RV-Archive.digest.vol-cx
May 26, 1997 - June 01, 1997
>
> Bob . . .
> AeroElectric Connection
> ////
> (o o)
> ==========oOOo=(_)=oOOo==========
> | |
> | Go ahead, make my day . . . |
> | Show me where I'm wrong. |
> =================================
> 72770.552(at)compuserve.com
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
>I'm confused. How do you jump out of a RV? My RV6-A can't release the
>canopy because of the lift struts. And if it did release, it would probably
>decapitate me anyway. What is the reason for paying good money for something
>that is uncomfortable and cannot be used? I guess I missed a point
>somewhere.
If I'm not mistaken, any aircraft that you intend to do acro with is
supposed to have an inflight escape route (like the door releases on the
Cessna 150 Aerobat or the little red handle on the instrument panel of the
RV-6 that releases the canopy) and the crew is supposed to be wearing
parachutes that are rated for the speed of the aircraft. If you don't
build this into your airplane (and no one says you have to) you probably
won't get a cert for acro when it is given its final blessing. As far as
the lift struts go, I'm surprised no one has devised a way for them to let
go in the event of a canopy release. The canopy should come off up and away
clean. Maybe ding the tail if it's still there. Remember you're getting
out because the airplane is too broken to land.
Mike McGee
jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Hitchings" <briandh(at)lantic.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Artificial Horizons |
Hi there
A few days ago I posted a question about surplus military 28 volt electric
A.H's for approx $200 (excl posting and local taxes). Bob N. replied that
I should check out whether it is not an AC (as opposed to DC) instrument:
as usual he is right. They are AC. I'm investigating appropriate power
supplies, and have received a couple of replies from the list in this
regard.
I have asked the supplier to give me a couple of photo's and details of the
A.H's for me to post to this list.
I'm due to see a military avionics engineer this coming weekend.
Hang in there for a couple of days, and I will post all the info as soon as
I have it to hand.
Kind regards
Brian Hitchings
South Africa
RV6A : Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <tvelvick(at)caljet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
Greg,
I just finished the HS also and am in agreement with you. The pneumatic
squeezer with the longeron yoke looks like the way to go. Of course the
$650 would almost pay for a set of preassembled wing spars. Just wait
until you try to set the 3/16 rivets. You'll need the Popeye forarms.
Cheers
Tom Velvick
tvelvick(at)caljet.com
riveting the HS&VS skins
>I just finished the rear spar of my HS. Before my forearms look like
>Popeye's, does anyone know of a used or decent lower priced air-powered
>rivet squeezer and yokes? ($450+ is a bit steep right now.)
>
>Greg (Is this list great or what?)
>
>gregbrew(at)gte.net
>RV-6A
>Building up the skelton on the HS
>(Say...this isn't so bad...)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
Hi Bill,
I have a question for you about the canopy latch. On the front nylon block,
it isn't clear exactly how the nylon block is suppose to negotiate the piece
of angle that is used to attach the instrument to the top longeron with a bolt.
This angle is not shown in the canopy drawings anywhere. Notching the nylon
to fit over the top of the angle seemed like a weird idea and I never gave it
another thought. I proceeded to make the nylon piece just fit down on
top of the top angle, and placed the screws at the top of the roll pin
hole and to the right of it. Here's a lame drawing that should be viewed
using a fixed width font like Courier:
| (Front of inst panl looking toward engine)
|
|
|
|
|
|+---------------------+
|| |
|| | |
|| -+- <-------+ |
|| | \ |
|| | \ |
|| __ -+- <-+------- Bolts to hold nylon to Inst Panl.
|| / \ | |
|| \__/ <------------------------- Roll Pin Hole
|| |
|+---------------------+
|+--------------------------+
|| |
|| +----+ | <------- Angle Alum.
|| +----+ |
|+- - ||- - - - - - - - - - +
|+----||-----------------+--+
|| +----+ |
|| +----+ <--+ | <------- Cockpit rail
|| \ |___________________________Bottom of inst pnl___
| \
| \
| +--------- Bolt and Nut
After I finished this installation, I got to thinking that *if* the nylon was
suppose to fit over the top of the angle via a notch or some other
arrangement, then the bottom screw holding the nylon in place would actually
be going through the angle, thus renforncing the attachment of the nylon
better. Do I worry too much?
Thanks Bill!
Matt
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Bouncing Email Handling... [Please Read Completely] |
Hello everyone,
There was about 2.3Mb worth of bounced email to the RV and Zenith email lists
today. All of the messages that are sent to the Lists are sent from Matronics
with a special header set to the following: "Errors-To: bounces(at)matronics.com".
This header instructs most mailers to return mail with 'problems' to the
listed email account. 'Problems' generally include things like the user
doesn't exist anymore, their mail box is full, the machine isn't accepting
email for some reason, or the machine just doesn't exist.
To deal with all the mail that get's retured to the 'bounces' account at
Matronics, some time ago I wrote a program that goes through the bounced
email account looking for key strings like "joe.user(at)internet.com is an
unknown user" and prints a report. I periodically run this program on the
bounces email account and based on the report data, go through the rv-list
and zenith-list address files and, well, clean house. The bounces account
is automatically purged each day at midnight and I try to run the report
program every week or so just before the current day's bounce email is
cleared. The purpose of all this is to keep the Lists running smoothly
and more importantly to keep the amount of bounced email to a minimum.
The amount of mail to the bounce email account had been running in the
500k-1Mb range each day for about a year or so. The amount would go up
and down based on how often I got around to running the report and cleaning
up the Lists and to a lesser degree how much traffic there had been on the
Lists.
Tonight I noticed that there was 2.3MBs of bounced email in just one day!
I ran the program and found that there were about 15 email addresses that
had gone bad for one reason or another.
To minimize the impact to the List members, I had generally limited the
flagging of bad addresses to obvious problems like "no such user", but
had *not* flagged things like "connection refused" and "host unknown" since
many times these types of problems go away in a few days.
With the high growth of the RV List in the last year or so, and the incredable
amount of bounced mail each day, I have decided to increase the 'sensitivity',
if you will, of the report generator.
The reason I tell everyone these boring details is so that if your List mail
stops arriving for some reason, and I havn't posted a message indicating that
my ISP is causing problems again, that you will check your email account and
the status of your subscription to the List. Both the RV-List and the
Zenith-List FAQ detail how you can check to see if you are currently
subscribed to the list.
If you find that you have been removed from the List, assume that your email
address was causing problems for some reason. Verify that your email is
working okay again, and then go ahead and resubscribe. Please *do not*
consider yourself "spanked" if you find that you have been removed. It is
just a way of keeping the Lists running smoothly and its definately nothing
personal.
I try to get to the subscribe requests at least once a day, but only run the
report program about every week or two. I want to stress that this is
really no major change to the List operation, but more a reminder of
what goes on behind the scenes and why your List mail might have stopped.
Great discussions of late! Keep up the good work, one day it will fly -
that's what I keep telling myself...
Matt Dralle
RV and Zenith List Admin.
RV-4 Builder
Matronics
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
I will be visiting Hawaii on business and will have Friday the 30th and
Saturday 1st free.
1.Can anyone tell me if there is a WalMart store likely to stock the
Magellan GPS in Hawaii? If not are the Sears prices compedative?
2.Any recommendations for an organisation who might do local flying
trips at reasonable prices. My colleague and I are pilots and looking
for an opportunity to do some sightseeing by air.
Please contact me off list. ( gray.doug@tms-pty.com)
Doug Gray,
Sydney, Australia, the RV6 kit is in transit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Doug Stenger's phone number? |
Doug Stenger in Oregon was recently mentioned as being available to build RV
parts. I am looking for his phone number, as I would like him to do an RV-4
wing and fuselage for me. Thanks. MAlexan533
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David J. Fitzgerald" <theredbaron(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
Greg,
I was in favor of getting a bucking bar and going at it. It didnt take
very long and it was MUCH easier than squeezing. I use the squeezer
only when necessary (read that as mandatory - I dont really like the
squeezer). A pneumatic squeezer would be great - but it is very costly.
Is there a reason for not bucking these with a rivet gun??
--
-----------------------------------
David Fitzgerald
RV-8 Serial #80333
theredbaron(at)earthlink.net
-----------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4Brown(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Junk email: Free Aircraft Tool Catalog |
AOL has a filter that allows mail to be forwarded from only the addresses
that you list. In addition they have a spam address to dorward all junk mail
to. If they determine it should be banned as a nusiance, they block it from
everyones AOL address. AOL also has a check off block for requesting that
junk mail that has been blocked will not be forwarded to you.
