hammer I
picked up at Sears. It has a rubber and a steel face, but inside it is
lead shot. It has no perceptable rebound. Using the steel face with
the avery tool is producing very nice dimples.
> I don't recall having this problem (or maybe I didn't notice it). I used
> exactly the same technique you did except for using a regular hammer.
> Personally, I would shy away from using a wood or rubber hammer when dimpling
> using Avery's machine. I used a rubber hammer initially and was very, very
> suprised to find out later that the quality of the dimple was substandard (too
> much rebound). Two or three hits with a regular steel hammer worked just fine.
--
Ed Weber Hewlett-Packard Company
voice: (303) 229-3241 ICBD Product Design
fax: (303) 229-6580 3404 E Harmony Road, MS 72
email: ebw(at)fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Co 80525
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Rear Spar, front or rear |
>The plans are not too clear on what is the front or rear of the rear
>spar. I have determined that the flange on the top points to the front
>while the flange on the bottom points to the rear. If this is so I am
>confused as to why Van's put a protective film on the inside or front
>side of the rear spar. The film I assume is to protect from scratches,
>but no one will see the inside front of the spar. The back side does not
>have the film on it and will be visible after the wing is built.
>
>Can someone confirm this for me before I build the spars upside down!
>Thanks
>
>Bob Busick
>RV-6
>
Bob,
Sorry, but thank you for playing. :-) The bottom flange of the rear spar
points forward. I agree, the plans can get confusing, especially when they
alternate between showing right and left wing details without bothering to
mention which is which. You will notice that the main ribs all have an
indention on the bottom side where the spar flange goes. A good way to
remember which side of the ribs is up is to note that the tooling holes are
closer to the bottom side. You can also look at the rear spar from the end
and note that the flanges aren't bent at 90 degrees. This is, of course,
because the wing is thicker forward of the rear spar that behind it. Good
luck, and remember- if you do build it upside down, maybe you can sell it to
one of the Australian guys. (-:
Russell Duffy
RV-6A 22407 (Top skins fitted on both wings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
Chuck, Doug's advice is right-on, I used a 20oz. steel hammer for my whole
project, with great results. I have helped other builders who use wood/rubber
hammers (presumably to reduce damage to the Avery tool) and they don't always
get 'crisp' dimples. My tool had some minimal 'mushrooming' of the head from
the big hammer, but I know it would last thru at least 2 more projects, so the
crisp dimples are worth the wear on the tool (to me).
Another thing to try is #41 drills instead of #40, they make a smaller hole that
will be 'tighter' after the normal 'opening' of the whole that HAS to occur as
a
part of the dimpling action.
dw, N790DW, (as far as I know, the FIRST to flour bomb from an RV-6!) It was
FUN too.
=================
Chuck:
I don't recall having this problem (or maybe I didn't notice it). I used
exactly the same technique you did except for using a regular hammer.
Personally, I would shy away from using a wood or rubber hammer when dimpling
using Avery's machine. I used a rubber hammer initially and was very, very
suprised to find out later that the quality of the dimple was substandard (too
much rebound). Two or three hits with a regular steel hammer worked just fine.
Doug
CJ> 1. I am using the Avery C-type dimpling tool, and dies
CJ> 2. I am using a 2 lbs. wooden mallet
CJ> 3. I have the male die on the bottom (stationary)
CJ> 4. I have been using 2 light blows on each hole. I tried
CJ> using softer blows, and only one blow with the same results.
CJ> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Chuck
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RV-6 Rear Spar, front or rear (fwd) |
The protective film must be removed before you rivet it to the ribs/skin.
On the RV4, the two flanges are bent at different angles (I think the 6 is
similar) and it is very difficult to tell which way to orient the spar.
Homefully someone else can provide some advice. I think this topic has
came up before.
>
> The plans are not too clear on what is the front or rear of the rear
> spar. I have determined that the flange on the top points to the front
> while the flange on the bottom points to the rear. If this is so I am
> confused as to why Van's put a protective film on the inside or front
> side of the rear spar. The film I assume is to protect from scratches,
> but no one will see the inside front of the spar. The back side does not
> have the film on it and will be visible after the wing is built.
>
> Can someone confirm this for me before I build the spars upside down!
> Thanks
>
> Bob Busick
> RV-6
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aileron mounting brackets |
Greetings All:
Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
The angle stock isn't alclad- Is it clear anodized? I don't mind smoothing
the edges and priming the outside as long as know the inside is protected.
Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart? What did everyone
else do?
Thanks,
Russell Duffy
RV-6A 22407 (currently leaning toward a Mazda/Ross Aero engine)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dmooney(at)micron.net |
Please sign me up. I'm building an RV 6A and am working on the emmpenage.
Thanks,
Darrel and Roseann Mooney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
> Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
> quality standards that we're all trying to maintain?
Yeah I don't much like them either. It would be nice if they pre-cut
the parts but left the riveting together to us. Then we could corrosion
proof them and chamfer the edges as we saw fit. Also, mine were a
little misaligned and I had to grind the base flat on a belt sander to
make it fit flat against the spar.
I suppose they might be pre-assembling them for a reason though --
maybe too many people were messing up the bearing when fitting/
drilling/riveting them or something.
> Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
> This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
> plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
> plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart?
What's the worst that can happen? You mess it up and have to get a new one.
To quote Earl Brabandt: "There's nothing you can do (to your RV) that money
can't fix".
> What did everyone else do?
I just covered the bearings over with tape, then ground the edges, alodyned
and primed them.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
I just hung my nice shiny re-built '360 with fuel injection. It's minus the
oil filler tube because the person who re-built it didn't know what length of
tube to install for the RV6-A
Does anyone know.....is 8 inch the correct length? or is there another size
that's a better fit.
Ken RV6-A
just getting baffled with the baffles!!!!!!
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
>Russell Duffy *** said ***
>Greetings All:
>
>Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
>quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
>there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
>The angle stock isn't alclad- Is it clear anodized? I don't mind smoothing
>the edges and priming the outside as long as know the inside is protected.
On my parts, I could see that yellow zinc chromate was used as a primer
>Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
>This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
>plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
>plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart? What did everyone
>else do?
I "staked" my bearings in place with a punch since they were slightly
loose. I believe the bearing sits in matching internal counterbores in
each side piece.
I did remove the small angle on the outer brackets, which was 0.75 x 0.75 x
0.125, and replaced it with a 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.125 angle using the same rivet
holes. This makes the rivet clearances at the end rib/rear spar attachment
much easier to handle. It was a Bakersfield mod. at the time, but may have
now gotten incorporated into the newer kits. Note that changing this angle
does not seperate the two pieces holding the bearing in.
... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... fitting in the electric flaps
-- first control systems!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
(partial message)
>
>I did remove the small angle on the outer brackets, which was 0.75 x 0.75 x
>0.125, and replaced it with a 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.125 angle using the same rivet
>holes. This makes the rivet clearances at the end rib/rear spar attachment
>much easier to handle. It was a Bakersfield mod. at the time, but may have
>now gotten incorporated into the newer kits. Note that changing this angle
>does not seperate the two pieces holding the bearing in.
>
>
> ... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... fitting in the electric flaps
> -- first control systems!!
Thanks for the info. FYI, my kit was received Sept '94 and does have the 1"
angle you mentioned. There's no hint of primer, but the parts fit well so I
guess I'll just clean it up and prime the outside. I'll seal the edges
where the part meet as best I can.
Russell Duffy
RV-6A #22407
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Aileron mounting brackets (fwd) |
I think you should find a light coat of zinc chromate on the angles.
They only coat the mating surface. They probably don't use as much primer
as you or I would but you don't need much per the label on the can.
The rest is alclad.
>
> Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
> quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
> there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
> The angle stock isn't alclad- Is it clear anodized? I don't mind smoothing
> the edges and priming the outside as long as know the inside is protected.
> Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
> This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
> plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
> plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart? What did everyone
> else do?
>
> Thanks,
> Russell Duffy
> RV-6A 22407 (currently leaning toward a Mazda/Ross Aero engine)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
I too have been grumbling about the aileron hinge brackets.
It would have been much better if they had simply cut and
drilled everything, then sent me the parts without riveting
them together. The two halves don't even match well.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
On Mon, 22 May 1995 rad(at)gulf.net wrote:
> Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
> quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
> there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
> The angle stock isn't alclad- Is it clear anodized? I don't mind smoothing
> the edges and priming the outside as long as know the inside is protected.
> Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
> This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
> plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
> plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart? What did everyone
> else do?
I agree with you that the quality is poor. Why did they have to assemble
this thing in the first place? It doesn't seem any more complicated than
any other part of the airplane. My plan was to smooth the edges, and then
give it a good coat of epoxy primer to keep out any moisture.
Unfortunately, there isn't any way to seal off the movable bearing joint,
so moisture is going to get in there anyway, eventually.
I wouldn't want to drill it apart. Removing 1/8" rivets from 1/2" thick
stacked parts is going to be really tough. You'll probably damage the holes.
I am one of those fanatical "prime everything" builder types and it bugs
me that I can't prime the inside of these brackets, but I can live with
it. Perhaps by the time the brackets corrode, it'll be time to replace
the bearings anyway.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Kane <dennis(at)straylight.net> |
| Subject: | Wing/Skin/Wing-Walk |
I am about to back drill my top skin, wing-walk reinforcement, to the
wing-walk ribs. Is there anything I should know or be aware of before
doing so ?
Thanks all for all the good information in the past.
Respectfully,
Dennis Kane
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob_Seibert-R18643(at)email.sps.mot.com |
| Subject: | Need oil filler tube |
Subject: Time:3:56 PM
OFFICE MEMO Need oil filler tube Date:5/23/95
The recent posting about oil filler tube length reminded me that I need
a new one to replace my broken one.
Does anyone out there have a p/n 75767 Lycoming Dip Stick tube they
want to sell? I managed to break mine during a major stupidity attack.
This is a 15" long dipstick made up of the P/N 75767 tube and
a P/N 75761 extension. It is the assembly off of a O-320-E2D Skyhawk. This assembly
clears the cowl on my RV-6 by about 3/4".
Builders FYI - I think this is the longest tube assembly available for an O-320.
If it clears, any of the other assemblys should be fine.
If anyone out there wants to sell one, please contact me thru this
address or at (512) 933-5716 (days)
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets |
>Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
>quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
>there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
>The angle stock isn't alclad- Is it clear anodized? I don't mind smoothing
>the edges and priming the outside as long as know the inside is protected.
>Otherwise, I'm going to drill out the rivets, smooth, prime and reassemble.
>This thing looks like it would be a major pain to replace on a finished
>plane. I also don't quite understand how this bearing fits between these two
>plates. Am I opening a can of worms if I take it apart? What did everyone
>else do?
It could be worse; you could be looking at just a big chunk of plate and some
angle that you have to form yourself like the early builders did. Van's basic
policy is to do the things that the average builder would find difficult and not
do the things that are labor intensive but easy to do. As time goes by he does
more and more for us.
No, the angle stock isn't Alclad. But there is no need to disassemble the
aileron hinge bracket. It does not trap water, which is the main cause of
corrosion. Just the act of priming and painting the outside seals the inside
surfaces from ever being exposed to water. If you ever prime something and then
take it apart you will see that the primer penetrates to a considerable distance
between close-fitting pieces of metal.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron mounting brackets (chatter) |
I must have gotten lucky! Mine were nice and flat on the bottom. It was also
obvious they had been sprayed with primer on the mating surfaces. They
looked as if they were sheared rather that cut or milled, but I assumed the
smoothing and polishing is just part of my 51%. I really had no complaint
with them.
>>Is it just me, or do these premade aileron brackets seem to be below the
>>quality standards that we're all trying to maintain? It doesn't look like
>>there's been any attempt to smooth edges or use any corrosion prevention.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
Fellow Listers:
I know this was recently discussed but I can't track down which message covered
it. I just bought a single-speed (28,000 rpm) Dremel tool to use in cutting out
the holes for my Duckworth landing light kit. The little emery cut-off wheels
that came with the tool did work, but I'm not really sure if they were right for
use on .025 aluminum. I wore out 3 of them in cutting both openings but the job
did get down. What are the best Dremel cut-off wheels for aluminum and which
tool would be best for grinding and filing rounded inside corners.
Thanks as always,
Doug Weiler, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Instructions Mod |
I just read my RVator last night and saw that there is an error in the
sliding canopy instructions. I copied this error into my instructions.
In the section on assembling the F-605 bulkhead (this is in the first
fuselage file), there is a statement that several pieces can be left out
if you are doing a sliding canopy. The heavy piece of angle, F-605G,
should not be left out. Please mark your instructions accordingly.
On the up side, my instructions already include the procedure for
preventing the problem with the side skins not overlapping the J-channel
enough on the fuselage bottom, also mentioned in the RVator.
Also, please forgive me for being a little slow lately in sending out
diskettes. Things have been a little busy at work lately, and I have
spent so much time checking out builder problems and tips I haven't been
able to do much building myself.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu (Don Meehan) |
June 24th at Skagit Regional Airport (Burlington) north of Seattle at Civil
Air Patrol Fly in will take place. Will have display promoting RV's and
would like to have some planes on the deck at same time. 5000 ft of paved
runway....Breakfast served by CAP for 6 bucks as fund raiser.
Come Join if you have wings in the air
Don Meehan - meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu
Whidbey RV-ators
721 N. Palisades
Coupeville, WA 98239
(Working on Fuselage - RV6A)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu (Don Meehan) |
Building a 6A and trying to figure out if a Step is the accessroy to add.
Anyone have thoughts or experience with or without steps who is flying? One
side or Both?
Don Meehan
WSU Cooperative Extension
Island County
Coupeville, WA 98239-5000
206-679-7327
meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools |
> What are the best Dremel cut-off wheels for aluminum and which
>tool would be best for grinding and filing rounded inside corners.
To cut the straight lines find the fiberglass reinforced cutoff wheels. They are
larger, faster-cutting, and stronger than the ceramic ones which come with the
tool. You will not find them in every place that sells Dremel tools. The Home
Depot store (building supplies chain) carries them. Then use a drum sander of
the right size (get one of those Delta or similar kits with about 4 sizes of
drums) and use it in your die grinder or air drill to smooth out the curve.
Actually, you can use a very-fine-tooth hacksaw to make most of the cuts
quickly.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Chandler <mauser(at)Claris.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools |
Doug.Weiler sez:
> I know this was recently discussed but I can't track down which message
> covered it. I just bought a single-speed (28,000 rpm) Dremel tool to
> use in cutting out the holes for my Duckworth landing light kit. The
> little emery cut-off wheels that came with the tool did work, but I'm
> not really sure if they were right for use on .025 aluminum. I wore
> out 3 of them in cutting both openings but the job did get down. What
> are the best Dremel cut-off wheels for aluminum and which tool would be
> best for grinding and filing rounded inside corners.
You managed to wear them down instead of having them shatter?!! I'd like to
shake your hand, except that it probably doesn't shake in the least! :-)
Someone mentioned to me that there is hobby company that makes a large
diameter (2") fiberglass reinforced cut-off wheel that works better than the
stock Dremel ones. Especially since it is larger in diameter than the tool
itself.
Just about any of the grinding stones that come with the tool should be
approptiate, just test them on scrap first to see how they cut, or if they
tend to load up with metal. And don't forget your safety glasses!
--
"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
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools |
Doug,
.... get "House of Balsa" 2 inch cut-off wheels from your nearest
model/hobby shop. They are very thin, and almost indestructable, and will
cut steel as well as aluminum.
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
>Fellow Listers:
>
>I know this was recently discussed but I can't track down which message covered
>it. I just bought a single-speed (28,000 rpm) Dremel tool to use in cutting
>out
>the holes for my Duckworth landing light kit. The little emery cut-off wheels
>that came with the tool did work, but I'm not really sure if they were right
>for
>use on .025 aluminum. I wore out 3 of them in cutting both openings but the
>job
>did get down. What are the best Dremel cut-off wheels for aluminum and which
>tool would be best for grinding and filing rounded inside corners.
>
>Thanks as always,
>
>Doug Weiler, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Les Honke <lhonke(at)wnet.gov.edmonton.ab.ca> |
How can I access the mail archive? I assume this has a record of all messages sent
since the
RV-LIST was established...
Les Honke
lhonke(at)wnet.gov.edmonton.ab.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Busick <rbusick(at)nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage Instructions Mod |
Frank
I for one want to thank you for all of your work on keeping track
and writing the alternate instruction manual. I really appreciate the
disk and the info you put out on this net and the JHovan homepage on the WWW.
I plan on going to the EAA Flyin at Arlington. Will you be
there, would like to meet you.
Bob Busick
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
| Subject: | Re: Wing/Skin/Wing-Walk |
>I am about to back drill my top skin, wing-walk reinforcement, to the
>wing-walk ribs. Is there anything I should know or be aware of before
>doing so ?
Yup....the wing walk skin doubler goes on the INSIDE!!
Don't laugh...it's happened. (mentioning no names)
Ken
RV6-A (who's doubler went on the inside)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
ccm.ssd.intel.com!Frank_K_Justice(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re[2]: Fuselage Instructions Mod |
Text item:
> I plan on going to the EAA Flyin at Arlington. Will you be
>there, would like to meet you.
I hope to make it up there. If so, it will be in a maroon and white Grumman
Cheetah, N26221. Maybe an RV-6A next year.
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: Re: Fuselage Instructions Mod
From: Robert Busick <nmsu.edu!rbusick(at)matronics.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 15:48:47 -0600 (MDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling Reply |
When you dimple thin skins, hold the female dimple down against the skin when
it is in the "C" frame over the male dimple. Only a very light tap is
required to dimple the skin. The stretching that you are experiencing is
caused by smashing the skin between the flat part of the dimple dies. If you
don't hit the dies so hard, the skin won't stretch. Practice on some scrap
to get the feel of how little it takes to make the dimple. Good Luck with
your project. Jim Cone, Editor, Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
IvoProp continues to deny that there is no problem with their props even
though ther have been several crashes, including at least two fatalities,
that resulted from their prop blades failing at the bolt holes. The blade
departs the aircraft and leaves a short stub inside the bolts. The resulting
vibration causes the engine to shake violently and sometimes results in
engine mount failure. Bob Treuter is lucky to be alive and tells a horifying
story of his crash. You can contact Bob at 745 Quixote Avenue, North,
Lakeland, MN 55043, Phone (612) 436-8471. He has been gathering information
about the many blade failures and spreading the word about IvoProp's
continued denial of any problems with their props. I personally feel that
IvoProp should be put out of business by spreading the word about their
defective and dangerous props. Anyone who flies with an IvoProp is betting
their life on a liar.
As Bob says, friends don't let friends fly behind IvoProp.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The STEP debate |
You don't need a step if you have a 40 inch stride or can step over a garbage
can without touching it. Even if you leave your flaps down, it is not easy
to mount the wing without a step. Just be careful if you have a step on both
sides that two people don't try to stand on the steps at the same time. The
tail will head for the dirt in a hurry! Jim Cone, Editor, van's Air Force,
Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling and hammers |
I use a dead-blow hammer to dimple using the Avery frame. This works better
than any other type. These hammers have lead shot in them and have no
rebound at all. Just one light blow works great. Jim Cone, Editor, Van's
Air Force, Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools reply |
I found that the dremel wheels that last the longest are the ones that have a
fiber weave reinforcement in them. To cut blind holes, I find that the best
tool is a air powered nibbler. Drill a hole for the nibbler head and cut
away. I always cut about an eighth of an inch inside the final cut line and
then file down to the finish line with a 3M wheel on a die grinder. Jim
Cone, Editor, Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John.Morrissey(at)its.csiro.au (John Morrissey) |
| Subject: | Re[2]: The STEP debate |
You don't have to worry about this "draggy" addition to your nice
clean airframe if you build an RV3, RV4 or RV6 :-)
Anyhow, the gentleman pilot always helps his passenger into the
aircraft, :-)
Sorry, I couldn't resist!!
John Morrissey
Vans RV4
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: The STEP debate
Date: 24/5/95 9:35 PM
You don't need a step if you have a 40 inch stride or can step over a garbage
can without touching it. Even if you leave your flaps down, it is not easy
to mount the wing without a step. Just be careful if you have a step on both
sides that two people don't try to stand on the steps at the same time. The
tail will head for the dirt in a hurry! Jim Cone, Editor, van's Air Force,
Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary <70176.1660(at)compuserve.com> |
Bob Seibert:
If you want to purchase p/n: 75767 TUBE ASSY., Oil Level Gauge NEW. El
Reno Aviation has it for $45.90.
Others have asked about Lycoming engine parts prices, if you phone El Reno
Aviation, they can send you a price list of their parts. (It has everything that
you
will need.) You may find slightly better prices, but just like VAN, they are
competitive, honest and easy to deal with.
They can be reached at 1 (800) 521-0333. Or (405) 262-2387.
Good luck
Gary RV-6 # 20480
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The STEP debate |
Just be careful if you have a step on both
> sides that two people don't try to stand on the steps at the same time. The
> tail will head for the dirt in a hurry! Jim Cone, Editor, van's Air Force,
> Tri-State Wing.