All that being said, I still get 10 to 15 pieces of crap a week
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
39,41-42,44-47
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
Listers:
So WHERE in the regs does it say a repairmans certificate is needed?
We
all should know that this is indeed the PRACTICED and FAA SUPPORTED
position, but where does is say so in the regs? Also, where does it say
that
an A&P or IA can sign off work done on an experimental?
My understanding is that neither conditions exist in the FAR's, but
only
in an FAA letter of agreement (or something of the nature).
Maybe someone should ask the FAA for an explaination.
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
writes:
>
>As a student A&P I have just gone through this same question. The
builder of
>an Experimental aircraft may perform all maintenance and repairs on
his/her
>aircraft provided he/she holds a repairman license for that aircraft.
When I
>completed my Kitfox applying for the Experimental Aircraft Repairman
>Certificate was part of the paperwork package sent out by the FAA. My
FAA
>inspector was very helpful in providing direction to get this necessary
piece
>of paper. An A&P can also perform work on your Experimental, but why ---
You
>built it so you can fix it, I hope. However, if you purchase an
Experimental
>used (as in already built) you may not perform anything other than the
>preventive main. listed in Part 43. You must get an A&P, I.A. to perform
the
>Annual Condition Inspection and other repairs etc. One option available
when
>purchasing a second hand homebuilt would be for you to get the
>builder to do this work for you (free by the way) . He can legally do
this
>for you as long as he does not surrender his Repairman Cert. for that
>aircraft. Hope this helps . Kitfox N390SH, RV-4 no. 2280.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin thickness question... |
m
>
>I recently visited an RV-4 owner who had a suggestion about the elevator skin
>thickness. Apparently, the 0.016" skin is known to form cracks at the
>trailing edge about 2/3 of the way out. His suggestion was to use 0.020"
>skins for the elevator instead.
>
You will probably get a number of answers on this, but just in case I'll
toss in too.
I have talked to one fellow who did this to a RV-4 and had no problems after
400 + hrs. Most that I know of are putting RTV under the tips of the
interior angles as they rivet the surfaces together. I have seen or heard
of any cracking problems with this method.
Have A Stupendous Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
>
> So, just call your Freindly Aviation Ass'n and request a number.
>It's easier than you think.
>
> Carroll Bird, Buffalo Gap, TX
That's better then the lottery...going to try it to day! I need a
transponder, so I'll hold out for $1500. :^)
Have A Stupendous Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald) |
A number of years ago I sold a secondary oil filtering device.
The only thing this filter would leave behind was the dark color of the
oil made by ashless detergents. When I would use non-detergent oils, the
oil would always be dirt free and golden in color.
During those years one of the " car manufacturers " claims were that
" oil breaks down " . The filter manufacturer countered that " oil
doesn't break down ". Now it appears that I am hearing some expertise on
the list, so maybe I can finally get a good answer. Can someone out there
tell me, Does oil break down? And if it does, What does that mean?
Larry Mac Donald lm4(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
I took used the suggestion that were so kindly posted and low and behold,
the FAA person said there was no reason I didn't get my 1st reguest as all
my number were available. No one knew there knew why I was assigned a
number, but I will be getting it as soon as they redue the paper work.....
Thanks to all!
Have A Stupendous Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | teetime(at)konza.flinthills.com |
It's that time of year and the local wildlife are alive and well.
Recently, I found a 1 1/2 foot snake skin in my shop but didn't think much
of it. A couple of days later I found a 5 foot snake skin right by my
radio! That got my attention. In Kansas here we get some pretty big
Copperhead snakes.
My recent situation is that the snakes are out of hibernation and
the wasps and spiders are starting to build their nests.
I have two wings done and the empennage. Guess where they want to
build their nests? That's right! Inside the newly constructed pieces.
It prompted me to tape up all of the openings so there are no
unauthorized passengers in the future.
My advice to any builders that are like me and live in areas with a
lot of wildlife; be careful when you move pieces around that cover up
attractive areas for them to live. I spend 10 to 20 hours a week in my shop
so they are definately not afraid of me being there.
Does this deter me in any way? NO WAY! I want my RV4! (I am
retired Army, so this might account for my absense for common sense in these
areas)
Good Luck!
Tim Sweemer
RV4 started fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Doug Stenger's phone number? |
<< Doug Stenger in Oregon was recently mentioned as being available to build
RV
parts. I am looking for his phone number, as I would like him to do an RV-4
wing and fuselage for me. Thanks. MAlexan533 >>
Check the Yeller Pages at http://www.sound.net/~hartmann/yelrpage.htm
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | johntate(at)essex1.com (John Tate) |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
David J. Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>
> Greg,
>
> I was in favor of getting a bucking bar and going at it. It didnt take
> very long and it was MUCH easier than squeezing. I use the squeezer
> only when necessary (read that as mandatory - I dont really like the
> squeezer). A pneumatic squeezer would be great - but it is very costly.
> Is there a reason for not bucking these with a rivet gun??
> --
> -----------------------------------
> David Fitzgerald
> RV-8 Serial #80333
> theredbaron(at)earthlink.net
> -----------------------------------
Dave.
I also did my spar with a rivet gun. A local 6 builder said that was the
best way.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
/Two questions occur to me. =
/I have heard that length of coax is critical =
/to performance but when I mention this to techs they scoff =
/and brush me off with the comment that this is old data
/and no longer applies?! =
> Actually, it NEVER applied . . . at least not for any =
> good reason. .
//Beg to differ.. it doesn't make a difference only if the =
//source and termination are the same impedance as the cable, =
//i.e., a flat line. If there are voltage standing waves =
//(VSWR) on the line, then the length of the cable matters.
But matters to what and why? There's no way that a 1/4 spike
sticking out of the top of an airplane is going to present a
50-ohm, non-reactive load to a piece of coax over the full
range of communications frequencies. In fact, it will never
present such an idealized load at ANY frequency in that range.
So . . . how would you proposed the coax length be "adjusted"?
//If the line is not flat, the impedance or more correctly the =
//reactance varies from point to point along the cable. Assuming =
//the transmitter, coax, and the antenna and its installation =
//all show an impedance of the same value, the length of the =
//cable is not critical, it will only cause an attenuation with =
//distance; however if the impedances are not matched all bets are =
//off and the length of the line will make a VERY BIG difference.
Everything you say is true from an idealized, textbook analysis
of an antenna/feed-line system. However, in the real world
of working with airplanes and their radios, the words "critical"
and "difference" need definitions. When we advise people that
something has significance, we should be prepared to follow up
with a practical means for achieving the optimal result.
In fact, as the power handling capabilities of RF amplifier
transistors for trasmitters grew, their ability to tolerate
some conditions of mis-match between antenna and coax was lagging
behind. For a brief period in the development of these radios,
there was a flurry of activity to tailor coax feedline lengths
to minimize stresses on the comm transmitters that tended to blow
their brains out under some antenna loading conditions.
Thankfully, those days are long gone and I'm aware of no manufacturer=
of a VHF comm transmitter that recommends feed line length optomizati=
on
for use of their product. To do so would announce to the world that =
they've not done their homework in selection of parts or in the desig=
n
of their product.
Regards,
Bob . . . =
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DoOOo=3D(_)=3DoOOo=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
| |
| Go ahead, make my day . . . |
| Show me where I'm wrong. |
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
72770.552(at)compuserve.com
http://www.aeroelectric.com=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Fuses/Breakers in flight? |
Kitfox List
/I am using fuse blocks, so it can be turned off by =
/pulling the correct fuse in the Vital power panel.
Arrrgghhhh! you're going to fiddle with fuses
in flight!!!!! . . . . I gotta go get a asprin!
>True,not necessary but I don't think it will give you or =
>anyone else a headache.With 3000 plus hours I have changed a =
>few fuses and reset as many circuit breakers.Sometimes you =
>just can't wait until you get the bird on the ground.
Agreed . . . in most certified airplanes, the electrical
system is so cumbersome and ill-designed that the pilot
has no choice but to deal with inflight electrical systems
issues. We're talking about amateur built airplanes now.
We can eliminate all of the little deamons that have plagued
the carved-in-stone-certified ships for about 40 years.
I'll suggest that the optimally configured flight system will
NEVER present a situation to a pilot requiring any sort of
fiddling with breakers and fuses in flight. Our system confguration
recommendations have evolved over ten years of one-on-one
communications with hundreds of builders. Rather than seek
out holy-grail of design philosophy with a goal of
certification, we've constantly tweaked, evaluated, and analysed
the failure modes to the extent that inflight fiddling is
eliminated . . . as far as we know right now . . . if some new
problem shows up; wonder of wonders, we'll FIX it! At Cessna,
Beech, Piper and Mooney, a committee of 20 will debate the
issue for weeks and trade off perceived value, governmental
edicts and market forces before deciding to assign another
committee to study the problem some more. I know it sounds
ridiculous but belive me, that's the way it works in aviation's
jurassic parks. I've attended several such meetings myself
in the past two weeks. It's sure refreshing to come home and
be able to slay the dragons as they hatch out instead of waiting
for them to grow up before joining the battle.
Regards,
Bob . . . =
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DoOOo=3D(_)=3DoOOo=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
| |
| Go ahead, make my day . . . |
| Show me where I'm wrong. |
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
72770.552(at)compuserve.com
http://www.aeroelectric.com=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Source of airtool part numbers and parts |
I recently was given several air tools by Lynn Woofter of prop extention
fame. I've managed to get them all working but they need some TLC. I've
emailed Chicago Pneumatic requesting exploded views of the tools with
part numbers so that I could order the needed parts from my local
distributer. 5 days and no reply yet.
Does anyone on the list know where I could get the above info for the
following tools.
Chicago Pneumatic Rivet squeezer Model 214 Serial # H274560
" " Right angle air drill Model unknown
Cleco 1/4" air drill Model 11 DP 27 Serial # 23216
I would also appreciate any info on where I might buy these parts by
mail.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <DougR(at)netins.net> |
charset="iso-8859-1"
----
From: Larry Mac Donald <juno.com!lm4(at)matronics.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 9:57 AM
Subject: RV-List: Oil
. Can someone out there
>tell me, Does oil break down?
Like everything else the answer is yes and no so, so the answer is yes, the
"but" part is not in 25 or 50 hours that we use it in an airplane.
> And if it does, What does that mean?
>
>Larry Mac Donald lm4(at)juno.com
What we mean by breakdown is chemical change in the composition of the oil,
most notably, oxidation. This occurs when an oxygen atom attaches to the
oil molecule. In oil we want saturated molecules unlike in our food.
Saturated means that a higher % of the available bonding sites are filled
with hydrogen. Synthetics are VERY highly saturated and therefore, and for
other reasons are more resisitant to oxidation. However oxidation is not
the problem in aircraft oil because it is built in very heavy basestock
(15w-50 excepted) and so it is thermally stable at the temps we see in
healthy aircraft engines for far longer than 50 hours which is the normal
drain interval. Shell uses PAO's (see previous post) for the light
componet in 15w-50 so it too is very thermally stable. Our 50 hour drain
interval is a function of combustion by-products in the crankcase, some are
particulate (filtered out) and some are chemical (not currently additive
stabilized). Until we use bettter additive chemistry ( it is available),
there is little or no benefit to the increased thermal stability of
synthetics (15w-50 excepted).
imho
looking for an rv-4
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)netins.net
http://www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Mortimore <terry.mortimore(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Help from California RV'ers |
Hi guys, this is a real shot in the dark but I thought I'd try.
I have e-mailed with a fellow who purchased a military surplus "Fuel/Air
Heat exchanger" made by Air Research that measures 10" x 7" x 6" deep.
I'm thinking that this unit would make a good radiator for my project.
Unfortunately he has been unable to supply the address or phone number
for the surplus store (long story). All I know is that it is in
California.
Is there anybody in California that would know of a surplus store that
would carry such a unit. If not, could I get a phone number of any
surplus store that I could start a calling search with.
Thanks for any help,
terry
Terry Mortimore 2.7L Subaru RV-6A
38 Cartier St.
Sault Ste Marie terry.mortimore(at)sympatico.ca
Ontario Canada
P6B-3K2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johansen |
Les, You can reach Jon at *sportair(at)attmail.com (Jon Johanson)* Bill
>Would any person on the list be able to help me with Jon's Johanson's email
>adress? Thanks in advance.
>
>lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au
>Les Rowles
>Po Box 1895
>Traralgon
>Australia 3844
>
>
>
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Mortimore <terry.mortimore(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Help from California RV'ers |
Hi guys, this is a real shot in the dark but I thought I'd try.
I have e-mailed with a fellow who purchased a military surplus "Fuel/Air
Heat exchanger" made by Air Research that measures 10" x 7" x 6" deep.
I'm thinking that this unit would make a good radiator for my project.
Unfortunately he has been unable to supply the address or phone number
for the surplus store (long story), all I know is that it is in
California.
Is there anybody in California that would know of a surplus store that
would carry such a unit. If not, could I get a phone number of any
surplus store that I could start a calling search with.
Thanks for any help, terry
Terry Mortimore 2.7L Subaru RV-6A
38 Cartier St.
Sault Ste Marie terry.mortimore(at)sympatico.ca
Ontario Canada
P6B-3K2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ammeter <ammeterj(at)seanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Yikes! CHATTER |
In some ways I hesitate to mention this but we don't got these problems on
the Wet Side (as we Washingtonians fondly refer to the western side of the
Cascade Mountains).
Granted, I may see an occasional small spider making a web in my shop or
have to chase a wasp. Snakes?? I haven't seen one in Seattle for at least
20 years. We do have them in the country but, even there, they are
respectable snakes and don't invade the people domain.
Now, I have a cousin living just west of San Antonio, TX. I visited her
about two months ago and plan to drive down there in about two weeks. They
have SNAKES and FIRE ANTS. I was baptized by a fire ant on my last trip
there. I hope to avoid that this time. As far as snakes go, if I was to
find ANY snake skin in my shop you can count on the fact that I would not be
going in there until I was certain that no snake, alive or dead, was any in
the vicinity.
You note that you are retired Army; maybe that is a criteria for being able
to live in these areas. My cousin is retiring from the Air Force on June
13, rank of bird Colonel. Not bad for a woman with only 22 years service; I
tell her it is because she follows my advice, NOT!!
John
>
> It's that time of year and the local wildlife are alive and well.
>Recently, I found a 1 1/2 foot snake skin in my shop but didn't think much
>of it. A couple of days later I found a 5 foot snake skin right by my
>radio! That got my attention. In Kansas here we get some pretty big
>Copperhead snakes.
> My recent situation is that the snakes are out of hibernation and
>the wasps and spiders are starting to build their nests.
> I have two wings done and the empennage. Guess where they want to
>build their nests? That's right! Inside the newly constructed pieces.
> It prompted me to tape up all of the openings so there are no
>unauthorized passengers in the future.
> My advice to any builders that are like me and live in areas with a
>lot of wildlife; be careful when you move pieces around that cover up
>attractive areas for them to live. I spend 10 to 20 hours a week in my shop
>so they are definately not afraid of me being there.
> Does this deter me in any way? NO WAY! I want my RV4! (I am
>retired Army, so this might account for my absense for common sense in these
>areas)
>
>Good Luck!
>
>Tim Sweemer
>
>RV4 started fuselage
>
>
>
John Ammeter
ammeterj(at)seanet.com
3233 NE 95th St
Seattle WA, 98115 USA
206-525-5445
RV-6 N16JA
First flight August 1990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Acker <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
>...and the crew is supposed to be wearing
>parachutes that are rated for the speed of the aircraft.
The archives toss this around at length, but I thought I would check for
myself this morning.
Crew does not require a parachute:
Sec. 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
I could find no exit speed ratings in Parts 91 or 105. A jumper friend I
asked is not aware of such a rating (there are max *deployment* speed &
weight parameters for a particular chute). I believe at exit the horizontal
velocity component diminishes almost instantaneously.
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terrance Jantzi <tjantzi(at)netrover.com> |
Listers,
I now have an airplane that climbs at a tremendous rate. I want to fly
really high. I have an aviators oxygen bottle that is set up for masks.
I want to use disposable cannulas from a medical gas supply company.
Does anyone have any info on required flow rates for such a setup. I
suspect that the flow rate could be set lower with the cannulas, thus
extending bottle time.
These cannulas are really neat. AT .80CDN you can give your passengers a
sealed and sterilized unit. They are about as comfortable as anything
could be while its stuck up your nose. This way I get to use my headset
mike and avoid the discomfort of a rubber mask.
Terry Jantzi
C-GZRV flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sheinlein(at)VNET.IBM.COM |
Subject:Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A...
For some reason, I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A. I really want to
build the 6, but I'm hesitating because I don't want to compromise
"safety" for "looks". (Sorry, that is a very simplified view of my
own personal problem here, PLEASE don't take this as flamebait!)