>
Van's sells an option that will keep the tail off the ground if both
steps are used at the same time. It consists of a small wheel that mounts
on the tail. An additional benefit of the option is that the builder does
not have to install a nose wheel.
Chris RV-6.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Bysinger <john.bysinger(at)mccaw.com> |
| Subject: | Ivo Prop Chatter |
Fellow RVlisters,
I am fairly new to this whole Homebuilt/Expirimental Aircraft world,
and recently I have heard quite a bit of complaining about IVO Props
failing. I also hear about the misfortune of those that have had failures.
But I have never heard anything about WHY they fail.
Recently, at an EAA meeting in Seattle, a gentleman discussed how these
are composite props and they are being mounted on engines that may not have
flywheels or other methods of absorbing the torque pulse of the engines.
Upon hearing that I was not surprised at these prop failures. My
background is in Engineering and vibrational wear on industrial machines,
and I have some expirience in torque pulses damaging or even destroying
machine parts. If this pulse is not absorbed by a flywheel or other device,
the prop becomes the flywheel. In effect after each cylinder fires the prop
is accellerated, and during each compression stroke the prop is putting that
energy BACK into the engine, and in effect decelerated quickly. This
creates an EXTREMELY strong bending moment at the base of the blade. This
would sound consistant with the failures that I have heard of.
I am not in any way defending IVO or am I making an excuse for them. I
am interested to hear more about how these props are installed or if anyone
has heard of the FAA's opinions on the failures. I have a hard time
discrediting a product based solely on failure, without the knowledge of why
it failed.
I also am aware of IVO's responses to these incedents. I would
discourage someone from purchasing an IVO prop based solely on their
attitude towards customers. It would seem that a company would want to at
least ACT like they are doing something about these failures. O.K., I'll
get off the soapbox now.
Response to the STEP debate:
I have also heard about this accessory wheel that goes underneath the
tail. Isn't that standard on the -4 and the -3. I know our -4 will have
one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools |
On Wed, 24 May 1995, Richard Chandler wrote:
> > out 3 of them in cutting both openings but the job did get down. What
> > are the best Dremel cut-off wheels for aluminum and which tool would be
> > best for grinding and filing rounded inside corners.
>
> You managed to wear them down instead of having them shatter?!! I'd like to
> shake your hand, except that it probably doesn't shake in the least! :-)
>
> Someone mentioned to me that there is hobby company that makes a large
> diameter (2") fiberglass reinforced cut-off wheel that works better than the
> stock Dremel ones. Especially since it is larger in diameter than the tool
> itself.
I think that Dremel now offers 1" fiberglass reinforced cutoff wheels in
a pack of 5, in addition to the standard "widowmaker" ceramic
disintegrating wheels that come with the Moto-tool kit.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
to comment?
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chatter: Re: STEP |
>
> Response to the STEP debate:
>
> I have also heard about this accessory wheel that goes underneath the
> tail. Isn't that standard on the -4 and the -3. I know our -4 will have
> one.
>
At one time it was the only choice for the -6. I feel it's still the
only choice.
Chris "Flame bait" Ruble
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Seibert" <Bob_Seibert(at)oakqm3.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings |
Reply to: RE>RV-6 landings
RV-6's can be full stall landed. The stall characteristics of the airfoil
and the gear leg springiness make it difficult to grease them though.
With 400+ hours on my RV-6 I must comment on the "dump the Flaps"
technique. You need one hand on the stick and one hand on the throttle.
Unless you have three hands it seems like it would only be marginally
effective. It's not gonna save a bad landing.
I do dump the flaps as soon as the aircraft settles. That kills the ground
effect and allows better braking/control.
The most effective "good flare advice" I can give is: Establish a three point
attitude of the cowling to the horizon. Hold it there with slight elevator
and power tweaks. Feel your way down and if you do it just
right, you will feel the tailwheel touch first.
I must warn you that the probability of a good landing goes to zero if
more than 10 people are watching.
--------------------------------------
Date: 5/25/95 3:15 PM
From: Curt Reimer
An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
to comment?
Curt Reimer
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 13:13:10 MST
From: Curt Reimer <NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA!Curt_Reimer(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RV-6 landings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings |
That "embarassing RV-6 bounce" is a function of a somewhat botched
landing. They don't need to respond (unless I'm lying, of course), but
there are many folks on this list that have seen me land my -6 lots of
times without noticable bounce (at least from where they stood :-). Once
you learn to hold that same angle as you get when taxiing while you are
just above the runway, 'smooth' landings aren't that tough. Sure, they've
seen me bounce a few too, but no airplane greases on EVERY time.
I have had the opportunity to land -6s with manual and elec flaps (mine
are elec) and I personally prefer the electric. Besides, I sure wouldn't
want to be messing with the flap handle at the critical touchdown point of
landing. In addition, I know many -6 owners who have or want to change
from manual to elec., so that should tell you something.
By the way, even tho they must have too much class to say so, I bet the
RV-6A guys aren't wasting any breath on this subject :-).
Did you hear? I think Van's is offering neck massage gift certificates
for RV-6 pilots (like me) who get stiff necks trying too see where they're
going while taxiing....
The Duck
PS - You -6A folks, unless you want to carry a small stool with you (like
one local -6A pilot used to do), you NEED the steps for all but the most
agile of occupants.
>An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
>program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
>other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
>well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
>as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
>RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
>maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
>now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
>to comment?
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings |
I wonder if extending the gear legs would help?
On Thu, 25 May 1995, Curt Reimer wrote:
> An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
> program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
> other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
> well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
> as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
> RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
> maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
> now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
> to comment?
>
> Curt Reimer
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
>An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
>program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
>other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
>well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
>as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
>RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
>maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
>now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
>to comment?
>
>Curt Reimer
Van has an option to cure this one too ... it consists of a
slightly larger wheel mounted in the center of the engine mount, and a
re-location of the main gear legs to aft of the CG......Only available for
RV6 guys though, and best if used in conjunction with the STEP option :^)
Gil Alexander .... took the flame bait ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: STEP (extreme chatter) |
> Van's sells an option that will keep the tail off the ground if both
>steps are used at the same time. It consists of a small wheel that mounts
>on the tail. An additional benefit of the option is that the builder does
>not have to install a nose wheel.
>
> Chris RV-6.
>
Does the tailwheel come pre-installed??? I think I'll stick with the nose
wheel. That way I won't have to go back and read the hundreds of pages of
instructions that have been posted in regards to landing an RV taildragger.
Funny, no one has to explain the use of a nosewheel. (ouch!)
Nosedraggers - Unite!
People who are tired of reading this drivel - Forgive!
Russell Duffy (putting on the nomex now)
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daveiator(at)aol.com |
unsubscribe rv-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings |
> I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
>now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners
>care
>to comment?
>
>Curt Reimer
Curt
When all the kidding is done about landing a tri-gear versus landing a
taildragger I can only say, from my experience, of flying my -6 for almost
700hrs that dumping flaps is not a good idea nor is it needed to land. I bet
I can land and stop as short as the guy dumping his flaps. I had manual flaps
for the first 100 hrs and I was always poking my passenger in the ribs when
trying to use the flaps, electric is much better.
The only consession I will make for the -6A is that it is easier to see while
on the ground otherwise it is only a airplane with rudders for steering just
like any other airplane trigear or not, the myth about a trigear being easier
is just that a myth, you don't stop flying either one till the prop is
stopped.
Jerry Springer N906GS #20241 3rd customer built -6 to fly July 14,89 14.1989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
Now we need to talk to Van about a third option:
A special tail adapter and a special engine mount so that you can jack up
the aircraft and change the landing gear configuration from one to the other!
I wonder if all those tubes will get in the way of my oil sump....
- Alan
____________________________________________
| Alan Reichert - Wannabe RV-6 Builder |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Preview plans received! #24179 |
| Study...study...look for tools...study.... |
|--------------------------------------------|
|http://www.clark.net/pub/reichera/home.html |
|____________________________________________|
________________________________________________________________________________
by ono.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V4.3-13 #7492)
| From: | Stephen Bell <steve(at)discus.lincoln.ac.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
On Thu, 25 May 1995, Gil Alexander wrote:
> >An article in the latest RVator, about Van's new RV flight training
> >program, mentions that the RV-6 cannot be landed in full stall as most
> >other taildraggers. I know this has been mentioned before on the list as
> >well. A local RV-6 owner says that his standard prcedure is to dump flaps
> >as soon as contact with the ground is made, thus avoiding the embarassing
> >RV-6 bounce. Now, he has manual flaps which are quite handy for this
> >maneuver. I was planning on installing electric flaps, but I'm wondering
> >now if manual flaps would be better suited to an RV-6. Any -6 owners care
> >to comment?
> >
> >Curt Reimer
>
> Van has an option to cure this one too ... it consists of a
> slightly larger wheel mounted in the center of the engine mount, and a
> re-location of the main gear legs to aft of the CG......Only available for
> RV6 guys though, and best if used in conjunction with the STEP option :^)
>
> Gil Alexander .... took the flame bait ...
>
>
Uh Oh,
I thought one wheel was bad enough, I hope I can cope with the
transition to two wheels when I finish my 6 :) .
But seriously folks, here are some thoughts on getting your RV
(the real ones that is) down without looking like your average
kangeroo. Now I don't have actual RV experience to call on
so maybe one of the *experienced* flyers out there could comment,
perhaps even try them out.
Your average bounce is mostly the result of landing with too much
energy. I know you might not all agree so i'll explain.
You're descending on approach at xxx ft/min you touch down and the
weight & downward momentum of the aircraft acting through the CofG
causes the tail to drop, this increases the AOA which increases lift
and if this is large enough you bounce, right.
If the tail touches first the AOA decreases and in turn the lift
decreases with the mains settling firmly. (This is why dons technique
works). This is ideal for; not bouncing & also landing short. But
the (all be it small) drop onto the mains can be a bit hard on the
LG if not executed properly & done often.
Going back to the first case, is there a speed you can touch down at
on the mains without bouncing into the air, the answer is yes.
Here's a suggestion for working this out, (this should have been done
in the initial test flying) Take note of the three point attitude
relative to the horizon when sitting on the ground. In the air
fly this attitude at a zero rate of climb (remember the flaps!),
note the airspeed.
This airspeed is the maximum airspeed for *touchdown* without risk
of bouncing during a normal landing.
Note, I said touchdown not approach.
Now if you touchdown on the mains at or below this speed, when the
tail drops there won't be enough speed for the wings to develop the
lift required to bounce.
You can take advantage of the aerodynamic braking and the fact that
energy is required to round out to approach at a slightly
higher speed which will improve stall speed & control safety margins.
I'm guessing in a low drag machine like an RV this would be 5-10mph
Shallow approach angles require less energy to round out & give a
lower speed reduction between round out & touchdown. (This doesn't help)
If there's an experienced RV pilot out there able & willing to try
this procedure in an RV I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
? What's the margin between this speed & stall speed
No roos round 'ere
ay mite.
Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Arnold <tarnold(at)clarify.com> |
| Subject: | Subscription Request |
Subscribe RV Tom Arnold
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
Steve, you actually got very close with some of your theories, and even
tho I can't say it as cleany as Jerry did in his response, here are some
comments about your thoughts (BTW Jerry, that carpet template is in my
RV over at HIO. Want me to leave it at Eagle or something?):
>But seriously folks, here are some thoughts on getting your RV
>(the real ones that is) down without looking like your average
>kangeroo. Now I don't have actual RV experience to call on
>so maybe one of the *experienced* flyers out there could comment,
>perhaps even try them out.
>Your average bounce is mostly the result of landing with too much
>energy. I know you might not all agree so i'll explain.
In the RV, too much energy (mains hit too soon), OR, too high of angle
(tailwheel hits first, drop on mains, big bounce). The latter happens
when you try to force the angle when the speed is a little high.
>You're descending on approach at xxx ft/min you touch down and the
>weight & downward momentum of the aircraft acting through the CofG
>causes the tail to drop, this increases the AOA which increases lift
>and if this is large enough you bounce, right.
Fairly right, and the bounce is usually immediate, the tail won't
usually reach the runway.
>If the tail touches first the AOA decreases and in turn the lift
>decreases with the mains settling firmly. (This is why dons
>technique works). This is ideal for; not bouncing & also landing
>short. But the (all be it small) drop onto the mains can be a bit
>hard on the
>LG if not executed properly & done often.
Wrong here - If the tail touches first and the mains are more than 'a
few' inches off the runway, YOU BOUNCE. Usually if the difference is
small, you can just pull full aft stick and the bounces end quickly. It
is possible to 'force' the angle here and get a major bounce - ugly!
This is NOT my technique, I don't LIKE to touch the tail first (except
maybe just a tiny bit first which works OK, but not my first choice).
>Going back to the first case, is there a speed you can touch down at
>on the mains without bouncing into the air, the answer is yes.
Yes but - those are the 'really good ones' - most of my better landings
involve a small 'skip' - I can feel it in the RV but onlookers think you
'greased' it.
>Here's a suggestion for working this out, (this should have been done
>in the initial test flying) Take note of the three point attitude
>relative to the horizon when sitting on the ground. In the air
>fly this attitude at a zero rate of climb (remember the flaps!),
>note the airspeed.
>This airspeed is the maximum airspeed for *touchdown* without risk
>of bouncing during a normal landing.
>Note, I said touchdown not approach.
Yes, this is the proper method, get just above the runway at the speed
which puts you in the 'taxi attitude'. Maintain that angle until
touchdown.
>Now if you touchdown on the mains at or below this speed, when the
>tail drops there won't be enough speed for the wings to develop the
>lift required to bounce.
If you do it right, you touch all 3 at once, probably get that little
skip, but no bounce. Even if the tail is slightly low or high, this
will result in a great landing.
>You can take advantage of the aerodynamic braking and the fact that
>energy is required to round out to approach at a slightly
>higher speed which will improve stall speed & control safety
>margins. I'm guessing in a low drag machine like an RV this would be
>5-10mph Shallow approach angles require less energy to round out &
>give a
>lower speed reduction between round out & touchdown. (This doesn't help)
>? What's the margin between this speed & stall speed
Maybe 5mph?
>If there's an experienced RV pilot out there able & willing to try
>this procedure in an RV I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
There are more than one way to do it, some wheel land a lot (I don't
because it adds >20mph to the touchdown speed and wear tires). Some
carry throttle till the touchdown (I only do this in windy conditions).
I almost always fly 80mph on final, no less than 70 (especially if
heavy!), then flare at 10-20 feet and let it settle as I constantly
adjust for that 'taxi attidude'. At those speeds with full flaps, zero
throttle, touchdown comes very quickly and total landing distance (from
threshold) is <1100' without heavy braking.
Even if you are a little hot, just keep working that angle, about 1' off
the ground, and eventually you will slow and settle in. The usual
errors when too hot are letting the mains touch too soon (huge bounce),
or, trying to force the angle and dropping the tail on way first (big
bounce, at a low airspeed that can cause a HARD subsequent bounce).
I don't say this in a mean way, but, for those of you who haven't landed
one yet, IT AIN'T BROKE, SO DON'T TRY TO FIX IT.
Mike Wilson, you haven't flown as PIC in years (time in Cubs, Citabria),
but I've let you land my -6 a few times now. You think it needs any
fixin?
Now for a little motivation - Gorgeous blue sky, cool calm air, 3 loops,
several rolls, a 'chicken' hammerhead, and some sight seeing - all on
the way to work this morning :-).
Keep banging gang, IT'S WORTH IT!
>No roos round 'ere
>ay mite.
Nope, just The Duck.
>Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michelle J Tinckler <mjt(at)unixg.ubc.ca> |
Hello. I am a new internet user. I wanted to inquire about this address
given in Van's newsletter. Is this for questions I might forward through
e-mail only, or is there an internet number for a home page of just some
information available? Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID R LAUTENSCHLAGER" <lautenschlag(at)clavin.med.ge.com> |
this is my 1ST attemt on the internet. i heard about your group through the
rvator. i 'm about 1/2 complete on my empanage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Re[2]: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
Yeah, OK Don. Rub it in!
- Alan
____________________________________________
| Alan Reichert - Wannabe RV-6 Builder |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Preview plans received! #24179 |
| Study...study...look for tools...study.... |
|____________________________________________|
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Don Wentz wrote:
>
> Now for a little motivation - Gorgeous blue sky, cool calm air, 3 loops,
> several rolls, a 'chicken' hammerhead, and some sight seeing - all on
> the way to work this morning :-).
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | re: wheel humour |
I'm sitting here falling out of my chair laughing. The
current tongue-in-cheek "optional wheel" messages are
absolutely the best tailwheel-vs-nosewheel discussion
I've ever seen. Keep it up, it's great.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
RV-6 sn 23744
Gonna go teach my toes the tailwheel boogie in a Champ this weekend.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Mike Wilson <James_Mike_Wilson(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[3]: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
Text item:
My input on landing RV's with only a few try's in Don's -6. True I haven't
flown in 3 years. I do have about 60 hrs in a Cub some in a Decathlon and
Pitts. The RV does not present the traditional problems stereo typed by
"tail-dragger". The first time Don let me land, I wasn't sure what to expect.
Much to my surprise, I greased it (calm conditions, big runway). Man this plane
is great and it really does land easily. A few hours of tail wheel exposure and
it should be easy for anyone.
Three point:
- approach to threshold
- roundout and try to maintain flight just above the ground
- as speed bleeds, increase attitude staying off the ground
- when attitude gets to that "taxi attitude" just maintain (don't force it)
- she sets down real nice and without any hunting tendencies
I've only had a couple of shots at it but it seems real easy. The best part,
however, is at about 3,000'. I have to say, the RV fly's just the way God
intended flight to be. I've never experienced anything else like it.
jmw, -4 fuse in jig
Steve, you actually got very close with some of your theories, and even
tho I can't say it as cleany as Jerry did in his response, here are some
comments about your thoughts (BTW Jerry, that carpet template is in my
RV over at HIO. Want me to leave it at Eagle or something?):
>But seriously folks, here are some thoughts on getting your RV
>(the real ones that is) down without looking like your average
>kangeroo. Now I don't have actual RV experience to call on
>so maybe one of the *experienced* flyers out there could comment,
>perhaps even try them out.
>Your average bounce is mostly the result of landing with too much
>energy. I know you might not all agree so i'll explain.
In the RV, too much energy (mains hit too soon), OR, too high of angle
(tailwheel hits first, drop on mains, big bounce). The latter happens
when you try to force the angle when the speed is a little high.
>You're descending on approach at xxx ft/min you touch down and the
>weight & downward momentum of the aircraft acting through the CofG
>causes the tail to drop, this increases the AOA which increases lift
>and if this is large enough you bounce, right.
Fairly right, and the bounce is usually immediate, the tail won't
usually reach the runway.
>If the tail touches first the AOA decreases and in turn the lift
>decreases with the mains settling firmly. (This is why dons
>technique works). This is ideal for; not bouncing & also landing
>short. But the (all be it small) drop onto the mains can be a bit
>hard on the
>LG if not executed properly & done often.
Wrong here - If the tail touches first and the mains are more than 'a
few' inches off the runway, YOU BOUNCE. Usually if the difference is
small, you can just pull full aft stick and the bounces end quickly. It
is possible to 'force' the angle here and get a major bounce - ugly!
This is NOT my technique, I don't LIKE to touch the tail first (except
maybe just a tiny bit first which works OK, but not my first choice).
>Going back to the first case, is there a speed you can touch down at
>on the mains without bouncing into the air, the answer is yes.
Yes but - those are the 'really good ones' - most of my better landings
involve a small 'skip' - I can feel it in the RV but onlookers think you
'greased' it.
>Here's a suggestion for working this out, (this should have been done
>in the initial test flying) Take note of the three point attitude
>relative to the horizon when sitting on the ground. In the air
>fly this attitude at a zero rate of climb (remember the flaps!),
>note the airspeed.
>This airspeed is the maximum airspeed for *touchdown* without risk
>of bouncing during a normal landing.
>Note, I said touchdown not approach.
Yes, this is the proper method, get just above the runway at the speed
which puts you in the 'taxi attitude'. Maintain that angle until
touchdown.
>Now if you touchdown on the mains at or below this speed, when the
>tail drops there won't be enough speed for the wings to develop the
>lift required to bounce.
If you do it right, you touch all 3 at once, probably get that little
skip, but no bounce. Even if the tail is slightly low or high, this
will result in a great landing.
>You can take advantage of the aerodynamic braking and the fact that
>energy is required to round out to approach at a slightly
>higher speed which will improve stall speed & control safety
>margins. I'm guessing in a low drag machine like an RV this would be
>5-10mph Shallow approach angles require less energy to round out &
>give a
>lower speed reduction between round out & touchdown. (This doesn't help)
>? What's the margin between this speed & stall speed
Maybe 5mph?
>If there's an experienced RV pilot out there able & willing to try
>this procedure in an RV I'd be interested to hear how it goes.
There are more than one way to do it, some wheel land a lot (I don't
because it adds >20mph to the touchdown speed and wear tires). Some
carry throttle till the touchdown (I only do this in windy conditions).
I almost always fly 80mph on final, no less than 70 (especially if
heavy!), then flare at 10-20 feet and let it settle as I constantly
adjust for that 'taxi attidude'. At those speeds with full flaps, zero
throttle, touchdown comes very quickly and total landing distance (from
threshold) is <1100' without heavy braking.
Even if you are a little hot, just keep working that angle, about 1' off
the ground, and eventually you will slow and settle in. The usual
errors when too hot are letting the mains touch too soon (huge bounce),
or, trying to force the angle and dropping the tail on way first (big
bounce, at a low airspeed that can cause a HARD subsequent bounce).
I don't say this in a mean way, but, for those of you who haven't landed
one yet, IT AIN'T BROKE, SO DON'T TRY TO FIX IT.
Mike Wilson, you haven't flown as PIC in years (time in Cubs, Citabria),
but I've let you land my -6 a few times now. You think it needs any
fixin?
Now for a little motivation - Gorgeous blue sky, cool calm air, 3 loops,
several rolls, a 'chicken' hammerhead, and some sight seeing - all on
the way to work this morning :-).
Keep banging gang, IT'S WORTH IT!
>No roos round 'ere
>ay mite.
Nope, just The Duck.
>Steve.
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[2]: RV-6 landings (chatter)
From: Don Wentz <ccm2.hf.intel.com!Don_Wentz(at)matronics.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 09:28:00 PDT
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luism(at)ibm.net (Luis Madsen) |
Thanks from a new subscriber from Denmark, it have been interesting and
amusing to read the first weeks letters.
I am building the first RV6 in Denmark, I live in the northern part of
Copenhagen. I am almost finished with all metal work and installing the
canopy, that have been the worst part until now.
I will soon be loadtesting the wing, all homebuilts in Denmark must as a
minimum loadtest the wings, seatbelts and pressure test the wingtanks.
Wingtesting is done by turning the fuselage with wings on upside down,
supporting the mainspar inside the cocpit and loading 2400 kg sandbags on
the wings. I have seen it done a RV4 they loaded 3300 kg/ 7275 lbs and the
wingtips deflected 1 1/2 inch down.
At present there are 2 RV4, 2 RV6a and 3 RV6 under construction in Denmark.
I fly as airline pilot on Fokker 50 in northern Europe.
Keep writing and building
Luis Madsen, Bindesboellsvej 31, 2920 Charlottenlund, Denmark
telefon/fax DK 31636260
Question: Have any flown with the Rocky Mountain inst. Encoder as only
pitostatic instrument?
luism(at)ibm.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: The STEP debate |
> Building a 6A and trying to figure out if a Step is the accessroy to add.
> Anyone have thoughts or experience with or without steps who is flying? One
> side or Both?
Flying to Sun-N-Fun in the RV-6T and back in the RV-6B, with different
legs from different seats (gloat gloat) I got a fair amount of
experience with the step/no step issue, as both planes have a step on
the passenger side only.
The bottom line is that once I learned the proper technique, I didn't
at all mind getting in on the side without the step, but I'm 6' tall
and in reasonably good shape. On the other hand, at the show when
people were "trying it on for size", it was obvious that a lot of them
were physically unable to make it up there without straining them-
selves, and even if they could make it up OK they were more than likely
to kick, step on, grab, bend, or otherwise do damage to the canopy
fairing, flap, fuselage side, or wing area outside of the wing walk.
This also occurred on the side with the step, but was not quite as
likely.
Based on that experience I would say that if you yourself feel
comfortable making a pretty big step up there you could do without on
the pilot's side, but unless you're going to reserve the right seat for
an exclusive, physically fit, well-trained few, you should go for a
step on the passenger side.
Randall Henderson RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Stephen Bell wrote:
> Here's a suggestion for working this out, (this should have been done
> in the initial test flying) Take note of the three point attitude
> relative to the horizon when sitting on the ground. In the air
> fly this attitude at a zero rate of climb (remember the flaps!),
> note the airspeed.
> This airspeed is the maximum airspeed for *touchdown* without risk
> of bouncing during a normal landing.
Hey! I just thought of a really good use for my Smartlevel after I finish
the RV-6. I'll duct tape it to the side of the canopy and have
accurate attitude control to 0.1 degrees! You know, this might just work.
Now if I can just figure out how to couple it to my ILS & autopilot I
might achieve CAT III autolanding capability. :-)
Seriously, thanks for the advice everyone. Sounds the concensus is to go
with the electric flaps, forget the "flap dumping" technique and practice
proper attitude control at touchdown.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
| Subject: | Re(2): STEP (extreme chatter) |
I installed the AirBeetle gear which is very similar to the new gear Van has
on his yellow RV6-T and believe me , I need the step on BOTH sides. Someone
earlier mentioned not being on both steps at the same time...I can vouch for
this having sent an AirBeetles tail to the ground. Most prone with empty
tanks.
>Nosedraggers - Unite!
Is that technically correct? or should it be a nosepusher?
Ken
RV6-A
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (chatter) |
But how will you compensate for sloping runways? :-)
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Curt Reimer wrote:
> Hey! I just thought of a really good use for my Smartlevel after I finish
> the RV-6. I'll duct tape it to the side of the canopy and have
> accurate attitude control to 0.1 degrees! You know, this might just work.
> Now if I can just figure out how to couple it to my ILS & autopilot I
> might achieve CAT III autolanding capability. :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | eholling(at)whale.st.usm.edu (Eric Hitt Hollingsworth) |
| Subject: | Where are they?? |
I was just wondering if there were any RV builder/flyers in the
Hattiesburg/Jackson, Mississippi area?
By the way, I've really enjoyed "listening" to you guys for the past
couple of months.
Yeric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Pre-Punched wing skins question |
I havea question about my pre-punched wing skins. Specifically,
about the double row of rivet-holes where the inboard and outboard
skins are spliced together.
If the inboard skin is on the outside at the splice, why is the
pre-punched double row of rivet holes in the outboard skin?
Thanks in advance,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | s.hendry(at)ix.netcom.com (steve hendry ) |
even more do you have any up dates on the building of rv-6. i am
helping a frind putting a rv togather. thank you much!.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gatto314(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Looking for RV6 comrades |
My boyfriend is building an RV6 and is trying to locate fellow builders.
Have I reached any?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for RV6 comrades |
This is the place!
>My boyfriend is building an RV6 and is trying to locate fellow builders.
> Have I reached any?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Rocky Mtn. Encoder |
Van's has one of their rv's configured with the Rocky Mt. Encoder as their
only flight instrument and a hand held GPS as their only nav instrument. It
works great according to Bill Benedict. I have the Rocky Mtn. Micro Monitor
that I used in my Sea Hawker and that also works great. Both are easy to
build and factory support is very good. Jim Cone, Editor Van's Air Force,
Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Looking for RV6 comrades, reply |
You have found a great group of RV builders. Stay on the list and you will
get to know us. Where are you located? If you are in the Missouri, Iowa,
Illinois area, a list of RV builders is available for the cost of printing
and postage ($1.) from Jim Cone, Editor, Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing, 422
Savannah Ridge Drive, St. Charles, MO 63303-2921.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
As I said earlier, the failure mode is at the bolt holes. The inboard part
of the prop and the bolts stay with the airplane, and the blade from the
bolt holes outboard depart the plane. This is indeed most likely caused by
the power pulse of the engine causing the blade to retreat and advance as the
power and compression strokes occur. After one blade departs, the engine
shakes so violently that it breaks the engine mount. This precipitates an
immediate forced landing if you are lucky enough to keep the engine attached
to the airplane. If the engine departs the plane, you're dead! Period! Ivo
Prop continues to deny any problems with the props. I don't know how these
people can look themselves in the mirror without throwing up in disgust.
Spread the word; Ivo Props are deadly! Use one only if you have a death
wish and have your life insurance paid up. Jim Cone, Editor, Van's Air
Force, Tri-State Wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donmack(at)interaccess.com (Don Mack) |
| Subject: | Riveting Wing Skins |
We are ready to rivet the skins on our RV-6A wing.
We would like to rivet the top on first (so that it looks best).
Is there any reason not to do that other than it being a pain to
reach the bottom row of rivets on the bottom skin?
thanks
don mack rv-6a
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Riveting Wing Skins |
Personally I think riveting the Top skins first is the only way. This allows
for "Back Riveting" which produces superior results. If you leave the last
(3) ribs at the root of the wing unriveted until the very end of the
process, doing the bottom skin last is not difficult at all.
I think Frank's plans discribe this procedure.
>We are ready to rivet the skins on our RV-6A wing.
>
>We would like to rivet the top on first (so that it looks best).
>
>Is there any reason not to do that other than it being a pain to
>reach the bottom row of rivets on the bottom skin?
>
>thanks
>
>don mack rv-6a
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mtn. Encoder |
I have a Rocky Mtn. Encoder in my RV-6, It is not my only flight instruments
but in 5 years I have been using it has never failed, it is also my Mode C
interfaced with the transponder and it is always right on with ATC. it also
does TAS conversions for me and density altitude. I talked yesterday with
Cliff Lamb who has a RV-4 and all he has in his airplane are the Encoder and
engine monitor and he really likes them, no problems.
In other words the Encoder is my favorite instrument I would not be with out
it now that I have used one. The instruction manual for building it is one of
the best and easy to understand manual of any thing I have ever built.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS 3rd customer built RV-6 July 14, 89
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michelle J Tinckler <mjt(at)unixg.ubc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting Wing Skins |
On Sat, 27 May 1995, Don Mack wrote:
> We are ready to rivet the skins on our RV-6A wing.
>
> We would like to rivet the top on first (so that it looks best).
>
> Is there any reason not to do that other than it being a pain to
> reach the bottom row of rivets on the bottom skin?
>
> thanks
>
> don mack rv-6a
>
>
Hi Don. There is no reason why you cannot rivet the top wing skins
first. They will look very good. With patience and help, you can rivet
the bottom skins last by merely peeling back each rib-bay. I have on two
occasions put solid flush rivets on all the in-board five rib-bays just
by reaching in with the right bar and rivetting. Help is needed for this.
The manual says that generally speaking, you must use pop rivets on the
bottom, but this is not the only option if you have a small hand and a
good bar. This works well and looks good. Good luck! Austin Tinckler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mtn. Encoder |
>Subject: Re: Rocky Mtn. Encoder
>Whats the cost of building one of these units? This sounds very
>interesting.
>How long does is take to build the units?
>reileyrv6/sn22772
I think the kit was in the $700.00 -$800.00 range when I bought mine in 1990
it took about 35 hrs. for me to put together.
You can find ads for them in Sport Aviation or get info from RockyMountain
Instrument, P.O. Box 683, Thermopolis, WY 82443 (307)864-9300.
I just looked at their Ad $849 for the kit, $1149 Assembled.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS 3rd customer built RV-6 to fly July 14,1989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif623.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | System3 Paint job; final chapter |
I have been painting my RV6A with the System3 paints (you know, the one you
see advertised with the glass of water). I started in the Fall '94 and
was very disappointed with the results, in particular the final top coat
applications. I have recently (early April '95) gotten back to fixing the
paint job, as I was in Norway for a majority of the Winter and early Spring.
So, here is a summary of my experiences with the Sys3 paint products:
1. Primers
There are two primers available. Both are epoxy primers, but one is meant
for metal protection and is a green/yellow, while the other is meant for
non-metal protection (ie. fiberglass) and is white in color. They both are
very easy to apply and after waiting about a week, they are very easy to
sand and smooth out alot of those dings. My mistake was using first using the
green/yellow primer; it turns out that it showed through the red top coat
I later used and did not look real good. I bit the bullet, sanded down they
primer and applied the white primer. I guess it added a bit more weight, but
it makes the red topcoat look much brighter. I did find that the primer did
not adhere well in a few small areas of the fiberglass work, but I attribute
that more to my insufficient surface preparation. All in all, I liked the
primers. I recommend a light coat of the green/yellow, for metal corrosion
protection, followed by the white primer for a good sanding base.
Price: I think it was $65 a gallon.
2. Top Coats
The top coats come in a range of colors that should suit most tastes. However,
be advised that these top coat colors are really just the clear coat with
different color tints added. The result is that any surface defects (blemishes,
etc.) will show through the next 1 or 2 coats (in some cases, even more). So,
plan to make the primer layer perfect! I found that the application of the
topcoat is EXTREMELY difficult to get good, consistent results. It is
EXTREMELY sensitive to the temperature, humidity and amount of water you thin
it with. I either got it too runny or too orange peely. By the end of the
Fall '94, I had managed to achieve an acceptable job on all major assemblies
except for the fuselage, which came out excessively orange-peely. So, with
the Winter to calm down, I sanded off ALL of the fuselage top coat (this is
very durable stuff!) and reapplied the white primer. In the meanwhile, I tried
using the clear top coat on the wings, after I had sanded the red surface
with 320, 400 and 600 grit wet/dry. The Sys3 clear coat again came out
horrible! So, the light came on and I bought a gallon of Dupont Imron clear
coat. After sanding off the Sys3 clear coat, I had to touch up the Sys3
red topcoat and then sanded with 320, 400 and 600 wet/dry. Finally, I applied
the Dupont Imron clear coat. What a pleasure to work with! And what
wonderful results! Just apply a light tack coat, let it dry to 'tackiness',
and then finish with a medium coat. Beautiful finish. Definitely 'sunglasses
required' for viewing in direct sunlight!
Summary: If you decide to use the Sys3 stuff, plan on doing a final sanding
of the top coat color followed by an Imron clear coat.
Price: $95 a gallon (Sys3 topcoat color or clear coat).
$96 a gallon (Dupont Imron clear coat).
Overall Sys3 Summary:
I think the Sys3 company has a good product line and good tech phone support.
However, due to the difficulty in achieving good, consistent results, and the
fact the the drying time is at the mercy of the water in the paint, I do not
recommend this product as the final coat finish. However, I did find that
by finishing up with an Imron clearcoat, that an acceptable finish can be
obtained. And the health benefits of using the Sys3 are certainly a factor.
Would I use it again? Probably not. I'd probably go the complete Imron
route. The Dupont salesman told me that their 1-coat paint (which sells for
$275 a gallon!), has sufficient solids in it to make a single coat application
look great. I would probably investigate this product.
Paint Booth:
I did set up my own paint booth in my 2-car garage. I completely enclosed the
inside of one half the garage with plastic sheeting, attaching it with a staple
gun and some wood strips at the top. I then placed a square $15 fan in the rear
window (pushing the air out of the garage) and place 3 door screens leaning on
the
outside of the 10 foot garage door bottom. When ready to spray, I raise the
door about 18 inches (after hosing down the outside area to cut down on the dust
coming in through the screens) and turn on the fan. You can see the plastic
being sucked inwards and the overspray get sucks out pretty quickly. This
technique resulted in no bugs and not too much dust on the final clear coat. I
recommend this setup.
Gary Bataller
RV6A N615RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
I wasn't planning on buying an Ivoprop, but since any prop can throw a
blade (if it's really not your day) does it make any sense to provide
safety straps (like short lengths of steel cable) to hold the engine to
the airframe in the event of a catastophic engine mount failure? I figure
as long as you've got the mass of the engine hanging there to give you a
reasonable CG, you have at least a fighting chance of survival.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Pilot License Renewal |
Thought some off you might be interested in a conversation I had with FAA on
Compuserve.
Jerry Springer to FAA "I heard a rumor that FAA is going to require
all
Pilots to renew their pilots license every
two years
and that a ID photo will be required
on the
certificate. Any fact to this rumor"?
>From: Tony Broderick FAA/DCA, Compuserve address 76077,2520 May 28,1995
>"There is a law that requires FAA to assist in the anti-drug program. We
will be requiring >(as proposed some time ago) a photo on the new licenses.
We will also require a >renewal. HOWEVER, the period you cite is far, far
shorter than will be required. >Because of the rulemaking "rules," I can't
be specific about our intended implementation >of this. But we are aware of
the problems this could cause and are trying to fulfill our >responsibilities
to help the anti-drug program on the one hand without overly burdening
>pilots on the other. I think we will be reasonably successful."
>From: Rick Cremer FAA HQ, Compuserve Address 72130,3305 May 28, 1995
>"We are working on the picture certificate as we speak. In fact we've got
some of the >equipment here in the office and have been working on the
prototype. Don't believe that >they're going to have an expiration date
though. I'll have to check on that."
>Best Regards
>Rick Cremer
>FAA HDQ
Just thought this might be food for thought.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
If memory serves, the racers do this.
- Alan
____________________________________________
| Alan Reichert - Wannabe RV-6 Builder |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Preview plans received! #24179 |
| Study...study...look for tools...study.... |
|____________________________________________|
On Mon, 29 May 1995, Curt Reimer wrote:
> I wasn't planning on buying an Ivoprop, but since any prop can throw a
> blade (if it's really not your day) does it make any sense to provide
> safety straps (like short lengths of steel cable) to hold the engine to
> the airframe in the event of a catastophic engine mount failure? I figure
> as long as you've got the mass of the engine hanging there to give you a
> reasonable CG, you have at least a fighting chance of survival.
>
> Curt Reimer
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gatto314(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | New fellow RV builder |
Thanks to all who welcomed us to the list!!
Your new member is Chris Brooks. He lives in Murfreesboro, Tenn., about 30
miles south of Nashville. He is building an RV-6. It's his dream coming
true.
He finished his empennage kit about 6 weeks ago. His wing kit was to have
been completed early May and shipped within 3 weeks, so he is anxiously
awaiting its arrival soon.
He couldn't be happier to have other builders to confer with.
I am Chris' girlfriend and am playing Postman for him. The problem for us is
that I live in St Louis, MO, so we have a lag-time for me to relay any mail
on to him and for him to let me know what he wants sent to all of you. He
wants to get his own PC to eliminate me in the middle, but we feel it is more
worthwhile for him to put that money into the plane. I expect you all would
agree.
chris brooks
rv-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | discussion group |
How do I get on the net to read the discussions?
GreenRv---America On Line
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
| Subject: | Cowl attachment question |
I am in the process of attaching my cowl to my RV6-A and I'm consiodering
doing something different for the top cowl attachment to the firewall. On the
AirBeetle, we used Hartwell fasteners (3) and they seemed to work ok. Trouble
is I never really took a lot of notice about just how good a fit it was along
the top cowl/skin junction and feel that it wouldn't be flush all along.
Has anyone used any other method of top cowl attachment such as camlocks or
dzus fasteners, if so, were the results good. On the other hand, perhaps using
a hinge is not too bad after all....I've heard it's a pain to remove the two
top hinge pins by putting your hand inside the oil filler door...and an even
bigger pain to get them back.
Could anyone add any insight into this?
Ken
RV6-A
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
A local builder here is finishing up his RV-6A, and he is using
Camlocks on his upper cowl. He has done a good job, but I'm
leery that the vibration will eat out the holes in the
fiberglass and make the job look really crummy in a few
hundred hours.
BEst Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv 6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klgray(at)bihs.net (Ken Gray) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
I met a guy at Hooks airport in Houston who used two sizes smaller piano wire
to attach the top cowl, and after some time he replace with the next larger size
as the hinge wore in. He did go back to the right size later. The smaller
wire
was only few thousands smaller and he got them from a hardware store. It worked
out great for him.
Ken Gray SN: 23069
Final kit will be here today!
Bryan, Tx.
By the way, how much lead time should I need to get my "N" number?
>I am in the process of attaching my cowl to my RV6-A and I'm consiodering
>doing something different for the top cowl attachment to the firewall. On the
>AirBeetle, we used Hartwell fasteners (3) and they seemed to work ok. Trouble
>is I never really took a lot of notice about just how good a fit it was along
>the top cowl/skin junction and feel that it wouldn't be flush all along.
>Has anyone used any other method of top cowl attachment such as camlocks or
>dzus fasteners, if so, were the results good. On the other hand, perhaps using
>a hinge is not too bad after all....I've heard it's a pain to remove the two
>top hinge pins by putting your hand inside the oil filler door...and an even
>bigger pain to get them back.
>
>Could anyone add any insight into this?
>
>Ken
>
>RV6-A
>
>
>
>--
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MIKE PILLA" <mpilla(at)ccsmtplink.espinc.com> |
| Subject: | Can I rivet bottom/side skins on RV-4? |
I'm just cleaning up the second side skin (F-412 to F-407) on my RV-4 and
am wondering about riveting the two bottom skins and these two side skins
now.
I've heard other people say that you should keep them clecoed so that you
can work on the elevator bellcrank assembly (mounting brackets already
primed/riveted to the baggage floor ribs) and even the baggage floor, etc.
However, I cannot see any advantage to working on the elevator bellcrank
pushrods since I don't know the lengths until I get the horiz stab/elevator
mounted, ..., and that requires the fuse to be out of the jig, etc. Also,
I find it difficult to work upside down, crawling around/under the jig and
would like to just rivet the skins and get on with the remaining bottom
skin and side skins. I'm aware that the side skins should not be riveted
until I have cut the flap access hole/slot, but not sure what else should
be done before those skins are riveted.
My inclination is to rivet the four skins since they are ready to go and
proceed to the remaining bottom skin and side skins.
Any advice?
Thanks.
Mike Pilla
pilla(at)espinc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Richardson <richards(at)sofkin.ca> |
| Subject: | CHATTER: Anyone out there ? |
Hi folks,
I haven't gotten any messages from the list in
two or three weeks. Is there something wrong with
my mailer or is evewybody being vewy, vewy, quiet ?