:)
I have NEVER flown a taildragger, but I like the looks of them and their
rough-field handling abilities (forget that 2 knot speed difference!)..
But, I don't want to make the decision without some taildragger time.
So, I am joining a flying club that has a 1946 Aeronca Champ (can someone
please comment on the handling differences between this and an RV-6?
AS THEY RELATE TO LEARNING TO T/O or LAND?!). I hope to use
what I learn from flying the Champ to help me decide which RV to build.
(Again, please don't think I'm implying that the Champ and RV handle
the same! I just want to know if I feel comfortable handling the Champ,
would I feel at least as comfortable handling the RV-6?)
Anyway, after talking to Bill at Van's, it appears that I can delay my
6 vs 6A decision a little bit longer, as follows. Any tips you can
offer me would be much appreciated, as I'd like to order the fuselage
by the end of this week!
The construction differences between the 6 & 6A appear to be:
1. the 6 has an extra steel fixture in the back for the tailwheel
2. the 6 has an extra bulkhead near the tail
3. the 6A has larger gussets for mounting the main gear
4. the 6A has a different engine mount (for the nosewheel)
After talking with Bill, I think the thing to do is to build a "combo"
plane until we hit #4, which is part of the finishing kit and at least a
1/2 a year away.
I can do #1, #2, and #3 above... and in effect delay the decision
until I hit item #4, which is at the very end of this year. The only
drawback would be an extra 1 1/2 pounds in the tail where the extra
weldment for the tailwheel is located. Not a big deal, since I will be
installing a metal prop (not wood) anyway, which will help balance out
the extra weight in the tail.
Any comments/suggestions on my "plan" would be much appreciated.
Except for something like "You should'a built a -4 and then you wouldn't
have to make that decision!" :)
Thanks in advance...
Stephen Heinlein
sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (Almost done with second wing...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin thickness question... |
SORRY didn't proof the message.
>I have talked to one fellow who did this (.020 controls) to a RV-4 and had
no problems after 400 + hrs. Most that I know of are putting RTV under the
tips of the
>interior angles as they rivet the surfaces together. I have NOT seen or heard
>of any cracking problems with this method.
>
Have A Stupendous Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
Fred,
No where in the Regs does it say a repairmans certificate is needed. Your
repairmans certificate is only good for signing off your condition
inspection. If you do not have a repairmans certificate for that aircraft you
must find an IA or A&P to do your annual condition inspection sign off. Can
you work on your own airplane? Yes you just cant sign off the condition
inspection unless your holding one of the above certificates.
AC 20-27D par 9
The builder of this aircraft, if certificated as a repairman, FAA certified
mechanic holding an Airframe and Powerplant rating and or appropriately rated
repair stations may perform condition inspections in accordance with FAR Part
43 appendix D.
Repairman certificate privleges and limitations are found in FAR 65.104 its
all there Fred .
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NSGE82A(at)prodigy.com (MR NORMAN W RAINEY) |
| Subject: | Doug Stenger's phone number? |
Doug Stenger's number in Banks, OR. is (503)324-6993.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rust47rg(at)one.net |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skin thickness question... |
>
>m
>>
>>I recently visited an RV-4 owner who had a suggestion about the elevator skin
>>thickness. Apparently, the 0.016" skin is known to form cracks at the
>>trailing edge about 2/3 of the way out. His suggestion was to use 0.020"
>>skins for the elevator instead.
>>
>You will probably get a number of answers on this, but just in case I'll
>toss in too.
>
>I have talked to one fellow who did this to a RV-4 and had no problems after
>400 + hrs. Most that I know of are putting RTV under the tips of the
>interior angles as they rivet the surfaces together. I have seen or heard
>of any cracking problems with this method.
>
I have experienced cracks in both the rudder and elevators. Mine appeared
at the first rivet at the front of the stiffeners at around 200 hours TT. I
had used RTV at the trailing edge and had none there. From what I've been
able to find it appears the cracking problem is more common in the high
horsepower constant speed RV's. The prop pulse seems to beat the tails up
quicker and usually they show up on the rudder first. I have a 180 C/S. I
rebuilt my rudder with .020" skin but I don't have enough time on it to tell
anything yet.
If I were to build another RV it would have .020 control surfaces on the tail.
Regards:
Rusty Gossard
N47RG RV-4 Flying since 8-94
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM> |
Denny Harjehausen wrote:
"...the FAA person said there was no reason I didn't get my 1st request...
I will be getting it as soon as they redo the paper work....."
Denny:
Could you tell us all what number you called and who you spoke to? Thanks.
Tim Bronson - Pittsburgh, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead/Horizontal Stab angle pieces |
| From: | tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman) |
>There are two angle pieces that are attached to the rear bulkheads
>where
>they will eventually be bolted to the horizontal stab. Question, are
>the angles put in place while the skeleton is being done or after the
>lower skins are on and the fuselage is upright?
>
Don,
I don't have my manual handy, so I am responding from memory. I assume
you are talking about the forward HS attach point. I recommend waiting
until you get the fuselage upright to drill these angles. That way you
can better see how all the parts are supposed to fit together. However,
while you are jigging the skeleton, make SURE you measure the distance
between the forward face of the HS rear spar and the forward (I think)
face of the HS forward spar on YOUR horizontal stab. Then jig the
appropriate fuselage bulkheads to match YOUR horizontal stab, regardless
of the plans dimensions. I found that mine differed from the plans
dimensions by about 1/8".
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 on the gear
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
<338AB631.41C6(at)earthlink.net>
| From: | tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman) |
David,
For what it's worth, I find that I set 1/8" rivets much more cleanly with
a gun and bucking bar than by any other method. For 3/32" rivets I
prefer a hand squeezer. For the 3/16" rivets on the wing spar I obtained
excellent results with a press arbor from Harbor Freight and a 3-lb
short-handled sledge hammer (considerably cheaper than a pneumatic
squeezer!)
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 on the gear
writes:
>
>
>Greg,
>
>I was in favor of getting a bucking bar and going at it. It didnt
>take
>very long and it was MUCH easier than squeezing. I use the squeezer
>only when necessary (read that as mandatory - I dont really like the
>squeezer). A pneumatic squeezer would be great - but it is very
>costly.
>Is there a reason for not bucking these with a rivet gun??
>--
> -----------------------------------
> David Fitzgerald
> RV-8 Serial #80333
> theredbaron(at)earthlink.net
> -----------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Doug Stenger's phone number? |
>From the rv yeller pages <http://www.sound.net/~hartmann/yelrpage.htm>:
DOUG STENGER 503-324-6993 RV SUBASSY BUILDER
Suggestion: download this very useful list, print it out, tack it to
your wall, keep it in your computer so you can do searches on it... a
great resource!
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony Atkinson <aja(at)twizel.ecnz.co.nz> |
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Frazell <Bill.Frazell(at)OAG.STATE.TX.US> |
| Subject: | V-stab tolerances -Reply |
Oh how nice it is to see my name being dragged through the mud and not
being able to defend myself. Kevin, I bought the tail kit from a fellow here
who builds harmon rockets (who's name I won't mention for fear of you
dragging his name through the mud also) with the Items that need gigging
already riveted, but still needing detail work(i.e. vertical stablizer). I
worked on the elevators and rudder. I finished the Tail Kit and had just
ordered the wing kit as you will recall. SO PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS
STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU TRASH THE WRONG SOMEONE. THANKS! By
the way, the RV-6 project you saw when you came down to Texas has
now flown, first flight on March 2, 1997 - N1150S.
>>> kevin lane 05/25/97
07:30pm >>>
After a momentous day of moving two RV's to TTD hanger Brian had to
comment
on how my V stab looked crooked. "Optical illusion", I said as I proudly
proved with a tape measure that the diagonals were exact. Exact at the
rear
top, exact at the bottom front, BUT, what about the top leading edge?
5/8"
warp towards the passenger. I bought the kit from Bill Frazell who built
the VS. The skins look real nice. Apparently his jig wasn't. So, my
question is, how much is bad? I will fly it as to start out, is but
wondered what others thought about solutions: build a new one?, drill
out
rivets and enlarge holes and twist it into place?, always roll left?, sue
Frazell? (he's an attorney, so that's real unlikely). What kind of
tolerances are flying now?