(so how DO you type like Elmer Fudd, anyway?)
Mark
************************************************************************
* Mark Richardson Software Kinetics Ltd *
* Senior Systems Analyst 65 Iber Rd. *
* VOX 613-831-0888 Stittsville, Ont *
* FAX 613-831-1836 richards(at)sofkin.ca *
************************************************************************
* RV-6 20819 '85 Virago 750 *
* EAA# - 367635 DoD# - 1506 *
************************************************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jsleigh(at)pcnet.com (James Sleigh) |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools reply |
>away. I always cut about an eighth of an inch inside the final cut line and
>then file down to the finish line with a 3M wheel on a die grinder. Jim
>Cone, Editor, Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing.
I've been searching for a Scotch Brite wheel (or cone) for my die grinder.
Are you using a special high rpm bit or the "screw in" type?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Fried" <t42444(at)theo.dehavilland.ca> |
| Subject: | Oil pressure fitting |
After 2.5 years of search and preparation, my newly rebuilt 360 is hanging on
the engine mount. In the excitement I forgot that the oil pressure port is too
close to the upper right engine mount to install the restrictor fitting with
the engine in place. Two steps forward one back, so what else is new.
Looking around the rear case I noticed several possible alternates.
1 Next to the oil cooler return on the upper left of the case
inboard of the mount.
2 The oil cooler bypass plug on the case ahead of the oil
filter adapter.
3 The oil cooler outlet on the case, below and to the right
of the oil filter adapter.
4 I'm still looking.
I will be using the oil cooler return and item 2 or 3 for my oil cooler
installation. Item 2 is in the stream of the vernatherm in the filter adapter
(I think) so that one is most likely.
Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. I really don't want to take the
engine off the mount if I don't have to.
David Fried
DF-6 C-____
Tapered Wing
dfried(at)dehavilland.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
>
> I wasn't planning on buying an Ivoprop, but since any prop can throw a
> blade (if it's really not your day) does it make any sense to provide
> safety straps (like short lengths of steel cable) to hold the engine to
> the airframe in the event of a catastophic engine mount failure? I figure
> as long as you've got the mass of the engine hanging there to give you a
> reasonable CG, you have at least a fighting chance of survival.
>
> Curt Reimer
>
This is a trick used by the F-1 guyz. They loop a cable from the mount
bolts through the engine hoist loop on the top of the case. Sheding a
blade tip is common in F-1 raceing. They use very thin blade tips that
have a habbit of parting company with the rest of the blade. At 4K+ RPM
the miss-ballance will shake an engine from its mount pretty fast. I
plan to add this safty measure to my bird.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: System3 Paint job; final chapter |
Gary, glad to hear you finally got thru your paint job. Sounds brutal!
To the rest of you, he brings-up some good points. Make VERY SURE that you
base-coat the whole airframe with a primer (or whatever) that brings the
aluminum and fiberglass pieces to the same color. Otherwise, your cowl will be
the color you expected, but the fuse will be darker, and will show-up very
obviously out on the flight line as being a different color from the cowl. I
have seen many RVs with this problem.
Also, his paint booth in the garage will work fine with a little thought and
prep work. I painted my wings in a professional booth and my fuse in my garage.
The fuse turned-out better because we were able to work at our own pace, and
not worry about this other guy's schedule.
The Duck N790DW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | Pre-Punched wing skins question (fwd) |
I am at work so I don't have any drawings.
However, I would think that the inboard skin (which is .032)
would go on the bottom and the outboard skin (which is .025)
would lap over the top as it would bend a little easier.
That would match how the skins are pre-punched.
> Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 09:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "David A. Barnhart" <crl.com!barnhart(at)matronics.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pre-Punched wing skins question
>
> I havea question about my pre-punched wing skins. Specifically,
> about the double row of rivet-holes where the inboard and outboard
> skins are spliced together.
>
> If the inboard skin is on the outside at the splice, why is the
> pre-punched double row of rivet holes in the outboard skin?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Dave Barnhart
> rv-6 sn 23744
>
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Punched wing skins question (fwd) |
>
> I have a question about my pre-punched wing skins. Specifically,
> about the double row of rivet-holes where the inboard and outboard
> skins are spliced together.
>
> If the inboard skin is on the outside at the splice, why is the
> pre-punched double row of rivet holes in the outboard skin?
It really doesn't matter which way you drill it, you can switch
which one laps over the other later. It probably has something to
do with the preferred sequence for drilling.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Punched wing skins question (fwd) |
>>
>> I have a question about my pre-punched wing skins. Specifically,
>> about the double row of rivet-holes where the inboard and outboard
>> skins are spliced together.
>>
>> If the inboard skin is on the outside at the splice, why is the
>> pre-punched double row of rivet holes in the outboard skin?
>
>It really doesn't matter which way you drill it, you can switch
>which one laps over the other later. It probably has something to
>do with the preferred sequence for drilling.
>
>Randall Henderson
>RV-6
Where the extra rivet row is ...
Easier access for bucking the overlap of the last skin through the
bellcrank access panel hole?? If the overlapping rivets (the non-rib row)
were on the inner side of the rib row, access for bucking would be much
harder, whichever of the skins was overlapping the other.
Which skin overlaps the other ...
Van seems to have had a change here recently. My plans show the
0.032 inner skin over the 0.025 outer skin at the overlap, and this was the
way I built it. A new local builder with the pre-punched skins says that
his plan supplement for the skins now call for the overlap to be 0.025 on
top of the 0.032 skin. This apparently removes a possible water entry
point as water could flow down the wing dihederal from tip to root.
For those of us that built it the original way (0.032 over 0.025),
perhaps Dave Fried's idea (from the drag reduction discussion) of a sloping
fillet of Pro-Seal at this upper seam makes extra sense.
I did not "roll" the edge of my inner 0.032 skin, and I am happy
with the seam after riveting, but with the thinner 0.025 skin on top, I
would probably put a slight "rolled" edge on the end of the 0.025 skin.
One local RV4 builder has taken this to the extreme, and puts a pronounced
roll on his skin edges, and then files away the back side of the rolled
edge to almost a knive edge. From the upper side, it looks like a nice,
tapered edge at the seams, but with the smooth look of a rolled edge,
instead of the harsher look of a sanded or filed edge. Looks really nice,
but a lot of work!! (P.S. he's retired!)
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... baggage area all fitted, electric flap
assembly fitted, seat pans fitted.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GGCC44A(at)prodigy.com (MR MALCOLM L HARPER) |
| Subject: | Jhovan's home page |
Lightning struck my computer and I lost all my internet
data. I need jhovan's home page for RV builders. Can you
help? Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-Punched wing skins question (fwd) |
On Tue, 30 May 1995 dierks(at)austin.ibm.com wrote:
> I am at work so I don't have any drawings.
> However, I would think that the inboard skin (which is .032)
> would go on the bottom and the outboard skin (which is .025)
> would lap over the top as it would bend a little easier.
> That would match how the skins are pre-punched.
>
nope. Drawing 21 clearly shows the inboard skins on the top.
Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Answer:pre-punched skins question |
Earlier, I had asked the question, "why is the double row of pre-punched
holes on the outboard skin if the inboard skin goes on top? (as per
DWG 21)"
Answer: The drawings are not up to date. The construction manual
has been updated to reflect the use of pre-punched wing skins,
and it now says that the INBOARD skin is on the bottom, and the
OUTBOARD skin is on the top.
On another note, I'm contemplating replacing the two-piece top
skins with a one-piece one. I can order a 4x12 sheet of .032
2024T3 for about 120 bucks from the local aluminum dealer. They
can even shear it for me. Once it's sheared and clamped in
place, it would be easy to mark the rivet lines and backdrill it.
hmm...
Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-6A gear fitting |
Greetings all,
I have been "officially" planning to build a 6A, but haven't absloutely
ruled out the 6. I will be ordering the fuselage kit in a couple of months
so I guess my time to decide is running out. I have read with much interest
the past 6 vs. 6A debates in the archives and they seem pretty complete. I
got my first hour of tailwheel time in a C-140 yesterday with no fatalities
(thanks to the old man in the right seat with the fast feet!) I can't say I
disliked it, but there is definately more work involved. One of the main
reasons I am considering the 6 is the extra work involved in fitting the
main gear for the 6A. I don't know a bunch of people who are just dying to
spend all day in my garage fitting wings and gear (over and over). So, on
with the questions-
1- How many people does it take to move these wings around? How heavy are
they minus the flaps, ailerons, tanks, and tips?
2- I was thinking of investing in an engine hoist to use when moving the
wings around (as well as other heavy things) to reduce the need for lots of
help. Would it be possible to fit the wings and gear by yourself using such
a device?
3- How much time and trouble does it seem that the 6A gear added, that
wouldn't be required with the 6 (counting- the upside down fitting of the
mains, juggling the gear everytime the wing has to be fitted, the extra
wheel pant and leg fairing, etc)?
4- How does landing a 6 compare to a C-140? The C-140 has pretty springy
gear. Is the 6 better or worse in that regard? If I build a 6, I WILL get
checked out in a 6 before I fly mine, but am I getting a good idea of what
to expect?
5- How did Don get the nickname "The Duck". Is he Daffy, have flat feet,
real tall and bumps his head a lot? I am dying to know.
Thanks in advance to all for the advice and information that I continue to
get from the group. I would also like to nominate Frank Justice and Matt
Dralle [or was the RVator correct with Drolle :-) ] for president and vice
president. They can dogfight to see which one is president. Thanks to you
both for the work you put into this group.
Russell Duffy
RV-6? (22407)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Jhovan's home page |
>Lightning struck my computer and I lost all my internet
>data. I need jhovan's home page for RV builders. Can you
>help? Thanks.
>
The URL is:
http://atlantis.austin.apple.com/people.pages/jhovan/home.html
Also you might find some interesting stuff on:
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/krwalsh/Homebuilts/homebuilt.html
Enjoy, and get a good surge suppressor :-)
Russell Duffy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu (Don Meehan) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
I have been exploring this also. Dick Bentley in Seattle replaced his
hinges with Camlocks. Don't know the spacing.
In looking at this alternative I calculated that it would cost about 175
bucks to do..Yikes!
Mark Myers on Whidbey Island used the hinges and says they work fine after
you pull the pin a few times. The firewall hinge problem of access is
easily solved by making a larger access hole and shifting the pin center
towards the hole versus directly centered on firewall.
Don Meehan
>I am in the process of attaching my cowl to my RV6-A and I'm consiodering
>doing something different for the top cowl attachment to the firewall. On the
>AirBeetle, we used Hartwell fasteners (3) and they seemed to work ok. Trouble
>is I never really took a lot of notice about just how good a fit it was along
>the top cowl/skin junction and feel that it wouldn't be flush all along.
>Has anyone used any other method of top cowl attachment such as camlocks or
>dzus fasteners, if so, were the results good. On the other hand, perhaps using
>a hinge is not too bad after all....I've heard it's a pain to remove the two
>top hinge pins by putting your hand inside the oil filler door...and an even
>bigger pain to get them back.
>
>Could anyone add any insight into this?
>
>Ken
>
>RV6-A
>
>
>
>--
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
Don Meehan
WSU Cooperative Extension
Island County
Coupeville, WA 98239-5000
206-679-7327
meehan(at)coopext.cahe.wsu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
I used #8 screws @ 4" spacing, across the top only, after 450+ hrs, no
movement. I think it is easier to get the screws out, and the fit is better.
PLEASE put a screw in the top hole at the side hinge at both the fuse and the
cowling. This rivet area seems to have more side load and the screw won't
come loose. Area RV's also use 3 ea. #8 screws at the forward inner cowl
attach point behind the spinner, not the extruded hinge, with at least .063
plate for fastening through, and 5-7 rivets through the opposing attach, or
more screws.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <postman(at)aengus.internet-eireann.ie> (Post Office Services) |
| Subject: | Initial contact with RV group for a neighbour building an RV-? |
I have been asked by a neighbour,
a chap by the name of John Kent,
To put a message here in the hope that he can
make contact with the group.
The address has been found in a newsletter.
My experience on the Internet is not suffiecient
to allow me to figure if you are a newsgroup or what.
Please drop me a line and I hopefully will be able
to bring another of your fellow builders into the group.
Aengus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kvap(at)solar.sky.net (Kevin E. Vap) |
| Subject: | 6 vs 6A gear debate |
While we're on the subject (of RV-6 vs RV-6A gear), can anyone determine if
the CG would be farther forward with the tail-dragger vs the nose-dragger
(assume all other items the same)?
According to the CG examples in Van's manual (chap 14), the RV-6A has a
slightly more aft CG. I don't know if all other variables were the same,
though (engine weight & arm, etc). The gross weight difference was 30lbs
which sounds correct for the difference in the weight of the gear. Perhaps
the examples ARE representative of all other variables held the same.
Any takers on this one?
P.S. I'd also nominate John Hovan for a great WWW page about RV's.
-Kevin
RV-6 24163
kvap@sky.net http://www.sky.net/~kvap
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot License Renewal |
...
>> "There is a law that requires FAA to assist in the anti-drug program. We
>> will be requiring >(as proposed some time ago) a photo on the new licenses."
...
>> Rick Cremer
>> FAA HDQ
Yeah, THAT ought to stop those darned drug smugglers!
Sheesh.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | RV-6A gear fitting (some answers) |
Russell,
I can give some answers based on my experiences earlier this year.
I had lots of help, but it was all volunteer help, and volunteers kept
appearing!! Since my wing fitting space (my driveway) required that one
wing stick through the open garage door, I was in more of a hurry than
usual, and wanted to complete the task in one day. If this isn't the case,
you could do a more leisurely job with much less help.
>Greetings all,
>
>I have been "officially" planning to build a 6A, but haven't absloutely
**** stuff cut out ****
>with the questions-
>
>1- How many people does it take to move these wings around? How heavy are
>they minus the flaps, ailerons, tanks, and tips?
Easy lifting and moving by two people. Better with three (two at the root,
one at tip) for the actual fitting and sliding into the fuselage. Once in
place, sawhorses and padding can replace all three folks. Then the
drilling of the gear attach fitting could take place on your own, or with
one helper.
>
>2- I was thinking of investing in an engine hoist to use when moving the
>wings around (as well as other heavy things) to reduce the need for lots of
>help. Would it be possible to fit the wings and gear by yourself using such
>a device?
Ive seen this done for gliders, but the work involved perfecting such a
device would be _much_ more (and take more helpers) than doing it the
"manual" way.
>
>3- How much time and trouble does it seem that the 6A gear added, that
>wouldn't be required with the 6 (counting- the upside down fitting of the
>mains, juggling the gear everytime the wing has to be fitted, the extra
>wheel pant and leg fairing, etc)?
I am only planning to mate my wings once more at home. I believe that this
can now be done one wing at a time (since all of the holes are drilled),
and the fuselage and one attached wing _will_ fit in my garage.
>
>4- How does landing a 6 compare to a C-140? The C-140 has pretty springy
>gear. Is the 6 better or worse in that regard? If I build a 6, I WILL get
>checked out in a 6 before I fly mine, but am I getting a good idea of what
>to expect?
Don't know.
>
>5- How did Don get the nickname "The Duck". Is he Daffy, have flat feet,
>real tall and bumps his head a lot? I am dying to know.
Don't know ... wants to head South each winter? ..has webbed feet? :^)
>
>Thanks in advance to all for the advice and information that I continue to
>get from the group. I would also like to nominate Frank Justice and Matt
>Dralle [or was the RVator correct with Drolle :-) ] for president and vice
>president. They can dogfight to see which one is president. Thanks to you
>both for the work you put into this group.
Motion seconded!
>
>Russell Duffy
>RV-6? (22407)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | apps(at)indirect.com (Microchip Technology) |
Hello from a (now former) lurker,
I am working on a -6 ('prolly, maybe a -6A, but I doubt it, the 35lbs is too
tempting) and have just completed the HS rear spar, it feels
good to have something together, even if it doesn't look much like an
airplane yet. This Mail list has been a fountain of knowledge and
entertainment (the step stuff was hilarious).
My question is about the HS forward spar. Looking at the plans, the HS610
and HS614 are not symetrical about the spar centerline, or the HS614 is
longer. The plans show the length of the uncut part of the angle to be 5
1/2" on the First Officer's side and 5 3/16" on the Captain's side from the
centerline. I have read through Frank Justice's instructions and watched
George and Becky's video on this and neither mentioins any assymetry. Is it
that the HS610 is shorter ON BOTH ends than the HS614 as would appear from
the dashed lines on section A-A, or are they assymetrical?
Stumped in PHX and looking forward to a really hot summer in the garage, hit
100 deg today,
Scott Fink
Current Piper driver and future real plane driver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | apps(at)indirect.com (Microchip Technology) |
Hello from a (now former) lurker,
I am working on a -6 ('prolly, maybe a -6A, but I doubt it, the 35lbs is too
tempting) and have just completed the HS rear spar, it feels
good to have something together, even if it doesn't look much like an
airplane yet. This Mail list has been a fountain of knowledge and
entertainment (the step stuff was hilarious).
My question is about the HS forward spar. Looking at the plans, the HS610
and HS614 are not symetrical about the spar centerline, or the HS614 is
longer. The plans show the length of the uncut part of the angle to be 5
1/2" on the First Officer's side and 5 3/16" on the Captain's side from the
centerline. I have read through Frank Justice's instructions and watched
George and Becky's video on this and neither mentioins any assymetry. Is it
that the HS610 is shorter ON BOTH ends than the HS614 as would appear from
the dashed lines on section A-A, or are they assymetrical?
Stumped in PHX and looking forward to a really hot summer in the garage, hit
100 deg today,
Scott Fink
Current Piper driver and future real plane driver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klgray(at)bihs.net (Ken Gray) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
>X-UIDL: 802007616.000
>Errors-To: bounces(at)matronics.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 07:48:56 -0500
>X-Sender: klgray(at)bihs.net (Unverified)
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>From: bihs.net!klgray(at)matronics.com (Ken Gray)
>Subject: Re: Cowl attachment question
>Content-Length: 1511
>
>I met a guy at Hooks airport in Houston who used two sizes smaller piano wire
>to attach the top cowl, and after some time he replace with the next larger
size
>as the hinge wore in. He did go back to the right size later. The smaller
>wire
>was only few thousands smaller and he got them from a hardware store. It
worked
>out great for him.
>
>Ken Gray SN: 23069
>Final kit will be here today!
>Bryan, Tx.
>
>By the way, how much lead time should I need to get my "N" number?
>
>
>>I am in the process of attaching my cowl to my RV6-A and I'm consiodering
>>doing something different for the top cowl attachment to the firewall. On the
>>AirBeetle, we used Hartwell fasteners (3) and they seemed to work ok. Trouble
>>is I never really took a lot of notice about just how good a fit it was along
>>the top cowl/skin junction and feel that it wouldn't be flush all along.
>>Has anyone used any other method of top cowl attachment such as camlocks or
>>dzus fasteners, if so, were the results good. On the other hand, perhaps using
>>a hinge is not too bad after all....I've heard it's a pain to remove the two
>>top hinge pins by putting your hand inside the oil filler door...and an even
>>bigger pain to get them back.
>>
>>Could anyone add any insight into this?
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>RV6-A
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>> Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Ruble <cruble(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot License Renewal |
>
>
> "There is a law that requires FAA to assist in the anti-drug program. We
> will be requiring >(as proposed some time ago) a photo on the new licenses."
> ^^^^^^^^
> Rick Cremer
> FAA HDQ
>
When did the pilot certificate become a "license"? There is a very big
legal difference. A certificate is simply that, a cirtification of training.
A license grants the privilege of doing something that a person would not
otherwise be allowed to do. The legal specifics are rather involved,
but make a big difference. One of the more important differences is that a
privilege can be taxed.
Several of out rights have been converted into privileges in the past by the
use of questionable legal tactics.
Do some reading on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for more info.
Specificaly section 1-207. This is the section that explains how to aviod
waiveing your rights in a contract. It applys to every comerical contract in
the US, and a license is a commercial contract. Ask your lawyer.
If our certificates are going to change into licenses, we should all
scream loudly about it.
Chris "not a lawyer" Ruble
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | carl(at)drcpdx.stt3.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
> ...
> that the HS610 is shorter ON BOTH ends than the HS614 as would appear from
> the dashed lines on section A-A, or are they assymetrical?
> ...
The uncut part of HS610 is shorter than the uncut part of HS614. Both are
symmetrical about the center line. The dashed line of section A-A' is meant
to show the shorter HS610. Length of uncut portion of HS610 is
5 3/16" x 2 = 10 3/8" and HS614 is 5 1/2" x 2 = 11".
A GOTCHA on the front spar that I got bit on is when cutting away the flange
of HS602 for the tongue, if you cut very far from the radius of the bend you
will not have the required 2 rivet diameter hole to edge spacing for the
rivets that attach it to HS610 (The manual says to "remove the entire radius
of the bend"). On my second one I cut right in the radius and got by OK,
but with not much to spare. I've heard of others getting bit by this also.
Carl Weston
RV-6 23876 emp kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question (non-technical) |
Ken,
.... I am going to the RV fly-in at Bakersfield this Saturday
(great evening BBQ for all - co-incides with the Merced fly-in ..... Merced
during the day, then fly to Bakersfield for the BBQ). You Oregon guys can
fly down.
I will perform a RV6 cowling survey there. I have been considering
using #8 screws/Tinnerman washers for my upper cowling/firewall
connection ever since Tony Bingelis mentioned it in one of his Sport
Aviation articles several years ago. I am guessing that a 4 inch spacing
would be about right.
I will post all results and comments I get to this list.
.... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 .... fitting seat pans
>I am in the process of attaching my cowl to my RV6-A and I'm consiodering
>doing something different for the top cowl attachment to the firewall. On the
>AirBeetle, we used Hartwell fasteners (3) and they seemed to work ok. Trouble
>is I never really took a lot of notice about just how good a fit it was along
>the top cowl/skin junction and feel that it wouldn't be flush all along.
>Has anyone used any other method of top cowl attachment such as camlocks or
>dzus fasteners, if so, were the results good. On the other hand, perhaps using
>a hinge is not too bad after all....I've heard it's a pain to remove the two
>top hinge pins by putting your hand inside the oil filler door...and an even
>bigger pain to get them back.
>
>Could anyone add any insight into this?
>
>Ken
>
>RV6-A
>
>
>
>--
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: HS forward spar |
Scott:
The HS610 and 614 are each symmetrical spanwise. I notice that you are
in Phoenix. I'm in Glendale. You are welcome to call me on the phone
(931-6605) and also to come over and visit. My finished empennage
kit is hanging on the walls of my garage.
I'll be more than happy to spend as much time with you as you want.
(If you call, just mention that You are the guy from Phoenix on
rv-list. That way I'll remember.)
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Standley <Gary_Standley(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Pilot License Renewal |
Text item:
Is this correct, Rion????
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Pilot License Renewal
Date: 6/1/95 8:16 AM
>
>
> "There is a law that requires FAA to assist in the anti-drug program. We
> will be requiring >(as proposed some time ago) a photo on the new licenses."
> ^^^^^^^^
> Rick Cremer
> FAA HDQ
>
When did the pilot certificate become a "license"? There is a very big
legal difference. A certificate is simply that, a cirtification of training.
A license grants the privilege of doing something that a person would not
otherwise be allowed to do. The legal specifics are rather involved,
but make a big difference. One of the more important differences is that a
privilege can be taxed.
Several of out rights have been converted into privileges in the past by the
use of questionable legal tactics.
Do some reading on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for more info.
Specificaly section 1-207. This is the section that explains how to aviod
waiveing your rights in a contract. It applys to every comerical contract in
the US, and a license is a commercial contract. Ask your lawyer.
If our certificates are going to change into licenses, we should all
scream loudly about it.
Chris "not a lawyer" Ruble
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: Pilot License Renewal
From: Chris Ruble <cisco.com!cruble(at)matronics.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 08:16:56 -0700
1)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A gear fitting |
Russell, I wouldn't change from a -6A to a -6 for that reason.
>5- How did Don get the nickname "The Duck". Is he Daffy
>(probably),
>have flat feet
>(kinda),
>real tall and bumps his head a lot
>(on the canopy in rough air usually)?
>I am dying to know.
My name is Donald, hence, Donald Duck. My family still calls me "Duck"
instead of Don, so, I figured I might as well use it. Hence,
"Duckworks" Landing Lights.
The Duck
PS - It's spelled Dralle, pronounce 'Drah-llee' as in Rollie (I think!).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dierks(at)austin.ibm.com |
| Subject: | RV-6 landings (longer langing gear legs) (chatter) |
Regarding the RV-6 landings, I saw in the last news letter that
Van made the RV-4 gear legs longer. This should make it easier
to 3 point on landing (plus gives more prop clearance).
I wonder if he will do the same for the RV-6?
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Landing Light Installation |
Fellow Listers and especially Don Wentz:
Don -
I have just about completed the installation of my Duckworth landing light kit
in my RV-4. The wings are under construction so I am installing single lights
in both wing tips now while the leading edges are off. I guess I am wondering
just how I will be able to change the light bulb in the future. With the
leading edge in place and the wing tip secure, obviously the only access will
through the lens opening (having the wingtip off would not reallly help
matters). I cannot see how I can possibly remove the lense forward through the
opening (my lenses is 1" larger than the opening). I guess I would remove the
screws and the lense would be loose, slide it over, replace the bulb, but then
it looks like it would be very difficult to get the lens back in place since it
is a rather tight fit (I had to warm it and really force in down during the
installation to get a tight fit in the leading edge).
Don - am I overlooking something or perhaps should I heat up the lens in an
oven and see if I can bend it somewhat closer to the curve of my leading edge??
(is this wise and if so how would I do it.. what temp??)
Thanks,
Doug Weiler, MN Wing, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
I am building an RV-6A. I bought the plans in July of
1990 and started the tail kit sometime in '91. I have
recently started on the wing. I only updated the plans
for the empenage since that was all I built. In the
last few weeks, I have gone through all the RVators from
1990 to the present and made all the corrections. (I know
-- I get upadated plans with my fuselage and finish kits.)
While making the revisions, I noticed two page numbers
that I don't have: 19A and 43A. I'm not too worried
about 43A since I should get this with the fuselage kit.
I am concerned about 19A since I bought my wing kit
just before the new plans policy went into effect. Can
anyone tell me about 19A?
What part of the plane does it cover?
Does it replace or complement some other page?
Is it particular to some option or generic to all?
Thanks for your help.
Doug Medema, wing main spars in work.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (longer langing gear legs) (chatter) |
I 'am pretty sure' that he lengthened them to increase prop
clearance on the -4, as the -6 always seemed to have more, and
it will allow slightly more flare. I doubt that he will
lengthen the -6 gear legs as visibility over the nose is
already a problem in 3-point attitude. The -4 has a narrower
'nose', and the pilot sits farther forward, so over the nose
visibility is better in the -4.
As to 'making it easier to land the -6', IT AIN'T BROKE, SO
QUIT TRYING TO FIX IT!
The Duck
>Regarding the RV-6 landings, I saw in the last news letter
>that Van made the RV-4 gear legs longer. This should make it
>easier to 3 point on landing (plus gives more prop clearance).
>I wonder if he will do the same for the RV-6?
Herman Dierks, Dept. E54S, AWSD Austin, Texas
mail: dierks(at)austin.ibm.com VM: DIERKS at AUSVM6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 landings (longer langing gear legs) (chatter) |
The legs aren't just longer, they are also angled differently. If the
legs were simply lengthened, the wheels would be positioned further back
towards the CG, which could increase the possibility of going turtle.
- Alan
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Don Wentz wrote:
> I 'am pretty sure' that he lengthened them to increase prop
> clearance on the -4, as the -6 always seemed to have more, and
> it will allow slightly more flare. I doubt that he will
> lengthen the -6 gear legs as visibility over the nose is
> already a problem in 3-point attitude. The -4 has a narrower
> 'nose', and the pilot sits farther forward, so over the nose
> visibility is better in the -4.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Mike Wilson <James_Mike_Wilson(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans Questions |
Text item:
Call Van's, you can purchase a full set of the "latest greatest" plan in a 11x16
page size (marked - for reference only) for about $20. All you need is your
builders number. I bought this small size update, it's great in the shop for
looking up interrelationships between different pages. Well worth $20.
jmw -4, fuse in jig
I am building an RV-6A. I bought the plans in July of
1990 and started the tail kit sometime in '91. I have
recently started on the wing. I only updated the plans
for the empenage since that was all I built. In the
last few weeks, I have gone through all the RVators from
1990 to the present and made all the corrections. (I know
-- I get upadated plans with my fuselage and finish kits.)
While making the revisions, I noticed two page numbers
that I don't have: 19A and 43A. I'm not too worried
about 43A since I should get this with the fuselage kit.
I am concerned about 19A since I bought my wing kit
just before the new plans policy went into effect. Can
anyone tell me about 19A?
What part of the plane does it cover?
Does it replace or complement some other page?
Is it particular to some option or generic to all?
Thanks for your help.
Doug Medema, wing main spars in work.
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: Plans Questions
From: physio-control.com!dougm(at)matronics.com (Doug Medema)
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 07:21:14 PDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Plans Questions |
>I am building an RV-6A. I bought the plans in July of
>1990 and started the tail kit sometime in '91. I have
>recently started on the wing. I only updated the plans
>for the empenage since that was all I built. In the
>last few weeks, I have gone through all the RVators from
>1990 to the present and made all the corrections. (I know
>-- I get upadated plans with my fuselage and finish kits.)
>
>While making the revisions, I noticed two page numbers
>that I don't have: 19A and 43A. I'm not too worried
>about 43A since I should get this with the fuselage kit.
>I am concerned about 19A since I bought my wing kit
>just before the new plans policy went into effect. Can
>anyone tell me about 19A?
>
> What part of the plane does it cover?
> Does it replace or complement some other page?
> Is it particular to some option or generic to all?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Doug Medema, wing main spars in work.
>
>
Doug,
I had exactly the same problem. I faxed Van's a letter telling them which
mods I couldn't account for and they mailed me new up-to-date pages for
each. 19A replaces 19. I think primarily, it shows the new aileron
belcrank re-inforcement gussets. The old ones are w419 and the new ones are
w425 and should have been in you kit. My kit came with a supplimental page
that showed the new gussets but some of the rivet details were changed since
mine was printed (which screwed me up). I'm sure they will send you a new
page no questions asked. Good luck. By the way- if you can find the room, I
would highly recommend building both wings at once. I'm doing that now and
it's amazing how much faster the duplicate task goes. I'm sure that I would
forget the details between wings if I did them one at a time. (Your memory
results may vary)
Russell Duffy
RV-6? (leaning toward "6")- main skins and one leading edge skin clecoed in
place, second leading edge skin tomorrow.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light Installation |
>Fellow Listers and especially Don Wentz:
>Don -
>I have just about completed the installation of my Duckworks landing light kit
>in my RV-4. The wings are under construction so I am installing single lights
>in both wing tips now while the leading edges are off. I guess I am wondering
>just how I will be able to change the light bulb in the future. With the
>leading edge in place and the wing tip secure, obviously the only access will
>through the lens opening (having the wingtip off would not really help
>matters). I cannot see how I can possibly remove the lense forward through
>the opening (my lenses is 1" larger than the opening).
Doug, Believe it or not, the lense does come-out of the hole. Just squeeze it
some and slide it out at an angle.
> I guess I would remove the screws and the lense would be loose, slide it
>over, replace the bulb, but then it looks like it would be very difficult to
>get the lens back in place since it is a rather tight fit (I had to warm it
>and really force in down during the installation to get a tight fit in the
>leading edge).
I have a warning in the plans now to prevent installing that lense so
tight. Several builders have done that and caused the lense to be
difficult or impossible to install.
I also just finished a new form to slightly reduce the lense radius in
an attempt to improve the fit. A few builders have complained that they
don't think it fits right (it can never fit perfectly), although most
(including myself) have done fine with the lenses from the original
form. Hopefully the slightly tighter radius will reduce the tendency of
you guys wanting to 'King Kong' them in.
>Don - am I overlooking something or perhaps should I heat up the lens in an
>oven and see if I can bend it somewhat closer to the curve of my leading
>edge??
>(is this wise and if so how would I do it.. what temp??)
I would first try installing it as is. Put it in, pull it forward as
best you can, use a scribe or similar pointy tool to get the top center
whole to where a screw will fit. Use this method to start some screws
top and bottom and you 'should' be able to tighten it up. If you used
extreme force to hold it in place while drilling the screw holes, I
expect that you will have a tough time ever getting the screws in.
Without a form of some kind, I really doubt that you will be able to
re-form it without distorting it beyond use. The safest thing you could
try might be to mount the lense in the wing, then heat just the curved
portion with a heat gun, trying to heat it just enough to 'relax' that
area. If you do it in an oven, the whole lense will go soft and
turn-out all wavy.
Are you sure that you sanded-off any 'curl' that often results from our
forming process (at the outside edges of the bend)? If not, it can't
fit well. Just how big is the 'gap' (I'm guessing at what you feel is a
not good fit) that you are seeing?
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ault(at)netcom.netcom.com (Tami&Stan Ault) |
| Subject: | Gyro for Aerobatics |
I'm not on the rvlist anymore, but I saw the following in the latest issue
of the AOPA Pilot and immediately thought of you all:
"Sigma-Tek has introduced a cageable, air-driven attitude gyro to correct
large erection errors that might occur after aerobatic flight or short
trips. For more information, contact Sigma-Tek at 316-775-6373."
Maybe this will be a gyro which can peacefully coexist with hammerheads...
-- Stan Ault (ault(at)netcom.com)
Tami Ault (ault(at)netcom.com)
Brentwood CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | J.Ken_Hitchmough(at)mail.magic.ca (J.Ken Hitchmough) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question |
Thanks to all who responded to my note on the cowl attachment.
I have decided to go with the hinge instead of re-inventing the wheel. There
are a couple of things I think people should be aware of though:
1. My cowl is up to 1/4 inch thick where it joins the firewall. The options
are to grind it thinner, accept a step or put thicker shims under between the
skin and hinge. If you've already riveted hinges to the firewall, you may
find yourself taking them out to put shims under.
2. The manual recommends using the smaller stainless hinge pin in the top
hinges. Thse are .092 inches. Compare this to the original .125 and you see
that the hinge can move up to about .030. If you have drilled the top
cowl/hinge/firewall junction, be carefull that the top cowl doesn't move
forward due to the slack in the hinge pin.
I'm finding this to be a bit of a pain. The forward end of both top and bottom
are somewhat distorted so that the area directly behind the spinner isn't
totally parallel to the spinner. I foresee much work to get a good fit.
Ken
RV6-A
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light Installation |
Don:
Thanks for the installation tips. I'll re-evaluate just how I'd get the lense
in and out and see if I can come up with a better method. Actually the lenses
fits fairly good with maybe a 1/16" - 1/8" gap at the apex of the leading edge.
I didn't seem to have any visible curl so I didn't do that step. I'll take a
look at it again and see if that is a problem.
Anyway, I really like your light kit and all in all I'd recommend it highly.
Thanks again,
Doug
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Reichert" <reichera(at)clark.net> |
| Subject: | TEST ONLY - DELETE |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kksys!showpg!jpl (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Empennage Kit Ordered! |
The subject says it all. I FAXed in my RV-6A empennage kit order Tuesday.
Now I get to finish cleaning my workshop (read: garage) and rigging some
secure method of storing all these tools while I'm not using them.
Yippee skippy! We have fun!
-J
--
Joe Larson jpl(at)showpg.mn.org 612-595-9690(w)
Showpage Software, Inc.
435 Ford Rd, Suite 315
St. Louis Park, Mn 55426 Future RV-6A pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ReileyRV6(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lycoming 0320/160hp For Sale |
This Engine is not for just anyone. If you are looking for an engine and want
a quality remanufactured (not overhauled) this one could be for you. The
engine came off a 172 and was an E2D. The accessory case has been exchanged
with an E3D. Brand new fuel pump on the engine. The engine remanufactured by
IA. All receipts and Service Tags come with engine log. Here's some info.
Crankcase inspected and line bored by Ajax Aviation, Inc in San Antonio, TX a
certified repair station for crankcases. Total fees paid 705.33. Crankshaft
and camshaft inspected and serviced by Aircraft Engine & Accessory Co.,
Dallas, TX. a certified repair station. They also did the connecting rods and
tappet bodies.Tags in log book for all the above. The cylinders are
cermichrome, all came from Sentry Aircraft Cylinders, Inc in Ft. Worth TX.
This company only does the best work and trims no corners for anyone.Total
cost 2604.15 for cylinders. I can't list all the new parts, it would take all
day. I do have all the invoices in the engine's file.
All case nuts, bolts, washers and lockwashers.
All oil return lines and fittings
All intake hoses and clamps
Complete gasket set
New front crankshaft seal (not the stretch type)
New fuel pump (not rebuilt) w/ new bolts
All new spark plugs
All rocker arms serviced and bushed
All connecting rod bolts, nuts
All new pistons and rings
and on and on ......way to much to list.
Have the carb, mags and starter nothing done with these items at this time.
Was thinking of Airflow Performance fuel injection and Electronic ignition.
I'm still building my RV6, back in school and could use some money. At 2 yrs
away from completion I must get my priorities straight.
If you have any interest please feel free to send me a note. The price is
9500.00. Don't tell my wife but I hope it does'nt sell.
All yellow tags and invoices on file with engine log.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl attachment question (non-technical) |
> .... I am going to the RV fly-in at Bakersfield this
>Saturday
>(great evening BBQ for all - co-incides with the Merced fly-in .....
>Merced
>during the day, then fly to Bakersfield for the BBQ). You Oregon
>guys can
>fly down.
Gil
Did you go to the Merced flyin? I just got back from there today, did not
make Bakersfield this year do to my hanger partner flying in his RV-6 having
a little mishap at Merced when he landed on the downwind side of me (wind
blowing direct crosswind 20-25kts thurs evening when we got there.)with the
crosswind and my turbulance he got a wingtip into the ground on landing and
slammed both gear on the runnway so hard both gear bent out and back about
5". G-meter said 7.5G after that landing. I mention this for two reasons. (1)
I don't think a RV should be landed in anything above 15kt. direct crosswind
I have been flying mine for over 5 yrs and it was all I could do to land it
(2) Wow what a tough airplane.
After Bill Benedict and John Harmon looked at it he decided to fly it home,
no problems.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14.1989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MaynardB(at)snowmass.ksc.nasa.gov |
OK. Here goes my first internet RV question.
I recently just finished riveting my skins on my left wing and I am ready to
put my wing tip on. I bought the wing tip installation kit from Cleveland
Tool Co. ( #4 screws, rivets, nutplates).
What are some suggestion as to assembling the wing tip to the wing using
this hardware? Need specifics.
Thanks
Bryon T. Maynard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Cowl attachment question |
Thanks to all who responded to my note on the cowl attachment.
I have decided to go with the hinge instead of re-inventing the wheel. There
are a couple of things I think people should be aware of though:
>1. My cowl is up to 1/4 inch thick where it joins the firewall. The options
>are to grind it thinner, accept a step or put thicker shims under between
>the skin and hinge. If you've already riveted hinges to the firewall, you
>may find yourself taking them out to put shims under.
I did a fair amount of shimming here. I expected this so I didn't rivet
this area until after fitting the cowl, but I think using a default shim
of about .040" will work for most cases. This will get you close, then
some 'adjustment' with a hammer and block of wood, WITH THE COWL/HINGE
PINS INSTALLED, will allow 'leveling' the cowl with the skin. Those
hinges can be flexed or bent a little for this alignment. Some 'very
slight' grinding of the glass may be required.
>2. The manual recommends using the smaller stainless hinge pin in the top
>hinges. Thse are .092 inches. Compare this to the original .125 and you see
>that the hinge can move up to about .030. If you have drilled the top
>cowl/hinge/firewall junction, be carefull that the top cowl doesn't move
>forward due to the slack in the hinge pin.
The bottom cowl seems to hold the top 'back' where it belongs, and my
alignment is good 'static'. I DO notice that in flight, the top aft
cowl seam raises noticeably. It would be great if you could get a pin
that was .092 at the tip, tapering to .125 about midpoint. That would
let it work in the corner, but hold the straighter top in place...
>I'm finding this to be a bit of a pain. The forward end of both top and bottom
>are somewhat distorted so that the area directly behind the spinner isn't
>totally parallel to the spinner. I foresee much work to get a good fit.
Yep, fitting the cowl ranked right in there with the canopy as being 'a
great pain'. All cowls come with that distortion at the front. I found
it very easy to remove by heating it with a heat gun and letting it cool
in a somewhat 'beyond straight' location. I just don't remember quite
how I clamped-it while it cooled :-(. After 160 hrs it still stays in
position, even when I remove the cowl for maintenance.
As to the pins, I really like the clean appearance, and being able to
quickly yank them out rather than removing a bunch of screws. BUT,
there are 2 locations that need beefing-up. At the cowl front/center,
the 2 short pieces tend to break. Many fix this by replacing the hinges
with screws. I replaced the original hinge with stainless hinge and
that fixed the problem (at least for the last 80 hours). The other
trouble spot is at the bottom rear cowl. I used a beefy plate with
screws (at the recomendation of Jerry Springer), but the stainless might
work here as well. That is a good place for screws since they are out
of sight.
Another thing I did during my 'winter reglass', was to add 2 stiffeners
to the cowl exit. All they are is strips of cardboard from the nearest
case of oil, 1" wide, glassed across that piece. The thing is so stiff
now that I can pick the cowl up and hold it level, just holding at the
back of that exit lip! Make sure that you use plenty of layers across
the back where that scoop gets joined to the cowl (mine is now 3/8"
thick at the curve where it attaches). My first attempt broke on the
first flight! The air pressure inside that cowl is tremendous, and it
is all trying to exit that one hole...