It was quite "enlightening" to see my plane in the sunlight after
two years of fluorescents. I am in greater awe of that flawless RV4 at
Vans
fly-in that was simply polished. Those reflections have one hell of a
memory, "oh yea, this is where the bucking bar slipped a bit, this is
where
the bulkhead didn't fit by 1/32", this is where the wife tried bucking, this
is where Dad bucked the wrong rivet, .........." kevin "the
painters will fix it" 6A, wings on tomorrow!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
There was a recent thread on the list about Jet Hot Coatings for exhaust
systems. I know of a number of local hot rodders who have used this to
reduce underhood temps on their cars. Presumably this would help reduce
undercowl temps on an aircraft as well.
The various exhaust wraps/header tapes on the market do reduce temps but
tend to promote corrosion on mild steel exhaust systems. I have heard of
brand new headers corroding away to nothing in less than 6 months using
these wraps. Dont know what they would do to stainless.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (wings)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>>I had considered taping the exhaust with asbestos (as they also do in
>>race cars) but decided against it on advice from others.
>
> Good idea: don't do it. I seems like it may overheat the exhaust pipes
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory S. Brewsaugh" <gregbrew(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
RodWoodard wrote:
>
>
> Hello Popeye:
>
> I bought my used pneumatic squeezer...etc
>
Thanks Rod, I'll give them a call.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dr John Cocker <jcocker(at)medhumor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft oils |
You make a good case for all the extra goodies put in modern oils.
My question remains --- so why don't our engines last longer ?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Rosales <prosales(at)qnet.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: WANTED RV6a project] |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------12C22839510
>From Paul.Cress(at)worldnet.att.net
--------------12C22839510
From: Paul.Cress(at)worldnet.att.net (Paul Cress)
Subject: WANTED RV6a project
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:38:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.147.203.125
I an interested in purchasing a half built or more RV6a
please contact me if you have, or know of someone, who is selling one
I would prefer dealing with someone located in the south west
--------------12C22839510--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parachutes, Canopy jettison |
No one has mentioned that the strut system for the -6's was developed like
the hinge system on the RV-4. The pop-rivets are designed to shear off if
the canopy is jettisoned, much like a couple of RV-4 pilots have discovered
when their canopy swung open in flight. I do not believe any RV-6 canopies
have been jettisoned to date. Van's is not looking for volunteers. We are
also not looking for people to modify the attachments of their lift struts.
If installed per the instructions, the struts will detach if the canopy is
released. Bill
>
>>I'm confused. How do you jump out of a RV? My RV6-A can't release the
>>canopy because of the lift struts. And if it did release, it would probably
>>decapitate me anyway. What is the reason for paying good money for something
>>that is uncomfortable and cannot be used? I guess I missed a point
>>somewhere.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, any aircraft that you intend to do acro with is
>supposed to have an inflight escape route (like the door releases on the
>Cessna 150 Aerobat or the little red handle on the instrument panel of the
>RV-6 that releases the canopy) and the crew is supposed to be wearing
>parachutes that are rated for the speed of the aircraft. If you don't
>build this into your airplane (and no one says you have to) you probably
>won't get a cert for acro when it is given its final blessing. As far as
>the lift struts go, I'm surprised no one has devised a way for them to let
>go in the event of a canopy release. The canopy should come off up and away
>clean. Maybe ding the tail if it's still there. Remember you're getting
>out because the airplane is too broken to land.
>Mike McGee
>jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com
>
>
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mcomeaux" <mcomeaux(at)cmc.net> |
| Subject: | Under construction |
Is there currently any RV6 or 8's under construction
in the Bend, Oregon area? If so could someone get
in touch with me at (541)593-2364 evenings or
(541)593-2554 Day time.
Thanks-----Mike Comeaux RV6A Emmpenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James K. Hurd" <hurd(at)riolink.com> |
Easy solution to all critter problems except dirt-daubers: get a hangar
cat(s). Additional benefit: no birds in hangar. Put dry food and water
on a work bench and make sure they have access to rafters to discourage
the birds. Keep food dish full so they won't go out at night where the
coyotes can get 'em. You might get a few dusty footprints on your plane
but you won't find a scorpion under your air drill!
Jim New Mexico RV6A wings in the jig/cats on the job
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Source of airtool part numbers and parts |
>Does anyone on the list know where I could get the above info for the
>following tools.
>Chicago Pneumatic Rivet squeezer Model 214 Serial # H274560
> " " Right angle air drill Model unknown
>Cleco 1/4" air drill Model 11 DP 27 Serial # 23216
>I would also appreciate any info on where I might buy these parts by
>mail.
>Charlie Kuss
Charlie,
Here's what I do...... Find the city for the manufacturer usually stamped
on the tool and look up the area code and call information (XXX) 555-1212
and get the phone number for the company. Sometimes if you have access to a
Thomas Register you can look it up yourself. Call the Mfgr. and tell them
you need a local supplier. Then have the local supplier either FAX you the
exploded views or have the Mfgr. send you hard capies. I have yet to be
refused. Oh yea, one time they told me that I couldn't get the repair
manuals for my copier so I told them that I was going to send them a
request for the manuals via certified letter and then go to work on the
machine after they refused me the manuals in writing. I told them should I
get hurt working on it I might see them in court. They allowed me to
purchase the manuals after I sent them a signed release that they faxed me.
I just don't believe that people should keep information from someone who
wants to do the work themselves if it is available to others. I paid for
the information just like a service center would.
Anyway........................
ARO-----Bryan, Oh
Dotco-------Hicksville, Oh
Chicago Pneu.----------Utica, N.Y.
US Industrial Tool---------Plymouth, Mi.
Sioux--------Sioux City, Iowa.
Rockwell---------Pittsburg, Pa.
Aircraft Tools Inc. L.A. Cal.
APT -------- Gardena, Cal.
Jiffy--------- Don't know
United Air Tool ------ Don't know
Cleco---- Don't know
Try: Nu-Matic Tool Repair & Parts Co.
U.S. Industrial Tool & Supply Co.
15101 Cleat St.
Plymouth, Mi. 48170-6098
(313) 455-3388
The only thing easier to rebuild than compressors are air tools. E-Mail me
off list if you have any more questions. Al Col. Oh. prober(at)iwaynet.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: O2 flow rate |
The western states glider guiders know all about this stuff ...:^)
To be legal in the US, the disposable cannulas require the same flow
rates as a mask, and are only certified to 18,000 ft (probably OK for RV
use ..:^)
The only way to go is to use a "nasal re-breather cannula" -- this will
use about 1/5 the expen$ive O2 that a mask will use. It sort of looks like
a hot dog on top of your upper lip ..:^) As a rough comparison, the 18,000
ft. oxygen flow rate for the re-breather cannula is about the same as the
11,000 ft. rate for a mask/straight cannula.
To set the right flow rate, Nelson makes a dual scale flow meter/flow
adjuster that goes with their regulator. The regulator fits on the tank,
and drops the pressure down to about 40 psi, and the flow adjuster is a
simple needle valve in the base of the flow meter (which is of the
"floating ball in a tube" type). All you do is adjust the flow to set the
ball alongside the altitude mark on the flow meter scale. On the low
pressure side of the regulator, flexible 3/16 Tygon tubing is all that is
needed. No rebuild interval needed on the regulator (unlike the
ex-military stuff).
If you use this system, you could mix and match Oxysaver cannulas and
regular cannulas with the dual scale flow meters. Buy a Oxysaver for you
and the SO, and give occasional passengers the disposable cannulas. The
oxygen you save (costing at least $20 for a 22 cu. ft. tank) will soon pay
for the more expensive Oxysaver cannulas.
Parts:
Nelson A-4 flow meter about $47 need one per occupant
Nelson 300-1 regulator about $159 need only one
Oxymiser cannula about $25 need one per occupant
Regular cannulas 2 for $7
One source for all of the above is Wings and Wheels, a glider supplier
in NY state. The owner is Tim Mara 716-664-6895
... hope this helps ...
... Gil (used this system for years in my sailplane) Alexander
RV6A, #20701 ... on hold
>
>Listers,
>
>I now have an airplane that climbs at a tremendous rate. I want to fly
>really high. I have an aviators oxygen bottle that is set up for masks.
>I want to use disposable cannulas from a medical gas supply company.
>
>Does anyone have any info on required flow rates for such a setup. I
>suspect that the flow rate could be set lower with the cannulas, thus
>extending bottle time.
>
>These cannulas are really neat. AT .80CDN you can give your passengers a
>sealed and sterilized unit. They are about as comfortable as anything
>could be while its stuck up your nose. This way I get to use my headset
>mike and avoid the discomfort of a rubber mask.