The Duck N790DW RV-6
Ken
RV6-A
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Magic Online Services Toronto Inc. (416) 591-6490
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Cowl Attachment Survey from Bakersfield (semi-technical) |
Folks,
At the Bakersfield fly-in, I performed a survey of RV6 cowling
attachments, and found an even split between hinges (as per plans),
Camlocs, and #8 scews and Tinnerman washers. Builders following the plans
were in a minority on this subject!! Most builders only changed the upper
cowl/firewall attachments, but a reasonable number also changed the bottom
surface of the lower cowl/firewall attachment as well (I didn't get on my
hands and knees to count how many!).
One thing I noticed that the spacing of screw/Camlocs varied a lot,
and I list an approximate spacing below. Some aircraft had a variable
spacing, and some had a uniform spacing. In my opinion, those with a
uniform spacing looked a little neater.
The sight of visible cowling attachments did not look objectionable
to me, even the Tinnerman washers on the dark red RV6, so I think I will go
with #8 screws and Tinnerman washers on mine. This seems a really good
place to pay extra for stainless hardware. One builder mentioned he used
0.040 as a spacer and as the attach material for the nutplates, and I think
I will follow suit. 2.5 to 3 inches spacing seems to be a good figure to
follow.
Reg. # Hinges Camlocs #8 srews/washers
N91CK X
N50GW 2
N360EM 2.5
N131LH 4
N121RV 1.5
N164CE X
N157ST X
N360SR 3
N901JH 3
CF-NOW 3
N25TS X
N1KJ 4
Note: the numbers above represent my estimation of the fastener spacing in
inches
On a seperate subject, Steve Bernard's Oshkosh Award winning RV6A
had the nicest interior, with a recent upgrade to leather cushions made by
DJ Lauristen (sp?). Steve also cut down the height of his seat backs to
make them flush with the F605 bulkhead crossmember, a nice modification
making access to the baggage area easier, as well as saving a few pounds.
His seat backs also had three large lightening holes in each of the
horizontal flat areas.
.... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701 ... fitted a control stick assy!!
For those of you who watch old English movies .... I felt a
flashback to my pre-teen "train-spotting" days in England, walking around
with a little notebook and writing down registration numbers! Of course
this led to "aeroplane spotting", which led to model aeroplane building,
which led to learning to glide, which led to learning power flying, which
led to building a sailplane (easier), which led to building an RV!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob_Seibert-R18643(at)email.sps.mot.com |
| Subject: | RV-6 Fuselage Jig |
RV-6 Fuselage Jig
I have an RV-6 Fuselage jig in my hangar that has to go. It is free to
the first person who will give it a good home. It has built 4
different RV-6's so it is a battle scarred veteran. I think it
was originally built for Tony Bingellis' first RV-6 and it has
been floating around central Texas for serveral years.
It is currently residing at Georgetown, TX (T04). It will take
a fair size trailer or truck to haul it. Anybody that wants it can
call me at (512) 933-5716 work, (512) 869-0518 home or send me a
reply via the net.
Please give this little guy a home or I'll have to take it to
the pound (can you say firewood?).
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
P.S. It is housebroke and good around children.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.ho.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
Hi all,
I am ready to hang the flap on my left wing (I wish those were plural -
ah, the joys of building in a 1 car garage...). A couple of questions...
1. Any suggestions on holding the hinge in place for drilling to the
bottom wing skin (not exactly great access for clamping while the
flap is held in position)? I am leaning towards cleco-ing the hinge to
the *outside* of the flap (already drilled but not riveted), and then
drilling through the hinge and wing skin. A little backwards, but it seems
like it ought to work ok that way, and there would be no problem holding
things tightly in place for drilling. How would one do it if they already
had the hinge riveted to the flap on the inside?
2. How does one determine the correct position of the flap brace on the
rear wing spar? Since there is no way to access the thing with the flap in
place, how does one ensure that the lower wing skin overhang is being
held in the correct position? Are the female airfoil templates enough
to keep it accurately positioned across the whole span? Any tips?
Am I worrying needlessly (as I tend to do...)?
Both of these things I think I have a reasonable idea of what I'm doing - I'd
just like some first hand suggestions from those who have done this before.
By the way, I didn't mean for the comment above to imply that I wished I was
building two left wings. I may end up doing that, but not intentionally...
Thanks again.
Tom Goeddel
RV-6A
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light reply |
275 degrees F will heat the lens and allow it to be formed. It must be
cooled very very slowly or it will spring back to its original shape. I have
made several lenses in my oven using the cut out for a male mold. Use a heat
lamp or hair drier to get the initial bend started and then put the whole
mess in the oven at 275. After it melts to the desired shape, turn the oven
off and leave the door closed for two minutes. Open the door momentarily and
close it again for five minutes. Continue this opening and closing of the
oven door until the heat in the oven is barely warm, which takes 30 to 45
minutes.
One solution to the access problem is to make the wing tips removable. I can
get my lense out of the hole after I remove the screws by sliding it to one
side and turning it and squeezing it. It comes right out even though I also
have one inch of overlap.
If your lense is already installed and you don't want to mess with the oven
technique, try leaving it instaled and heating it very carefully with heat
lamps using a meat thermometer next to the lense to get an idea of how hot it
is getting. Again, 275 degrees F will make the lense pliable and make it
take on the correct shape. Be sure to remove the heat very very slowly so
that the lense will not spring back but will assume the new shape
permanently.
Jim Cone, Ed. Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dremel tools reply-reply |
I use the scotchbrite wheels that are sold by Avery and Cleaveland. The
screw on to a plastic mandrel and work great.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | WING TIP Performance Improvements (non-technical) |
... from the Bakersfield fly-in......
If you haven't installed your RV6 wing tips yet ...
Look for a new set of performance improving wing tip/root fairing
combination announcement at Oshkosh this year. These are not the
long-awaited Jerry Herrold (sp?) ones, but a new design from Barnard
Aircraft Corp. They will also come with test data from the CAFE facility,
since his aircraft was their RV6 test-bed. Sounds like it may be a good
option, especially if your tips came badly distorted, or warped over time,
like one of mine did :^(
..... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
>
>I recently just finished riveting my skins on my left wing and I am ready to
>put my wing tip on. I bought the wing tip installation kit from Cleveland
>Tool Co. ( #4 screws, rivets, nutplates).
>
>What are some suggestion as to assembling the wing tip to the wing using
>this hardware? Need specifics.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Bryon T. Maynard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Attachment Survey from Bakersfield (semi-technical) |
Gil Alexander wrote:
> At the Bakersfield fly-in, I performed a survey of RV6 cowling
> attachments, and found an even split between hinges (as per plans),
> Camlocs, and #8 scews and Tinnerman washers.
....
> The sight of visible cowling attachments did not look objectionable
> to me, even the Tinnerman washers on the dark red RV6, so I think I will go
> with #8 screws and Tinnerman washers on mine.
>
Gil:
I am curious why you chose #8 screws over camlocks. Not disagreeing,
just wondering.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
Notes from the Bakersfield fly-in ....
One RV6 owner (Jack Hake, EAA Tech. Counc., Lancaster, CA) had some
glider "zig-zag" turbulator tape installed on his vertical stab. just ahead
of the spar. He said that his RV6 exhibited "tail-wagging" in turbulence
(he lives and flies in the Mojave Desert), and that tuft testing found the
problem to be airflow seperation on the vertical, causing the rudder to be
in the seperated airflow region.
His is a very clean, smooth RV6, and he has no antennae on the aft
fuselage that might break up the airflow ahead of the vertical. This is
getting to be a common fix on newer German sailplanes, and it was
interesting to see a sailplane solution on an RV. However, he does base
his RV6 at Crystal gliderport, CA .... where my Mini-Nimbus is :^)
Presented as another data point for flying RV6s, and as a possible
solution to a particular problem.
Has anyone else heard of a similar "tail-wagging" in turbulence
affecting any other RVs?? I am guessing this would only affect those ships
without aft upper fuselage mounted antennae.
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light Installation |
>... it looks like it would be very difficult to
>get the lens back in place since it is a rather tight fit (I had to
>warm it and really force in down during the installation to get
>a tight fit in the leading edge).
Don's instructions include directions for using a strapping
tape "handle" to pull the lens tight when drilling for the
screws. This trick could also be used to pull the lens snug
and get the screws started when re-installing the lens after
replacing a bulb.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl Attachment Pins |
To Doug Wentz and others re: the cowl hinge pin. It is possible to taper a
.125 hinge pin by mounting it in a drill chuck and using emery cloth. Clamp
the drill to something solid and chuck the wire in the drill. Run the drill
slowly while "pulling" wire with emery cloth wrapped around it starting where
you want the taper to begin. Pull a few times from the start point to the
end and then start farther toward end for subsequent "pulls". Continue this
until the desired reduction is made. Then polish the pin using scotchbrite
for the "pull". Just be careful to have gloves on and eye protection firmly
in place. It is possible for the wire to whip around if you let go of it.
This works better if one person works the drill while the other does the
"pulling".
Jim Cone, Ed., Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re[2]: Cowl Attachment Survey from Bakersfield (semi-technical) |
Randall,
Interesting question. Actually I don't have to commit until actual
cowl attachment time, but my present thinking is:
1. The Tinnerman washers will spread any loads out over a larger area of
the fiberglass. Hard attachment points on composites are always a problem.
2. A Skil-Twist cordless screwdriver should make the removal job easy.
3. Adjustment should be easy. Just sand the cowling on the inside, or add
a shim at each attachment point to get a flush fitting cowling. The
Camlocs need a fixed dimension from surface to attachment.
4. Cost .. haven't researched this one yet, but I gather there is a big
difference.
5. I know I'm going for a mostly white paint job, so the larger area of
the fasteners won't be obvious.
... as always, I may change my mind, but it won't be to hinges ... Gil A.
>Gil Alexander wrote:
>> At the Bakersfield fly-in, I performed a survey of RV6 cowling
>> attachments, and found an even split between hinges (as per plans),
>> Camlocs, and #8 scews and Tinnerman washers.
>....
>> The sight of visible cowling attachments did not look objectionable
>> to me, even the Tinnerman washers on the dark red RV6, so I think I will go
>> with #8 screws and Tinnerman washers on mine.
>>
>
>Gil:
>I am curious why you chose #8 screws over camlocks. Not disagreeing,
>just wondering.
>
>Randall Henderson
>RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John.Morrissey(at)its.csiro.au (John Morrissey) |
| Subject: | Undercarriage fairings - RV6 |
Hi fellow RVer's
Here's an interesting problem that you may want to comment on.
A mate of mine has just finished his RV6 and we have been busy trying
to wear it out :-) :-).
At the moment he is fixing up some of the cosmetic features of the
aircraft that have either not worked out as planned or were not
finished before the first flight. One of the thing he did yesterday
was to make and fit a couple of small fairing for the top of the
undercarriage legs. The fairings look great BUT have a really amazing
effect on the flying characteristics of the aircraft. It would appear
that he managed to change the alignment of the metal fairings going
down the legs, this in turn has caused a really pronounced swing on
takeoff and dramatically increased the rudder pedal pressure during
flight.
My question??
How have other builders fabricated these fairings on your aircraft -
fibreglass mouldings??, sheet metal??
What technique did you use to align your gear leg fairings??
See you later
John Morrissey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | RV6 stick pivot question (technical) |
RV6 builders and flyers,
Could someone tell me the exact rotational arrangement for the
pivot bolt that goes through the stick assembly on a RV6??
This is the AN4 bolt inside the brass bushing that fits into a
0.375 inch internal diam. steel tube, through the Wd-610A yoke. I can't
even find the bushing call-out on the plans.
There seem to be several options:
1. The bolt is the pivot ... trim the brass bushing to the same length as
the tube, and make the brass bushing an interference fit in the steel tube.
2. The brass bushing is the pivot ... trim the bushing to be slightly
longer than the steel tube, and clamp the bolt down tight on the bushing.
3. It doesn't matter which one rotates, either 1 or 2 will work.
I sort of think it's number 1, but then how do you make the
bushing a force fit into the steel tube so it doesn't rotate?? My bushing
is a nice slip fit, but could easily rotate inside the steel tube. Can I
squeeze the bushing lengthwise in a vise to make it slightly fatter??
Is this a good location to go to a close tolerance MS bolt instead
of the AN4 bolt to reduce stick play??
... grateful for any help on the subject ... Gil Alexander
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
I've noticed this "tail wagging in turbulence" phenomenon in most RVs
I've been up in. I just assumed it was a characteristic of RVs that one
has to get used to. It would be interesting to know more about it and
if there is indeed a known cause and solution, other than just the
short coupling.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
> Notes from the Bakersfield fly-in ....
>
> One RV6 owner (Jack Hake, EAA Tech. Counc., Lancaster, CA) had some
> glider "zig-zag" turbulator tape installed on his vertical stab. just ahead
> of the spar. He said that his RV6 exhibited "tail-wagging" in turbulence
> (he lives and flies in the Mojave Desert), and that tuft testing found the
> problem to be airflow seperation on the vertical, causing the rudder to be
> in the seperated airflow region.
>
> His is a very clean, smooth RV6, and he has no antennae on the aft
> fuselage that might break up the airflow ahead of the vertical. This is
> getting to be a common fix on newer German sailplanes, and it was
> interesting to see a sailplane solution on an RV. However, he does base
> his RV6 at Crystal gliderport, CA .... where my Mini-Nimbus is :^)
>
> Presented as another data point for flying RV6s, and as a possible
> solution to a particular problem.
>
> Has anyone else heard of a similar "tail-wagging" in turbulence
> affecting any other RVs?? I am guessing this would only affect those ships
> without aft upper fuselage mounted antennae.
>
> Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gyro for Aerobatics |
<199506030146.SAA10391(at)netcomsv.netcom.com>
| From: | Mike Fredette <mfredett(at)ichips.intel.com> |
>"Sigma-Tek has introduced a cageable, air-driven attitude gyro to correct
>large erection errors that might occur after aerobatic flight
And dontcha just hate those large erection errors
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Kane <dennis(at)straylight.net> |
I know I'm going blind now, I can't see the reason for the .040 spacer on
the bottom W-425 Rib (the one that replaced the Aileron Gusset). The
instructions state that .....Note that a .040 spacer is needed between
the W-425 rib and the wind skin, OUTBOARD of the W-426 reinforcing ring.
I've looked at it too long, perhaps I'm going daft also.
Help, please !
Respectfully,
Dennis Kane
STRAYlight Aviation Ephemera
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Kane <dennis(at)straylight.net> |
Respectfully,
Dennis Kane
STRAYlight Aviation Ephemera
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 23:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dennis Kane <straylight.net!dennis(at)matronics.com>
Subject: W-425 Rib
I know I'm going blind now, I can't see the reason for the .040 spacer on
the bottom W-425 Rib (the one that replaced the Aileron Gusset). The
instructions state that .....Note that a .040 spacer is needed between
the W-425 rib and the wind skin, OUTBOARD of the W-426 reinforcing ring.
I've looked at it too long, perhaps I'm going daft also.
Help, please !
Respectfully,
Dennis Kane
STRAYlight Aviation Ephemera
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM SCHMIDT <JIM.SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com> |
| Subject: | Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) -Reply |
I have only flown in one RV6 on a short 30
mile trip(space and time move faster in an
RV) here under puffy Florida Cu's. I also
noticed the tail wag which I immediately
assumed was the short coupling. It would
seem this desires some research.
Van is flying gliders these days maybe
Randall could suggest some cross technology
testing.
Jim
>>> Gil Alexander
06/05/95 03:43pm >>>
Notes from the Bakersfield fly-in ....
One RV6 owner (Jack Hake, EAA Tech.
Counc., Lancaster, CA) had some glider
"zig-zag" turbulator tape installed on his
vertical stab. just ahead of the spar. He
said that his RV6 exhibited "tail-wagging"
in turbulence
(he lives and flies in the Mojave Desert),
and that tuft testing found the problem to
be airflow seperation on the vertical,
causing the rudder to be in the seperated
airflow region.
His is a very clean, smooth RV6,
and he has no antennae on the aft fuselage
that might break up the airflow ahead of
the vertical. This is getting to be a
common fix on newer German sailplanes, and
it was interesting to see a sailplane
solution on an RV. However, he does base
his RV6 at Crystal gliderport, CA ....
where my Mini-Nimbus is :^)
Presented as another data point for
flying RV6s, and as a possible solution to
a particular problem.
Has anyone else heard of a similar
"tail-wagging" in turbulence affecting any
other RVs?? I am guessing this would only
affect those ships without aft upper
fuselage mounted antennae.
Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JIM SCHMIDT <JIM.SCHMIDT(at)mail.mei.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gyro for Aerobatics -Reply |
>>> Mike Fredette
06/05/95
03:27pm >>>
>"Sigma-Tek has introduced a cageable,
air-driven attitude gyro to correct
>large erection errors that might occur
after aerobatic flight
And dontcha just hate those large erection
errors
I wouldnt know. (Sorry coudlnt leave that
one.)
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeremy <jbenedic(at)uofport.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Randall Henderson wrote:
> I've noticed this "tail wagging in turbulence" phenomenon in most RVs
> I've been up in. I just assumed it was a characteristic of RVs that one
> has to get used to. It would be interesting to know more about it and
> if there is indeed a known cause and solution, other than just the
> short coupling.
>
> Randall Henderson
> RV-6
This might contribute more to the original question as opposed to the
answer, but I have noticed a variation in the amount of "tail wagging"
present in differerent RV's.
After spending more than 40 hours in the backseat of an RV-4 (N894RV), I
did not notice any great tail-wagging phenonemia (note that this
airplane served essentially as my first experience with RV's after many
hours riding in a 150 and 182). Aside from the fact that the RV was very
different from the Cessnas, no discernable "t-w" came to mind as a
big difference.
However, then I rode in the back of another RV-4 (N24RV) for about 20
hours. After the first bit of turbulence, the "t-w" was so great and
pronounced that I asked the pilot if he was dancing on the rudder
pedals. Of course, he wasn't, but the movements behind me definitely
made me curious to how much of a difference there was in the two
aircraft. Now, the amenities hanging off the aircraft were different, and
the second -4 was Van's, so I don't know how many mods were made to
components that would effect the "t-w". Brief rides in other two other
-4's right before N24RV also did not show any great "t-w," but with all
of the above, my memory might have faded.
As far as -6A's go, I don't recall any great "t-w," but it's been a while.
I can't say anything about -6's :-( , anybody else???
Jeremy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank K Justice <Frank_K_Justice(at)ccm.ssd.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6 stick pivot question (technical) |
> Could someone tell me the exact rotational arrangement for the
>pivot bolt that goes through the stick assembly on a RV6??
>
> This is the AN4 bolt inside the brass bushing that fits into a
>0.375 inch internal diam. steel tube, through the Wd-610A yoke. I can't
>even find the bushing call-out on the plans.
>
> There seem to be several options:
>
>1. The bolt is the pivot ... trim the brass bushing to the same length as
>the tube, and make the brass bushing an interference fit in the steel tube.
>
>2. The brass bushing is the pivot ... trim the bushing to be slightly
>longer than the steel tube, and clamp the bolt down tight on the bushing.
>
>3. It doesn't matter which one rotates, either 1 or 2 will work.
>
Number two is the preferred method. It is easier to control where the wear
occurs, keep it clean and greased, and replace the worn parts. Oddly enough, I
had to drill out the brass bushing because the bolt wouldn't go into it. I must
have gotten a different size tube in my kit.
> I sort of think it's number 1, but then how do you make the
>bushing a force fit into the steel tube so it doesn't rotate?? My bushing
>is a nice slip fit, but could easily rotate inside the steel tube. Can I
>squeeze the bushing lengthwise in a vise to make it slightly fatter??
#2 avoids any such hassles.
> Is this a good location to go to a close tolerance MS bolt instead
>of the AN4 bolt to reduce stick play??
I don't feel any play in mine. I also had to grind down (and polish to eliminate
wear) the ends of the control sticks and the bushings so they would fit into the
crossbar. Made the bushings almost an interference fit and the sticks a few
thousandths less, then cranked down on the bolt to freeze the bushing against
the crossbar.
By the way, figure out how many and what size washers go everywhere in this
assembly and then glue in the washers.
FKJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stanley C. Blanton" <75472.372(at)compuserve.com> |
Please add me to your subscription list for Rv airplane discussions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Dennis Kane wrote:
>
> I know I'm going blind now, I can't see the reason for the .040 spacer on
> the bottom W-425 Rib (the one that replaced the Aileron Gusset). The
> instructions state that .....Note that a .040 spacer is needed between
> the W-425 rib and the wind skin, OUTBOARD of the W-426 reinforcing ring.
It will become obvious when you assemble the pieces.
skin ==============================
.040 spacer ======================= ============ reinforcing ring
===============================================
| W-425 rib |
The spacer allows for the thickness of the reinforcing ring. Without it
the skin and W-425 would be pinched together just to the left of the
reinforcing ring. This would work ok, but look ugly.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Fourth Annual Northwest RV Fly-In! |
FOURTH ANNUAL NORTHWEST RV FLY-IN
Scappoose Airport
Saturday, June 10 1995
10:00am (Lunch at Noon)
Sponsored by the
PORTLAND RVATORS
* FOOD! Lunch provided, nominal donation requested
* FUN! Fly in in your RV or just come out for some "hangar flying"
* STUFF! T-shirts, gift items, and more
80 & 100LL fuel available on the field -- cheapest prices around.
Note: Please help Scappoose airport be a good neighbor and fly a normal
pattern at the published altitude. No flybys please.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: WING TIP Performance Improvements (technical) |
Gil, this sounds very interesting, I can't wait to see what they look like (not
that I will run out and buy some, not until we get some REAL before/after
numbers, at least). I expect that like most other things Steve has done, they
are well thought-out and designed.
As for your questions Bryon, some suggestions: DON'T install your wing tips
until your wings are on the fuse and the flaps/ailerons are adjusted! There is
NO way to tell if the trailing edge of the wingtip is properly located, and it
can move up/down an inch with little effort, while fitting it. It MAY be
possible to do it with templates, etc., but I wouldn't try it unless you get
input from someone who successfully did it, ON AN RV THAT HAS SINCE BEEN
COMPLETED. Problem being that alignment of fuse/flap/aileron/tip all has to be
worked together. Yes, in a PURISTs sense, the flaps/ailerons should be fixed
with the airfoil. But, my experience says that that can/will vary somewhat
based-on where the rearspar fits, how straight your wings are (don't count on
them being perfect, too many variables/opportunities to get slightly off), etc.
Say for instance, your left wing is 'perfect', but your right wing is 1/4" off.
Now you will need to adjust the position of the rear spars slightly, to average
the error out, or you will have a roll trim problem. This will also require a
slight adjustment of 'center' on your flaps/ailerons/tips, to match. Get the
picture?
I may be all wet, but that is how mine worked-out (right wing was 2 to 3/8"
'twisted', inboard to outboard). By working all these items together, I
ended-up with really good alignment of my flaps to fuse, flaps to ailerons,
ailerons to tips. At rest on the ground, they align almost perfectly. And, by
the way, at full cruise they STILL align very well, so I think my little
adjustments worked to balance-out the imperfection of the right wing.
Wow, that got long, but I hope it gives some insight into the eventual
interaction of all these parts you are building, and what to consider during
that critical final assembly stage.
The Duck N790DW #20369 RV-6
PS - Don't install the stock wing tips without laminating some 1/8" polyester
resistant foam in the underside of the top, or else they WILL warp after a short
time in use. It may not hurt to use a strip of .025 -.032 between the nutplates
and fiberglass, to make them stronger. Use a flush rivet between the screw
holes to hold the strip on, after every thing is drilled.
>... from the Bakersfield fly-in......
>If you haven't installed your RV6 wing tips yet ...
>Look for a new set of performance improving wing tip/root fairing
>combination announcement at Oshkosh this year. These are not the
>long-awaited Jerry Herrold (sp?) ones, but a new design from Barnard
A>ircraft Corp. They will also come with test data from the CAFE facility,
>since his aircraft was their RV6 test-bed. Sounds like it may be a good
>option, especially if your tips came badly distorted, or warped over time,
>like one of mine did :^(
>..... Gil Alexander, RV6A, #20701
>
>I recently just finished riveting my skins on my left wing and I am ready to
>put my wing tip on. I bought the wing tip installation kit from Cleveland
>Tool Co. ( #4 screws, rivets, nutplates).
>
>What are some suggestion as to assembling the wing tip to the wing using
>this hardware? Need specifics.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Bryon T. Maynard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Undercarriage fairings - RV6 |
Oh man, that is a tough one. This goes to show how critical alignment can
be.
Ideally, you would take the thing up without cuffs, let the airstream align
them, fix them at that location, then cuff 'em.
Realistically, jack the airframe up to full speed flight attitude (roughly
level at top of cockpit siderails/longerons), being sure to remove almost
all weight from gear so they 'hang' as in flight. On a wall or large flat
surface perpendicular to and behind the airframe (the farther away the
better, within reason), duplicate the gear leg centerlines. Mark a spot on
the lines and the gear legs, one near the bottom, one near the center, and
one near the top. Stretch a heavy string from a spot on the 'wall' to a
corresponding spot on a gear leg, then around the front of the leg and back
to the spot on the wall. This should align the leg with 'airflow' in level
flight. Repeat at all three locations on each leg to keep the whole thing
aligned, then fix it in place.
The Duck, N790DW, 180HP RV-6, #20369
Hi fellow RVer's
Here's an interesting problem that you may want to comment on.
A mate of mine has just finished his RV6 and we have been busy trying
to wear it out :-) :-).
At the moment he is fixing up some of the cosmetic features of the
aircraft that have either not worked out as planned or were not
finished before the first flight. One of the thing he did yesterday
was to make and fit a couple of small fairing for the top of the
undercarriage legs. The fairings look great BUT have a really amazing
effect on the flying characteristics of the aircraft. It would appear
that he managed to change the alignment of the metal fairings going
down the legs, this in turn has caused a really pronounced swing on
takeoff and dramatically increased the rudder pedal pressure during
flight.
My question??
How have other builders fabricated these fairings on your aircraft -
fibreglass mouldings??, sheet metal??
What technique did you use to align your gear leg fairings??
See you later
John Morrissey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING(at)fire.ca.gov |
>From RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING Mon Jun 5 19:37:05 0700 1995 remote
from fire.ca.gov
From: RUSS_NICHOLS_at_SAC__DATA__PROCESSING(at)fire.ca.gov (RUSS NICHOLS)
rassp.hac.com!gil(at)matronics.com (Gil Alexander)
Subject: Tail-wagging and jig quesions. (chatter)
This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader
may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as
text. To process the rest, you will have to use a Mime
compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details.
--IMA.Boundary.802406388
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 13:43:52 -0800
From: rassp.hac.com!gil(at)matronics.com (Gil Alexander)
Subject: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical)
--IMA.Boundary.802406388
Gil Alexander wrote:
> One RV6 owner (Jack Hake, EAA Tech. Counc., Lancaster, CA) had some
> glider "zig-zag" turbulator tape installed on his vertical stab. just
> ahead of the spar. He said that his RV6 exhibited "tail-wagging" in
> turbulence
.... clip ....
Maybe I'll be expressing my inexperience here, but as a future RV-6
driver, this inquiring mind wants to know...
What is this "tail-wagging"? It conjures up ideas of barely controllable
oscillations due to turbulence. I can picture that only in a dynamically
unstable craft. Am I out in left field?
Since I just finished my empenage jig yesterday, that gives me roughly 4
years and 12,000 rivets worth of time to worry about that.
On the jig topic, could someone give me a hint about how much time,
money, and work went into jigs. I think mine is over-engineered. I used
4x4 posts, anchored to the (concrete) floor with 3" expansion bolts. The
top is tied into the rafters with a 2x4 between the posts to maintain the
exact separation, and two more 2x4s sandwiching the posts and the 2x4
between them. Since the garage was finished (even textured and painted)
this was more of a job than I expected.
I do have one last piece of the jig to add.... the cross piece for the
horiz. stab. I haven't seen any measurements. I'm guessing this should
be about waist high. Just good comfortable working height.
The real question... what is the best material for this cross piece.
The rest of the jig is redwood. It's very dry and straight. I'm
paranoid about the cross piece, however. It seems to me even the
slightest twist or bow would translate directly to poor flight
characteristics. Any suggestions?
thanks,
Russ Nichols
RV-6 empenage
former garage-parker
--IMA.Boundary.802406388--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:34:29 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Curt Reimer <NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA!Curt_Reimer(at)matronics.com>
> To: RV mailing list
> Subject: Re: W-425 Rib
>
An alternate way to deal with the W-425/reinforcing ring interference
is to whack off that portion of the flange on the W-425 that would
interfere with the reinforcing ring (or joggle if you have the newer
skins), and rivet a piece of .025 or .032 angle, parallel to where the
flange was on the W-425 rib but back a quarter of an inch or so and on
the opposite side from where the flange was. I did this per Frank
Justice's instructions and it worked well.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
> >
> > I know I'm going blind now, I can't see the reason for the .040 spacer on
> > the bottom W-425 Rib (the one that replaced the Aileron Gusset). The
> > instructions state that .....Note that a .040 spacer is needed between
> > the W-425 rib and the wind skin, OUTBOARD of the W-426 reinforcing ring.
>
> It will become obvious when you assemble the pieces.
>
> skin ==============================
> .040 spacer ======================= ============ reinforcing ring
> ===============================================
> | W-425 rib |
>
> The spacer allows for the thickness of the reinforcing ring. Without it
> the skin and W-425 would be pinched together just to the left of the
> reinforcing ring. This would work ok, but look ugly.
>
> Curt Reimer
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
>
> What is this "tail-wagging"? It conjures up ideas of barely controllable
> oscillations due to turbulence. I can picture that only in a dynamically
> unstable craft. Am I out in left field?
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to ask that question.
Basically, it's just a rather quick yawing motion side to side. When
you hit a bump it'll just yaw back and forth slightly but noticeably
with approximately a 1/2 second period. It doesn't go far, and is not
an unstable situation, it dampens itself within a second or two.
And lest someone goes off half cocked thinking this is some BIG PROBLEM
like the RV-6 taildragger landing "problem" -- IT'S NOT. As I said in
an earlier posting I've noticed it in flying Van's planes and other
people's, and have even spoken with some of Van's people about it, but
basically it's just one of those quirks that every airplane has, it's
not dangerous or even uncomfortable, just a peculiarity of the
aircraft. (In fact it's kind of cute -- it really does feel a bit
like a dog wagging it's tail.) But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be
interest in knowing exactly why it happens and if there is something
that could be be done about it.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
>
> Since I just finished my empenage jig yesterday, that gives me roughly 4
> years and 12,000 rivets worth of time to worry about that.
>
> On the jig topic, could someone give me a hint about how much time,
> money, and work went into jigs. I think mine is over-engineered. I used
> 4x4 posts, anchored to the (concrete) floor with 3" expansion bolts. The
> top is tied into the rafters with a 2x4 between the posts to maintain the
> exact separation, and two more 2x4s sandwiching the posts and the 2x4
> between them. Since the garage was finished (even textured and painted)
> this was more of a job than I expected.
>
> I do have one last piece of the jig to add.... the cross piece for the
> horiz. stab. I haven't seen any measurements. I'm guessing this should
> be about waist high. Just good comfortable working height.
>
> The real question... what is the best material for this cross piece.
> The rest of the jig is redwood. It's very dry and straight. I'm
> paranoid about the cross piece, however. It seems to me even the
> slightest twist or bow would translate directly to poor flight
> characteristics. Any suggestions?
>
> thanks,
>
> Russ Nichols
> RV-6 empenage
> former garage-parker
>
>
>
> --IMA.Boundary.802406388--
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jawngault(at)aol.com |
Please remove me from the RV distribution list. Thanks for all the good
information.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV'ers in Phila. Area |
I am a private pilot trying to select a kit to build, and am highly
interested in the RV series, particularly the -6's.
If you are an RV builder, completed or not, in the Phila. area
(Trenton-Reading-Wilmington-Red Bank), could you please e-mail me. I would
like to see your work if possible and discuss the merits/demerits of the RV.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
I have only noticed it in certain 'types' of turbulence. Usually you just
quickly bump through, but occasionally the tail does wag a bit. It is very
limited, nothing like a V-tail Bonansa! My only ride in one of those was on a
gusty day, and after about 5 minutes I was ready to puke! And I DON'T get
motion sickness. Fortunately Mike let me drive for awhile and that saved my
record.
I never paid much attention to it, because it was so limited, but NOW, thanks to
all this discussion, It'll probably bug the hell out of me! Oh well, the
information superhighway strikes again....
The Duck, N790DW, 180HP RV-6, #20369
>
> What is this "tail-wagging"? It conjures up ideas of barely controllable
> oscillations due to turbulence. I can picture that only in a dynamically
> unstable craft. Am I out in left field?
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to ask that question.
Basically, it's just a rather quick yawing motion side to side. When
you hit a bump it'll just yaw back and forth slightly but noticeably
with approximately a 1/2 second period. It doesn't go far, and is not
an unstable situation, it dampens itself within a second or two.
And lest someone goes off half cocked thinking this is some BIG PROBLEM
like the RV-6 taildragger landing "problem" -- IT'S NOT. As I said in
an earlier posting I've noticed it in flying Van's planes and other
people's, and have even spoken with some of Van's people about it, but
basically it's just one of those quirks that every airplane has, it's
not dangerous or even uncomfortable, just a peculiarity of the
aircraft. (In fact it's kind of cute -- it really does feel a bit
like a dog wagging it's tail.) But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be
interest in knowing exactly why it happens and if there is something
that could be be done about it.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
>
> Since I just finished my empenage jig yesterday, that gives me roughly 4
> years and 12,000 rivets worth of time to worry about that.
>
> On the jig topic, could someone give me a hint about how much time,
> money, and work went into jigs. I think mine is over-engineered. I used
> 4x4 posts, anchored to the (concrete) floor with 3" expansion bolts. The
> top is tied into the rafters with a 2x4 between the posts to maintain the
> exact separation, and two more 2x4s sandwiching the posts and the 2x4
> between them. Since the garage was finished (even textured and painted)
> this was more of a job than I expected.
>
> I do have one last piece of the jig to add.... the cross piece for the
> horiz. stab. I haven't seen any measurements. I'm guessing this should
> be about waist high. Just good comfortable working height.
>
> The real question... what is the best material for this cross piece.
> The rest of the jig is redwood. It's very dry and straight. I'm
> paranoid about the cross piece, however. It seems to me even the
> slightest twist or bow would translate directly to poor flight
> characteristics. Any suggestions?
>
> thanks,
>
> Russ Nichols
> RV-6 empenage
> former garage-parker
>
>
>
> --IMA.Boundary.802406388--
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
I cannot belive what I am reading about tail wagging V-tail Beech's tail-wag
RV's do not tail-wag. Period!
Randell is right, if you hit turbulence you well feel what is actually the
airplane stabilizing itself after going through rough air.
If you are flying in calm no wind conditions a RV will fly as smooth and as
straight as a arrow, any time you have a light aircraft with the wing loading
of a RV it will feel the bumps more than a heavy airplane and tend to feel
like tailwag (or whatever you want to call it)if it is because of air
seperating over the rudder as someone mentioned tuffting showed don't you
think it would do it all the time?
The motion that is felt in a RV is strictly a function of how much turbulence
there is.
It just tickles me to see how many experts there are on RV's that don't even
have one flying yet.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS first flight July 14, 1989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | twg(at)blink.ho.att.com (Tom Goeddel(x5278)) |
| Subject: | Re: Jig questions |
> I do have one last piece of the jig to add.... the cross piece for the
> horiz. stab. I haven't seen any measurements. I'm guessing this should
> be about waist high. Just good comfortable working height.
Yea, waist high is about right - the action all happens in the couple of feet
above that cross member.
> The real question... what is the best material for this cross piece.
> The rest of the jig is redwood. It's very dry and straight. I'm
> paranoid about the cross piece, however. It seems to me even the
> slightest twist or bow would translate directly to poor flight
> characteristics. Any suggestions?
It's not all that critical. I was really paranoid about this and went out
searching high and low for the perfect 4x4s for my jig. I eventually found
them (25 mi away, clear western red cedar $$). In hindsight, it didn't make
much difference at all. Any imperfections in the wood could be easily
compensated for with a little shimming here and there. You probably should
avoid something with 2" twists, but a little imperfection is not hard to
deal with. Nice straight wood makes life easier, but it's not worth
a lot of worry. You should let the wood stabilize to the humidity of your shop
as humidity changes can cause quite a bit of movement. You don't want things
changing once you start work. It's always a good idea to re-check the
alignment from time to time.
Tom Goeddel
RV-6A
t.goeddel(at)att.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
I'm just fitting my first aileron. I couldn't get the required 32 degrees
of up travel due to the bottom mounting bolt of the outboard aileron
hinge (the steel piece) hitting the outboard aileron mount. I'm pretty
sure everything is mounted per the plans, as even the plans show a
potential interference problem at this point. The only solution is to
grind down either the bolt head or the aileron mounting bracket. I
decided to grind the bracket. But, with grinding the edges of the
brackets smooth, plus grinding for clearance, the dimensions of my
bracket are definitely smaller than called for in the plans, probably
by 1/8" or so. Has anyone else encountered this problem?
At this point I'm considering biting the bullet and seeing if I can order
new bracket pieces from Van's, undrilled and unassembled, so that I can
do them right this time. Of course, if the bracket is designed oversized
to allow for grinding to fit, etc, then I'll just use the ones I have.
I will call Van's about this, just wondering what other people have done.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Busick <rbusick(at)nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Answer:pre-punched skins question |
Dave
Why?
Bob Busick
RV-6
On Tue, 30 May 1995, David A. Barnhart wrot>
> On another note, I'm contemplating replacing the two-piece top
> skins with a one-piece one. I can order a 4x12 sheet of .032
> 2024T3 for about 120 bucks from the local aluminum dealer. They
> can even shear it for me. Once it's sheared and clamped in
> place, it would be easy to mark the rivet lines and backdrill it.
> hmm...
>
> Regards,
> Dave Barnhart
> rv-6 sn 23744
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Barnhart" <barnhart(at)crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (non-technical) |
Anyone flying an RV should first get 50 hours in a Bonanza
so the tail-wagging won't bother them ;-)
Seriously though, I used to own a V35 Bonanza, which is
notorious for tail-wagging. I found that the amount of tail-
wagging was really dependent upon the pilot more than anything
else. The flights with the worst tail-wagging were in
airplanes where the pilot flew with his feet on the floor,
not the rudder pedals. Keeping slight pressure on both pedals
was enough to dampen most wagging, and when you hit a sudden bump,
slight *assymetric* pressure on the rudder pedals was enough to
suppress the wagging. My V35 had an autopilot (actually a KFC200)
but no yaw damper. In turbulence I typically disengaged the
autopilot and hand-flew the airplane because I could fly it
smoother that the autopilot could.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Earl Brabandt" <ewbraban(at)ichips.intel.com> |
Okay where's Dave Hyde? We need him to explain the fundamental
trade off in airplane design between spiral divergence stability (falling
off on a wing) and dutch roll (tail wagging). Or you could just read
the William Kershner "Advanced Pilots Manual" for a quick lesson in such
aerodynamics. Having flown a Beech Bonanza for a few years, I'm quite
familiar with a dutch roll tendency (a coupling of roll and yaw axis
that rears it's ugly head in turbulence). Actually quite a few
production airplanes exhibit this tendency with the Bonanza being one
of the worst. I'd say that the RVs that I've flown exhibit it only
slightly to moderately.
Those of you who have only flown Cessnas and other high wing designs
haven't experienced this yet but don't be alarmed; it's perfectly
harmless -- unless you happen to be in the back seat of a "V" tail in
moderate turbulence in which case you might just lose your lunch.
I used to joke about an old girlfriend who would hit the electronic
yaw damper switch even before the gear switch on takeoff in the Bonanza.
What? There's a cure? Forget about an electronic yaw damper in the
RV. Just learn to live with it.
Earl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Curt Reimer <Curt_Reimer(at)NtwkServ.MTS.MB.CA> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
One of the regular posters on rec.aviation.homebuilt mentioned this
characteristic of RVs and described it as Dutch Roll. I'm not an aero
eng. but I believe what happens is that a bump causes a wing to lift,
rolling the airplane a couple of degrees. This roll induces a small bit
of yaw, the yaw induces a roll in the opposite direction, and the whole
airplane kind of oscillates for a few cycles until the motion damps out.
My only RV flight was too short to notice whether this is actually what
is happening or not. I do know that a lot of aircraft exhibit Dutch Roll,
at least in the test flight stage, and there must have been some standard
fixes developed over the years. Perhaps adding some more V.S. area in the
form of a dorsal fin? (a la the RV-6F) I'm curious as to how much fine
tuning Van did with each of his RV models. I always had the impression,
perhaps incorrectly, that the prototypes flew so well that no major mods
were ever considered. I also fear that Van is afraid to introduce any
significant structural or aerodynamic modifications because this might
imply that earlier aircraft are "unsafe" in some way, which is of course,
untrue. It may also be the case that a bit of instability in cruise is
the price to be paid for the delightful "lack" of stability in aerobatic
flight! All airplanes are compromises, after all. I seem to recall that
the old Fokker Triplane, the most maneuverable plane of its day, was an
absolute bitch to fly cross country, lacking positive stability in ANY axis.
Curt Reimer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeremy <jbenedic(at)uofport.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging (now chatter) |
> I cannot belive what I am reading about tail wagging V-tail Beech's tail-wag
> RV's do not tail-wag. Period!
I now regret that I added anything in the first place. Let me (quickly)
clear up something: I related experience with flying in several different
RV's, with one, I felt "the airplane stabilizing itself after going
through rough air." I am sorry if this was intrepreted to contribute to
some bizzare notion that there is a problem.
> Randell is right, if you hit turbulence you well feel what is actually the
> airplane stabilizing itself after going through rough air.
This says it all.
> It just tickles me to see how many experts there are on RV's that don't even
> have one flying yet.
> Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS first flight July 14, 1989
:( - I'm not even building one, so I guess I'm in the wrong crowd. I
had just related a FACT that I had experienced. I have only had a couple
of hundred hours riding around in RV's - I didn't mean to pretend to be
declaring anything factual or "expertual".