>
>Terry Jantzi
>C-GZRV flying
>
>
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
>
>>...and the crew is supposed to be wearing
>>parachutes that are rated for the speed of the aircraft.
>
>The archives toss this around at length, but I thought I would check for
>myself this morning.
>
>Crew does not require a parachute:
>
> Sec. 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
> (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
> no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
> may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
horizon.
>
>I could find no exit speed ratings in Parts 91 or 105. A jumper friend I
>asked is not aware of such a rating (there are max *deployment* speed &
>weight parameters for a particular chute). I believe at exit the horizontal
>velocity component diminishes almost instantaneously.
>
>Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
Rob,
... try looking in the TSO C23b documents that define the categories
that the parachutes are certified to (that what makes it "approved" to meet
the above FAR).
.... Gil (it's always in the documents :^) Alexander
>
>
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bennett(at)healey.com.au |
>
> Easy solution to all critter problems except dirt-daubers: get a hangar
> cat(s).
Negative, Jim.
My cats mark their territory on the car's mag wheels and that stuff's
potent. It would reduce my fuselage to a little pile pile of white
powder between weekend sessions.
Besides, cats would be useless at flushing out the 500000 ants that I
found nesting in the fluoro light fittings last weekend. I used a
surface spray and ants rained down for about two hours. I vacuumed
them out of the fus, but I'd be interested if anyone knows the effect
of formic acid on aluminium.
Peter Bennett
Sydney Australia
RV6 building sliding canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fran Malczynski <"Fran Malczynski"@IBM.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6 vs 6A decision |
Steve you wrote:
"I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A."
I know what your going through because I'm still going through it. I was
firmly convinced that I wanted to buld a 6. The reason is that that they
look so damn sexy sitting on the ground. Pretty shallow, huh?
I then followed your plan. I hooked up with a tail wheel instructor type
and me, him and his Champ went flying so I could get the tailwheel sign
off in in my log. We are still doing this, however a lack of an
operating carburator has kept the plane on the ground for the past
several months. I also asked for a tail dragger video for Christmas and
my daughter and son-in-law came through and got me two of them....I
thought it was a good plan and still do....except I made the mistake of
going to SNF and dragging my wife over to Van's tent so we could look at
more RV's.
And there I saw N2NR, an RV6A painted in Navy colors that I absolutely
fell in love with. Being ex Navy, the blue, grays and yellows along with
the military bearing of the aircraft really appealed to me.
So here I sit sending notes and signing them with RV6(A), with
the "A" in parens because I still don't know what I'm going to do.
But, it's fun trying to decide.....Good luck.
Fran Malczynski
RV6(A) - Working on wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Boris <smbr(at)digital.net> |
Another solution:
Mix a can of fresh cayene pepper with a minimum of light food oil in a
blender. Let it sit a day or two. Paint it on cross beams over the
plane, etc. This was recomended to me by a farm supply freind (for
poulrty barns) and it really works. It deters birds and also mice
size/type critters. Great for those of us who are typically somewhat
environmentally challenged.
Good luck.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
writes:
>
>Fred,
> No where in the Regs does it say a repairmans certificate is needed.
Your
>repairmans certificate is only good for signing off your condition
>inspection.
I agree....
>If you do not have a repairmans certificate for that aircraft you
>must find an IA or A&P to do your annual condition inspection sign off.
It's my understanding that there are no FAR's the specifically
state this,
but that the FAA does ALLOW it. Does anybody have any suportive info
in this area?
> Can you work on your own airplane? Yes you just cant sign off the
condition
>inspection unless your holding one of the above certificates. AC 20-27D
par 9
When you state "airplane", I assume you mean experimental class.
Does this
mean that an owner of an experimental class aircraft, that does not
hold a
repairmans certificate, can remove the wingtips or landing gear, the
tail
surfaces, etc, and will not require an IA or A&P to sign off the
work? This is
certainly not the case with a certified aircraft.
> The builder of this aircraft, if certificated as a repairman, FAA
certified
>mechanic holding an Airframe and Powerplant rating and or appropriately
rated
>repair stations may perform condition inspections in accordance with FAR
Part
>43 appendix D.
I agree...
>Repairman certificate privleges and limitations are found in FAR
>65.104 its all there Fred .
I agree....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave and/or Diane Irwin" <dirwin(at)ibm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A... |
Steve - I went through the same process about two years ago between the -6
and the -6A. I have about 700 hours on Grumman Yankees which are much like
an under-powered RV-6A but I had no taildragger time and liked the looks of
the RV-6 better than the -6A. In order to help me decide I took a couple of
hours of dual in a Luscombe. They are considered to be a difficult
taildragger as they seem to need to be landed in a three-point attitude at
minimum airspeed and they will wander off the runway quite easily on
rollout if you are not quick on the rudder pedals. The Luscombe, like the
RV-6, has side-by-side seating, a control stick and a centre throttle.
These advantages would seem to make it a good conversion aircraft. I would
suggest that you get a checkout on a Champ first (which I did after the
Luscombe...) and then move to a Luscombe. I reckon that if you can fly/land
the Luscombe then the RV-6/6A decision will be easier for you!.
BTW - I could land the Luscombe OK after the dual but we decided to build
the -6A...
Dave Irwin
RV-6A #22607/C-GCRV (prov)
dirwin(at)ibm.net
. ----------
> From: VNET.IBM.COM!sheinlein(at)matronics.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject:
> Date: May 27, 1997 1:54 PM
>
>
> Subject:Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A...
>
> For some reason, I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
> trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A. I really want to
> build the 6, but I'm hesitating because I don't want to compromise
> "safety" for "looks". (Sorry, that is a very simplified view of my
> own personal problem here, PLEASE don't take this as flamebait!)
> :)
>
> Stephen Heinlein
> sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (Almost done with second wing...)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Davis" <jdavis1(at)ford.com> |
| Subject: | Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A... |
--- Forwarded mail from rv-list(at)matronics.com
From: sheinlein(at)VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Tue, 27 May 97 13:54:07 EDT
I have spent time in many different conventional gear aircraft ranging from
Champs to Beech 18s. The Champ is a great plane to learn the fundamentals.
The Champs I have flown are very easy to land. In a couple hours you should
start to feel comfortable. Don't forget to start on the grass and move to the
pavement as your confidence and experience builds. Grass is the place to
learn.. After you master the Champ I would recommend getting some time in
something like a Luscombe 8 or a Stinson 108. Both of these airplanes will
provide you with a new challenge. The Luscombe is a little quicker on final
and has narrow, tall gear (and a bad reputation). The Stinson also is a bit
more difficult to land smoothly and adds the complexity of flaps.
I am building a 6 and have a few hours in the conventional gear version. They
are very easy to handle on the ground. If you can handle a Champ/Super Cub or
Luscombe, you will do fine in the RV. My wife is a pilot (C152) and wanted a
trike but after a few hours in a Super Cub and now in a Luscombe, she can't
understand why she was so scared of conventional gear.
Good luck with your conventional gear training - Utilization should be one of
the main drivers behind selection of the gear configuration. If you think you
will fly the trike more, build it. If cross wind landings and "Fly until it is
tied down" are more your style, go for the conventional gear.
>I have NEVER flown a taildragger, but I like the looks of them and their
>rough-field handling abilities (forget that 2 knot speed difference!)..
>But, I don't want to make the decision without some taildragger time.
>So, I am joining a flying club that has a 1946 Aeronca Champ (can someone
>please comment on the handling differences between this and an RV-6?
>AS THEY RELATE TO LEARNING TO T/O or LAND?!). I hope to use
>what I learn from flying the Champ to help me decide which RV to build.
>(Again, please don't think I'm implying that the Champ and RV handle
>.the same! I just want to know if I feel comfortable handling the Champ,
>would I feel at least as comfortable handling the RV-6?)
>Stephen Heinlein
>sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (Almost done with second wing...)
---End of forwarded mail from rv-list(at)matronics.com
--
Jeffrey S. Davis
Senior Research Engineer
Advance Vehicle Technology
Ford Motor Company
Phone (313)845-5224 Fax (313)845-4781
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
Stephen,
One thing to consider is that the "traditional" way to build an RV-6A is to
align the main gear and drill the main gear mounts while the fuse is
inverted in the jig.
IMHO, you should make up your mind prior to ordering the fuse and not build
a "combo" fuse that will have you hauling around needless structure (weight)
for the life of the aircraft.