Hopefully this is the end,
Jeremy Benedict - "I will [say] no more forever"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | more tail wagging (sigh) |
Curt Reimer said:
> My only RV flight was too short to notice whether this is actually what
> is happening or not. I do know that a lot of aircraft exhibit Dutch Roll,
> at least in the test flight stage, and there must have been some standard
> fixes developed over the years. Perhaps adding some more V.S. area in the
> form of a dorsal fin? (a la the RV-6F) I'm curious as to how much fine
> tuning Van did with each of his RV models.
I have about 15 hours in Van's RV-6T and 15 in the RV-6B, about half of
that from the left seat. I know, Jerry, that doesn't make me an expert,
but as far as I can tell they both respond pretty much the same in
turbulence as a regular RV-6. Both of these airplanes have a larger
vertical stab than the stock RV-6.
Randall Henderson
RV-6 (not anywhere NEAR flying yet, but I'm still full of "expert" opinions :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JerryFlyRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more tail wagging (sigh ZZZZ) |
>I have about 15 hours in Van's RV-6T and 15 in the RV-6B, about half
>of
>that from the left seat. I know, Jerry, that doesn't make me an
>expert,
Gee Randall
If I didn't think you knew what you were talking about do you think I would
have agreed with you?:-)
I was not throwing out flame bait I do chuckle when I see some of the
messages posted here only because I remember when I was in the same stages of
building and had some of the same concerns and questions I see here.
Most problems can be solved by using building practices outlined by Van and
then just doing what it takes to get the job done right.
Didn't mean to upset anyone I did say it "Tickles me" not that it P$%%ed me
off. Besides look how much everyone learned about RV's in turbulance.
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS first flight July 14, 1989
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Hyde <nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: tail wagging (technical this time) |
Earl wrote
> Okay where's Dave Hyde?
Right here! :)
I was just getting ready to reply that it sounds like everyone's describing
the dutch roll mode. No surprise, it's relatively lightly damped (I could
even start throwing numbers around, but I'll spare you). The trick here
is that it's not easily excited. Calm-day flying with smooth controls
doesn't really excite the mode that much, so you don't normally feel
it, but when you get a good thump or start horsing the airplane around
(uncoordinated) it does excite the mode, which takes a few swings
to damp out. If you really wanted to get rid of the 'wagging' you might
put a larger vertical stab tip on or find some way of energizing the
flow over the tail (vortex generators or turbulator strips). But...
why do you need to? It's no big deal and certainly not as bad as
other (IFR even) types out there.
Hmmm...sounds like a potential thesis topic. So what do I do with all this
spin junk I've generated? :)
Has anyone noticed how much the rudder moves during this 'wagging'? Others
have mentioned rudder and other control vibrations that could be affected
by trailing edge radius (but this wagging doesn't sound like that)
Dave Hyde
nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re[2]: more tail wagging (sigh ZZZZ) |
It may not piss 'you' off, but it comes real close when you guys with
little or no experience in RVs start talking about how Van could
'redesign to fix the landing gear and vertical stab'. Unbelievable.
I'm not trying to discourage discussion, that's what this forum is all
about. But, let's just try to quit blowing stuff out of proportion!
Like Jerry said, early on we all get some interesting 'ideas', shoot, I
used to think I wanted a car engine in my -6! Now, I can think of lots
of reasons why I would never want to. I'm just glad I could draw from
the experience of Jerry and others, they influenced my finished RV a
LOT.
As for you Jeremy, you were only relating your experiences, and you have
a darn sight more 'RV time' than lots of us (I only caught-up with you
in the last few months now that mine is flying). Don't be afraid to
relate 'experience' (it's the conjecture that 'tickles' us :-).
As I said earlier, I seemed to notice a SLIGHT 'wag' or 'sashay' only
'in some types of turbulence'. I think Earl explained why only in 'some
types'. It must be the type when one wing is displaced and the 'dutch
roll' effect takes place? That seems to be a reasonable explanation,
and I will try to relate it when I feel it.
Anyway, it IN NO WAY compares to the Vtail, THAT is significant and
uncomfortable, the RV only rarely does it and it is MINIMAL. So let's
quit trying to REDESIGN THAT ONE TOO. Sheesh.
The Duck, N790DW, 180HP RV-6, #20369
(Keep building, you'll be wagging your way thru the skies in no time :-)
>Didn't mean to upset anyone I did say it "Tickles me" not that it P$%%ed me
>off. Besides look how much everyone learned about RV's in turbulance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeffrey Hall <jhall(at)fortnet.org> |
It's possible that the non-wagging pilots were ex-(or current) v-tail
Bonanza pilots. With any experience at all in those aircraft, you
develop a "counter-dance" on the rudders to keep your passengers comfy in
the back of the bus. As soon as your pants-seat alerts you to a turb.
induced wag, the appropriate foot kicks in, literally. The wagging isn't
particularly apparent in the front seat, as you are pretty much sitting
on the spar, making it a swivel as opposed to a wag. God, is this
technical, or what!?!? Lastly, remember that RV aircraft, for the most
part, are built in different factories, by different personnel, in
different jigs, to different standards. I've ridden in three back seats
of -4's and next to Van in the -6t, and never noticed any wag, but it was
probably overwhelmed by the "RV-grin".
Jeff Hall
RV-4 gestating
FNL, Colo.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gil(at)rassp.hac.com (Gil Alexander) |
| Subject: | Re: Tail-wagging RV6 in turbulence (semi-technical) |
Jerry,
My original posting was not intended to start any "hangar rumor
problems", but the comments came from a person who has been flying in the
turbulence of the Mojave Desert for many decades, completed his RV6 at
least 4 years ago, and is an EAA Technical Councellor.
It is noteworthy that the RV6T that Van designed to be certified
has a much larger vertical tail surface. It was also at the Bakersfield
fly-in, and the tail looked "huge" compared to the other RV6As parked next
to it.
>I cannot belive what I am reading about tail wagging V-tail Beech's tail-wag
>RV's do not tail-wag. Period!
>
>Randell is right, if you hit turbulence you well feel what is actually the
>airplane stabilizing itself after going through rough air.
>
>If you are flying in calm no wind conditions a RV will fly as smooth and as
>straight as a arrow, any time you have a light aircraft with the wing loading
>of a RV it will feel the bumps more than a heavy airplane and tend to feel
>like tailwag (or whatever you want to call it)if it is because of air
>seperating over the rudder as someone mentioned tuffting showed don't you
>think it would do it all the time?
No .... The airflow would be more likely to seperate when the angle of
attack of the vertical fin is not at 0 degrees to the airflow. This would
occur with some random turbulent event, if the tail moves to the right,
then the seperation would be expected on the left side of the vertical.
Once the airflow has seperated, then the effective area of the vertical fin
and rudder would be much reduced, and the damping effect to restore the
centerline of the aircraft to 0 degrees to the airflow would be reduced
(hence a small amount of "tail-wagging" - less yaw stability). In smooth
air, this airflow would be at 0 degrees, and tufting would show no
seperation.
This performance in turbulent air is something the sailplane pilots have
been fighting with for years, and the addition of turbulator tapes on the
wings has created measured improvements at low speeds (turbulent air in
thermals), with sometimes an actual loss at higher speeds in smoother air.
For glider pilots, this is a good trade-off. The latest german sailplanes
are now admitting that performance drops off in real-life turbulent
conditions, and turbulator tape is now appearing on as-delivered aircraft
on both horizontal and vertical tail surfaces. The manufactures are
claiming this improves performance and stability in real life situations.
The sailplane designers would love to remove all of the tail surfaces to
reduce drag (see the new Genesis!), so turbulators on the tail surfaces
allow them to reduce tail areas and keep the same stabilty.
This is similar to the increased performance gained by the "micro-vortex
generator" kits sold for many aircraft.
>
>The motion that is felt in a RV is strictly a function of how much turbulence
>there is.
Turbulence would be a fairly random effect, "tail-wagging" is a yawing
oscillation during recovery from a deflection due to turbulence.
{ glider pilot humor follows ---
Turbulence can also be defined as flying your unballasted sailplane into a
1500+ ft/min thermal over the White Mountains (just E. of the Sierras) at 3
pm on a summer afternoon. :^) Try getting an RV to climb at over 1000
ft/min at 17,000 ft. altitude. :^)
}
>
>It just tickles me to see how many experts there are on RV's that don't even
>have one flying yet.
The experiments were done on a flying RV by a seasoned pilot. He claims
the turbulator tape has a beneficial effect.
>
>Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS first flight July 14, 1989
Does your RV have any paint trim dividing lines on the forward 25% of the
vertical stabilizer?? The zig-zag turbulator tape is only 0.020 thick or
so, a paint dividing line could have a similar effect.
The particular test RV6 had a very smooth urethane paint job with no paint
trim on the tail surfaces.
Again ... I didn't intend to start any "flame wars" or rumors that RVs are
unstable. RVs are not going to be falling out of the sky due to some tail
design problem! I was just reporting an effect, and cure, that a
A&P/pilot/owner/builder of an RV6 told me. His fix was not done on some
random basis, but after testing he did.
..... Gil Alexander .... wish I could perform some actual tests of my own!!
... but a turbulence expert in sailplanes!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bataller(at)tif623.ed.ray.com (Gary Bataller) |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Travel |
>
>
> I'm just fitting my first aileron. I couldn't get the required 32 degrees
> of up travel due to the bottom mounting bolt of the outboard aileron
> hinge (the steel piece) hitting the outboard aileron mount. I'm pretty
> sure everything is mounted per the plans, as even the plans show a
> potential interference problem at this point. The only solution is to
> grind down either the bolt head or the aileron mounting bracket. I
> decided to grind the bracket. But, with grinding the edges of the
> brackets smooth, plus grinding for clearance, the dimensions of my
> bracket are definitely smaller than called for in the plans, probably
> by 1/8" or so. Has anyone else encountered this problem?
>
> At this point I'm considering biting the bullet and seeing if I can order
> new bracket pieces from Van's, undrilled and unassembled, so that I can
> do them right this time. Of course, if the bracket is designed oversized
> to allow for grinding to fit, etc, then I'll just use the ones I have.
>
> I will call Van's about this, just wondering what other people have done.
>
> Curt Reimer
>
I had the exact same problem on my RV6A and did exactly what you did (grind
down (file) the bracket as needed. The grinding is cosmetic, and will not
be seen anyway. Since it is not a structual issue (if we are taking about
the same spot on the bracket), I wouldn't worry about it.
Gary Bataller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
Rver's
Probably should have made note of this sooner but this Saturday, June 10 is
RVation Day at the Boone, Iowa Airport. This event is hosted by Buzz and DJ
Lauritsen (of Cleaveland Tools and DJ Interior's fame). Last year there were a
couple hundred people and over 25 RVs in attendance which is pretty good for the
middle of Iowa corn country!
A pig roast is held around noon and there are static displays and lot's of good
RV fun. Let's hope for some good weather!!
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
Don:
Been gone for a few days and now can address the landing light "problem." Let
me try a few things today and see if I need to delve into it deeper. But I do
have a quick question.... How can I tell if I have the "section-bent" or
"rolled" skins? My wing kit was delivered in Jan of 1984 if that will help.
Doug
DW> or it wouldn't contact the seal. Want to try another lense? Do you
DW> have the old 'section-bent' skins, or the new 'rolled' ones?
DW>
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob_Seibert-R18643(at)email.sps.mot.com |
| Subject: | Turbulence & RV's |
Turbulence & RV's
As long as we have a string on RV behavior in turbulence, I gotta
say that the tail wag is nothing to worry about.
The real problem is wing loading and the resultant + and - G's.
There is something you can do to make your RV a more forgiving bird
in turbulence while you are building it though. 1.) Make sure you have
2 or 3 inches of clearance beteween noggin and canopy. 2.) Put in a 5
point harness system.
The clearance is needed even if you lose a little over the nose
visibility on the ground.Its a tradeoff and you might want a
thick cushion for smooth days.
The crotch strap on the 5 point system allows you to keep the belt
on your pelvis even when your shoulder harness is pulling it up.
I always thought the extra strap was to prevent submarining, I was wrong.
One of our local RV-6's was recently converted to a 5 point system and
the owners love the setup. I'm trying to figure out an easy and cheap
way to retrofit one to my present belts now.
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
450 hours and several headset dents in my head
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jeayers(at)CCGATE.HAC.COM |
| Subject: | Tail Wag - Long Nose RV-3 |
> Okay where's Dave Hyde?
I have added a foot to the length of the nose on my RV-3 (In-line
air-cooled 4 cylinder engine). In order to help compensate for the additional
side area on the front of the aircraft, I have installed my COM antenna where it
always should have been; under a 10" high vertical stabilizer fairing (a la
P-51H).
I haven't flown my aircraft yet with this combination (engine cowling
due to arrive 95/6/16). Do you have any suggestions on what the net (tail
wagging/dutch roll) effect might be for these changes??
I have flown my RV-3 for 6 years with a Lycoming O-290-G. Great
performance. :-) Great fun. :-) :-)
I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to install a new smaller (242
Cu. In.) certified (in Europe, not here) aircraft engine to see if my RV-3 would
go faster (No cheek cowls). ;-) And further (Fuel injected).
Jim Ayers
LOM/RV-3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jeayers(at)CCGATE.HAC.COM |
| Subject: | Re[2]: tail wagging (question) |
> Okay where's Dave Hyde?
I have added a foot to the length of the nose on my RV-3 (In-line
air-cooled 4 cylinder engine). In order to help compensate for the additional
side area on the front of the aircraft, I have installed my COM antenna where it
always should have been; in a 10" tall vertical stabilizer fairing (a la P-51H).
I haven't flown my aircraft yet with this combination (engine cowling
due to arrive next week). Do you have any suggestions on what the net (tail
wagging/dutch roll) effect might be for these changes??
I have flown my RV-3 for 6 years with a Lycoming O-290-G. Great
performance. :-) Great fun. :-) :-)
I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to install a new smaller (242
Cu. In.) certified (in Europe, not here) aircraft engine to see if my RV-3 would
go faster (No cheek cowls). ;-) And further (Fuel injected).
Jim Ayers
LOM/RV-3
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jawngault(at)aol.com |
Please terminate my subscription to this news letter. Thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
by ono.lincoln.ac.nz (PMDF V4.3-13 #7492)
| From: | Stephen Bell <steve(at)discus.lincoln.ac.nz> |
| Subject: | random chatter; RV6 wave runner. (re: glider pilot humor) |
Tail-waggling aside.
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Gil Alexander wrote:
> { glider pilot humor follows ---
>
> Turbulence can also be defined as flying your unballasted sailplane into a
> 1500+ ft/min thermal over the White Mountains (just E. of the Sierras) at 3
> pm on a summer afternoon. :^)
what? only 1500'/min .. boy you guys have some fickle conditions.A
I bet cloud base is only 15 000 ft as well. :)
> Try getting an RV to climb at over 1000 ft/min at 17,000 ft. altitude. :^)
>
> }
Yup, not a problem, with the Ben Ohau wave pumping or the "magic spot"
in the lee of the Torless it should be easy enough.
And OK the low speed L/D is a little rugged but hey with a best L/D of what?
12:1 at 100mph this could be a real weapon at the high speed end! :).
ASW20 drivers's look out the latest weapon in wave soaring the RV6 is
out!!!.
Now where did I put those spare A8A O2 regulators?.
Anyone know what -30 deg C and 500mb pressure does to a lycoming?
[ actually I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's operated an RV over
10 000 ft, as I plan on using the wave between 10-15 000ft when travelling
x-country in our NZ nor'west wind conditions to avoid the rotor
turbulence (strongest from 3-8000').. typical wave conditions would
boost the climb rate by 1000-3000 ft/min in the best parts. ]
Steve.
P.S. Hmmn, Using the wave I might just be able to extend the endurance &
range of the RV6 to match the NIMBUS! :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHRRRR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | unsubscribe rv-list |
unsubscribe rv-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Hyde <nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu> |
| Subject: | tail wagging cheap shot (chatter) |
Someone wrote:
> >
> >It just tickles me to see how many experts there are on RV's that don't even
> >have one flying yet.
>
And it tickles me how many 'closet aerospace engineers' are out there with
flying RV's.
Yes, this is a cheap shot. I couldn't help myself. Take it in the humor it
was intended, and flame me directly (unless it's a really good one, then
share it :)
Dave Hyde
nauga(at)windvane.umd.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turbulence & RV's |
Bob, I too have a few 'dents' in my head, but I use cushions that keep me as
high as possible in the cockpit so I can almost see during ground ops.
This 5th point for the harness sounds Very interesting. Any details you can
sure would be great. The std lap belt could use a little help to 'hold you
down', without having it so tight it's uncomfortable.
Is the 5th point an addition to the std belts, or a whole new system?
thanks,
The Duck, N790DW, 180HP RV-6, #20369
Turbulence & RV's
As long as we have a string on RV behavior in turbulence, I gotta
say that the tail wag is nothing to worry about.
The real problem is wing loading and the resultant + and - G's.
There is something you can do to make your RV a more forgiving bird
in turbulence while you are building it though. 1.) Make sure you have
2 or 3 inches of clearance beteween noggin and canopy. 2.) Put in a 5
point harness system.
The clearance is needed even if you lose a little over the nose
visibility on the ground.Its a tradeoff and you might want a
thick cushion for smooth days.
The crotch strap on the 5 point system allows you to keep the belt
on your pelvis even when your shoulder harness is pulling it up.
I always thought the extra strap was to prevent submarining, I was wrong.
One of our local RV-6's was recently converted to a 5 point system and
the owners love the setup. I'm trying to figure out an easy and cheap
way to retrofit one to my present belts now.
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
450 hours and several headset dents in my head
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Wentz <Don_Wentz(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail Wag - Long Nose RV-3 |
Hope you can make homecoming in September, that would be a unique RV-3 to check
out!
The Duck, N790DW, 180HP RV-6, #20369
> Okay where's Dave Hyde?
I have added a foot to the length of the nose on my RV-3 (In-line
air-cooled 4 cylinder engine). In order to help compensate for the additional
side area on the front of the aircraft, I have installed my COM antenna
where it
always should have been; under a 10" high vertical stabilizer fairing (a la
P-51H).
I haven't flown my aircraft yet with this combination (engine cowling
due to arrive 95/6/16). Do you have any suggestions on what the net (tail
wagging/dutch roll) effect might be for these changes??
I have flown my RV-3 for 6 years with a Lycoming O-290-G. Great
performance. :-) Great fun. :-) :-)
I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to install a new smaller (242
Cu. In.) certified (in Europe, not here) aircraft engine to see if
my RV-3 would
go faster (No cheek cowls). ;-) And further (Fuel injected).
Jim Ayers
LOM/RV-3
________________________________________________________________________________
May of 94 I installedan MX-11 transceiver that I had purchased from Van's
aircraft, new. The radio did not work and was returned to the TKM factory.
After repair, the unit functioned normally until February, 1995. After much
troubleshooting, the unit was returned to to the TKM factory, still under
warranty, May 12yh, 1995. After one week I called the factory and the said
"we are working on it." After two weeks I again called the factory and they
told me if I wanted immediate service on the unit, I should send them a
payment of $50.00! I faxed a letter to Van's Aircraft advising them of the
problem and they immediately called the TKM factory and told them what they
thought of thier warranty program. June 1, 1995 I received unit from TKM. Be
advised!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Weiler <Doug.Weiler(at)swamp.mn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light |
Don:
Yes!! My DW landing lights are finished!! Well, Don, all it took was an
afternoon of head scratching but I finally found the combination. The first
problem was that I really had not trimmed the lens cover enough. That's why I
couldn't get them through the cut-out. Fixed that problem finally. The final
fit of the lens worked out OK also. One side had a final gap of about 1/16"
which was filled just fine with the "weatherstripping" you include in the kit.
Yes, I did get the wing kit in 1994 (fat fingers on the keyboard). It looks as
though my skins were rolled, so I would imagine that would result in a better
fit.
So now that it is done, Don, I'll recommend your light kit to anyone. I like
the looks of them... not so large that they impose on the good looks of the RV.
Guess what's next??? ...... Fuel tanks!!!!!!..... a summer of Proseal being
flung around the shop!
Thanks again to all..
Doug
... Doug Weiler, Pres, MN Wing, Hudson, WI, doug.weiler(at)swamp.mn.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walsh(at)ranger.enet.dec.com |
Another newbie checking in:
John Walsh
Atkinson, N.H.
RV4 #3564
I saw the address of this list in the RVator and thought I'd check it out.
I've been here for a few weeks but have been laying low while I went through
the archive file ( boy is that a lot of stuff!!! ).
I am hoping to build a VERY light and very simple RV4. I want an airplane
for personal use that I can fly for the next 40 years without having to sell
my house to pay for annuals<1/2g>. I need lights to fly at night and I want
minimal IFR capability (punch through a layer etc.). Anything else is a
waste of useful load. Like everyone else, I am struggling with the usual
decisions; where to get an engine,what prop to use,how to find more time to
May 09, 1995 - June 09, 1995
RV-Archive.digest.vol-al