My $.02
Scott Gesele M506RV (finally painting)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cecilth(at)juno.com |
Of the several reasons I decided on a slider, I forgot this one. Thanks
writes:
>
>I'm confused. How do you jump out of a RV? My RV6-A can't release
>the
>canopy because of the lift struts. And if it did release, it would
>probably
>decapitate me anyway. What is the reason for paying good money for
>something
>that is uncomfortable and cannot be used? I guess I missed a point
>somewhere.
>I don't want to start anything controversial but as I said before "I'm
>confused".
>Gene cafgef(at)aol.com
>Starting to make canopy dust today. Fear & Trepidation
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
>
>
>
> Denny Harjehausen wrote:
>
>"...the FAA person said there was no reason I didn't get my 1st request...
>I will be getting it as soon as they redo the paper work....."
>
>
>Denny:
>
>Could you tell us all what number you called and who you spoke to? Thanks.
>
>Tim Bronson - Pittsburgh, PA
>
>
Hi, I believe the lady that answered the phone was said her name was
Norma.... If you are already in the computor have your serial number handy.
She called over to the department that assigned my number and spoke to
"Paula". The first lady just relayed the message from that department. She
was very helpful.
I had re-checked my numbers with www.landings.com as someone suggested and
verified with "Norma" (?).
The Number at FAA OK is 405-954-3116.
Have A Great Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Acker <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
>Easy solution to all critter problems except dirt-daubers: get a hangar
>cat(s). Additional benefit: no birds in hangar.
Cat urine makes big ugly white spots on aluminum (speaking from experience) .
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Frazell <Bill.Frazell(at)OAG.STATE.TX.US> |
| Subject: | Kevin Lane V-stab. |
Kevin - you need to look up the definition of Libel before you post any further
E-Mails. Also, you
need to remind yourself that I simply finished the Tail Kit, but did not do anything
requiring a jig. I
bought the Tail Kit from a local fellow here named Weldon Tadlock as being 60%
complete. I
bought it as is where is with no warranty, just like you did. If the situtation
warrants, couldn't you
reskin the part? Would you blame me for stuff wrong with the Wing Kit even though
it was in the
box when you bought it? Weldon used the rocket builder's jigs after hours, and
perhaps Weldon
did not set them up correctly. Neither the rocket builder, who's work is impeccable
and much
admired, nor myself built the piece you complain of. I hate the take up the list's
bandwith with
items such as this, but under the circumstances I felt this response both necessary
and
appropriate.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Acker <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help from California RV'ers |
>Is there anybody in California that would know of a surplus store that
>would carry such a unit. If not, could I get a phone number of any
>surplus store that I could start a calling search with.
Terry,
Try National Aircraft Parts at 562-426-8309 for a possible lead. Also try
BJ Nash (rv-list archives), he resells surplus stuff.
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
>For some reason, I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
>trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A. I really want to
>build the 6, but I'm hesitating because I don't want to compromise
>"safety" for "looks".
Another factor is insurance. As a low time TD pilot, Avemco quoted me
$200-$250/yr more for insurance over the nose-dragger.
> Not a big deal, since I will be
>installing a metal prop (not wood) anyway, which will help balance out
>the extra weight in the tail.
1.5 pounds that far aft MIGHT be a concern, even with a metal prop.
Probably not so much with a CS. At the very least, it will clip some of
your baggage capacity due to CG concerns. I would *definitely* make the
decision before putting that much unnecessary weight in the extreme aft
location of the tailcone.
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <DougR(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft oils |
charset="us-ascii"
----
From: Dr John Cocker <medhumor.com!jcocker(at)matronics.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aircraft oils
You make a good case for all the extra goodies put in modern oils.
My question remains --- so why don't our engines last longer ?
John
The answer is that our automotive engines do last longer, much longer more
than twice as long as they did 20 years ago and the "goodies" that you
describe have played a large role in that. Our airplane engines don't last
any longer because the oil is exactly the same (excepting Multi-vis) as it
was in WWII for mineral oil and in 1962 for ashless dispersant. But just
like magnetos, carbs and everything else in our airplanes except
electronics, we seem to be unwilling to accept change. The price we pay
for that is 2000 hour TBO.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6 vs 6A decision |
>
>Steve you wrote:
> "I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
> trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A."
>
I struggled with this one too even though I have a lot tail dragger time. I
felt that when it comes time to sell the -A would have a bigger market, it
would be a safer trip down the runway and it doesn't really........ So I
ordered the -A. Sometime later I purchased a used engine only to discover
just in time that it would not fit a -A because of the nose gear would
conflict with the carb.
So after some phone calls Van's people agreed to exchange with me (it didn't
make anyone in the office very happy because they didn't have neat package
to do this)...it cost me some bucks...but I'm much happier now that
necessity won the battle for the type I really wanted in the first place. I
don't have to feel guilty now about not being practical.
If your worried about landing it, don't be. When I learned to fly there
wasn't any thing else. Everyone was a taildragger so we didn't have all the
scare stories you hear now. these stories do nothing but make the beginner
nervous (and thereby more apt to screw up) and make the guy who is tail
dragger feel he has more hair on his chest.
Have A Great Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
Stephen,
Your are making a fine choice, some tail wheel time is a great idea! The
champ will differ from the RV6 quite a bit, if you master the handling of the
champ the 6 will be a piece of cake. The champ will react to inputs slower on
the ground then the 6 will. Excellent choice for tail wheel training. If your
used to only nose wheel aircraft it will feel strange at first give it 5 to
10 hrs and you will begin to feel very comfortable. Once you get the hang of
it you wont feel unsafe and wont want that wheel meant for the rear end
hanging off your front end.
Good luck, have fun
Ryan B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6 vs 6A decision |
<< And there I saw N2NR, an RV6A painted in Navy colors that I absolutely
fell in love with. Being ex Navy, the blue, grays and yellows along with
the military bearing of the aircraft really appealed to me. >>
I too saw that bird, and it is as you said. It would look just as good with a
t/w, don't you think? Then, you could put a tailhook on it (for display
only). Think of the questions you'd get!
I remember reading that the most common accident that kills 172's is a
groundloop! Now, very few of those have tailwheels, but they do have a high
CG. Go figure.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Drew" <noeldrew(at)iafrica.com> |
Just a note to confuse the comments on the critical nature of coax
cables.
I recently had my usually well behaved radio criticised by the tower
as being low on transmission strength and a check to a friend with a
nearby receiver confirmed this. I transmit through a standard
antenna located on top behind the cabin and receive through Van's tape
antenna inside the windshield. (Narco Escort II).
My first diagnosis was a faulty joint on the transmitting antenna and
while performing the usual gymnastics under the panel, the local
avionics man stuck his head in and enquired after my health. He then
volunteered his help and kindly produced all the necessary test gear
for a proper analysis. He found the output from the set healthy and
nothing wrong with the antenna system. Switching transmission to the tape antenna
produced a reasonable output signal despite the poor rating this antenna
received from his test quipment. Reception on this tape antenna was
however quite acceptable.
The problem with the main antenna persisted and he suggested a bench
test for the radio. No fault was found and in desperation I consulted a
friend who had worked on military radios for many years. His
suggestion was to make up a short length of coax and insert it in the
line to the antenna. Strength 5! Next step? Leave it there.
His explanation was that radios sometimes behave this way. I cannot
totally rule out a fault with a connector which was disturbed by my
experiments but his advice was deliberate and it came from experience.
Kind regards,
Noel Drew
South Africa
RV6 ZU-APF
noeldrew(at)iafrica.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry D. Hoatson" <lhoatson(at)e2.empirenet.com> |
| Subject: | Kit Shipping Charges |
Would any of the Southern California builders be willing to provide some
information, thoughts, and personal experieces regarding shipping
charges for an RV-6 kit from the factory. We're trying to determine
what the $$ difference would be by ordering the entire kit, and then
having to store everything, versus receiving each kit about the time
we're ready to begin work on it.
Thanks in advance
Larry
--
Larry D. Hoatson Yucaipa, CA Redlands (L12) Airport
lhoatson(at)empirenet.com
KC6WYF via packet at: KC6WYF(at)W6JBT.SOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Restoring 1950 Cessna 170A N9948A... Looking forward to RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | RV Builders in Vancouver Area? |
I've just moved to the Vancouver (BC) area--specifically Cloverdale,
near the Langely airport. I've seen one or two RVs flying around,
and I've heard there are builders in the area. If you're a builder,
or know of any, I'd love to hear from you. Email me directly, to
avoid cluttering up the list.
Tedd McHenry
tedd(at)idacom.hp.com
[RV-6 plans; still no workshop!]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
Looking for a half or more completed RV-4 kit. Must be good workmanship and
good price. Must be located in the west. E-mail direct to: MAlexan533, or
fax 503-838-3834.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Walsh <jwalsh(at)ftp.com> |
>>Reply to your message of 5/28/97 3:20 AM
>> :)
>>
>>I have NEVER flown a taildragger, but I like the looks of them and their
>>rough-field handling abilities (forget that 2 knot speed difference!)..
>>
>>But, I don't want to make the decision without some taildragger time.
Stephen,
I made the decision to go tailwheel with NO tailwheel time for the simple r=
eason that I wanted to enhance my skills( and of course poke fun at my nose=
wheel buddies). I like landing an airplane. I like it to be a litt=
le bit challenging. The tailwheel option provides more opportunity to bui=
ld those skills. =20
Now, as far as a Champ vs. an RV... HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!! That was =
a good one. I always appreciate someone with a subtle sense of humor. =
I'm flying a Citabria now and it is an absolute
TANK compared to an RV. Heavy controls, long throw to get a response, an=
d lousy feedback. =20
Nonetheless, it is forgiving, flies slow and is easy to land. It is a who=
le barrel of fun compared to a Cherokee. Taildraggers are scarce in my n=
eck of the woods and you can't be too fussy. I have also=20
heard that the Luscombe is a bit ill-tempered but they are not exactly read=
ily available to try out. =20
So, I hope to rack up 50-100 hours in the Citabria and Cub and I hope that =
will be enough when the big day comes.. =20
Good luck in your choice. I'm sure you'll enjoy either one immensely.
John RV4 (working on wings)=09
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Top <jjtop(at)cts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft oils |
> But just like magnetos, carbs and everything else in our airplanes except
electronics, we seem to be unwilling to accept change. The price we pay
for that is 2000 hour TBO.
Doug the real culprit is the Freindly Aviation Agency who has made so durn
complicated and expensive to change anything on a certified (Jurasic)
engine that Lycomming and Continental are stuck with cloning dinasours.
John Top
Phone: (619) 549-3556
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Aerobatics |
I have a related question. All my aerobatic experience is in
jets--I've never done anything but straight-and-level and spins
in a piston airplane, and damned little of that! As many have
already stated, you can do any positive G manoeuvre in an RV
(if you don't exceed the various limits). But what about
manoeuvres that are sort of in the grey area, such as a
vertical roll? What's a vertical roll going to do to your oil
pressure and fuel pick-up? How about a hesitation roll at zero
G--can you sustain that for long without running out of oil
pressure or starving the engine of fuel?
Tedd McHenry
[RV-6 plans only]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent S. Himsl" <himsl(at)mail.wsu.edu> |
Hello,
Just received latest RVator and read the changes of RV8 #2 over the
prototype. Mention was made of a new improved vertical stabilizer and
rudder. Question to the list/Van's is..... Do our empennage kits have the
newer version? If not, could someone who knows the difference between ours
and the new elaborate a little more on the difference in performance.
Any options for those who have not begun the improved pieces? Retrofits?
This request is to the RV-list rather than Van's directly as I believe it to
be a question of general interest.
Vince Himsl
Moscow, ID
RV80296 Tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BigCfly001(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
Tom,
could you e-mail me the details on your "harbor freight" press setup,I
like the cost alternative to the squeezers.thanks
chris marion
RV-6 HS
cincy,OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KOZINSKI GARY <kozinski(at)symbol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges |
Larry,
Buy the kits as you go and don't worry about the $$ differences. Doing
it this way will give you the latest modifications in the kit when it
arrives. Buying it outright you will have to make upgrades and/or
changes as they happen. True, most of the bugs have been worked out but
over time things change and get easier and better so its to your
advantage to buy as you go. Considering how much you will spend overall,
I would worry about a few dollars of shipping charges. If you budget is
that tight then you should reconsider what you are doing.
Gary - 10+ years building my 6 and still going!
s/n 20038
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges |
[snip!]
> charges for an RV-6 kit from the factory. We're trying to determine
> what the $$ difference would be by ordering the entire kit, and then
> having to store everything, versus receiving each kit about the time
> we're ready to begin work on it.
Larry:
Unless you are one of these FAST builders (or are getting a fast-build
kit) -- get it one sub-kit at a time. The $$ you might save in shipping
will almost certainly be offset by the fact that you will miss out on
any future improvements. Van's is improving the kits all the time -- I
would guess that kits shipped today involve 200-300 hours less build
time for not much increase in cost than when I bough my kit.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Rex" <jfr(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Listers,
For the last few months, I have been looking at my unstarted -4 fuselage
kit sitting in the garage, feeling guiltier by the day. I am considering
having someone build the fuselage. I would appreciate any input from
someone on the list who has gone this route. I have talked to several of
these outfits.. There is considerable difference in what they charge.
Naturally all of them tout their abilities and quality. I am anxious to
here what others think of their work.
Joe Rex
Looking at fuselage box
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel H. Morris III" <Morristec(at)icdc.com> |
All of Bob Nuckolls messages from the list that I get do not contain text.
Is anyone else having this problem?
Dan Morris
----------
> From: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> To: Morristec
> Subject: RV-List: Antennas
> Date: Monday, May 26, 1997 4:43 PM
>
>
> Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com [163.179.3.9] by bbs.icdc.com with
smtp
> Received: from matronics.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
> Received: by matronics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> Errors-To: bounces(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:27:13 -0400
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <compuserve.com!RNuckolls(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Antennas
> To: rv-list
> Cc: europa , Glastar-List ,
> Kitfox List
> Message-Id: <199705261727_MC2-1751-B3E4(at)compuserve.com>
> Sender: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Kevin Lane V-stab. |
I sure hope we arent going to hear from Weldon or "the rocket builder" or
their attorneys with a further definition of libel. You have made your
point. Could you now stop please?
Thanks,
Mike Wills
RV-4 (wings)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
I
>bought the Tail Kit from a local fellow here named Weldon Tadlock as being
60% complete. I
>bought it as is where is with no warranty, just like you did. If the
situtation warrants, couldn't you
>reskin the part? Would you blame me for stuff wrong with the Wing Kit even
though it was in the
>box when you bought it? Weldon used the rocket builder's jigs after hours,
and perhaps Weldon
>did not set them up correctly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jpl(at)showpg.mn.org (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges |
Shipping charges are not terribly significant. I think the wing kit
cost $119 to Minnesota, or something along those lines. If I had ordered
the entire kit up front, I would NOT have gotten the significant changes
Van has been making to the completeness of the kit. I recommend waiting --
it costs you a little bit, but the improvements are darn well worth it.
-Joe
> Would any of the Southern California builders be willing to provide some
> information, thoughts, and personal experieces regarding shipping
> charges for an RV-6 kit from the factory. We're trying to determine
> what the $$ difference would be by ordering the entire kit, and then
> having to store everything, versus receiving each kit about the time
> we're ready to begin work on it.
--
Joe Larson jpl(at)showpg.mn.org 612-551-1072
14190 47th Ave N. http://www.wavefront.com/~showpg
Plymouth, Mn 55446 Future RV-6A pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Rex" <jfr(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Listers,
First off, this is the second time I've sent this message. The first one
seems to have disappeared. My apologies if they both show up on the list.
Quick question. Has anyone on the list had experience with any of the
custom RV builders? I am interested in your comments about the person you
dealt with. I'm considering it for my -4 fuselage.
Joe Rex
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darwin Esh <103126.3212(at)CompuServe.COM> |
Please Unsubscribe Darwin Esh 103126.3212
Sat May 31 will be my last day with CompuServe. So please UNSUBSCRIBE me
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 or RV-6A? |
| From: | tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman) |
writes:
>
>Subject:Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A...
>
>For some reason, I seem to be having a much harder time than most in
>trying to decide whether to build the 6 or the 6A.
>So, I am joining a flying club that has a 1946 Aeronca Champ (can
>someone
>please comment on the handling differences between this and an RV-6?
>AS THEY RELATE TO LEARNING TO T/O or LAND?!). I hope to use
>what I learn from flying the Champ to help me decide which RV to
>build.
>
Stephen,
I heartily recommednd you build the RV-6. Taildragger experience will
discipline your flying. The Champ will more than adequately prepare you
for the RV-6. I have quite a bit of time in both the 7ECA Citabria and
the RV-3,4,6. I find the RVs easier to land than the Citabria.
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 preparing to mount wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RST audio panel and marker beacon receiver |
I need to start my panel pretty soon, so I'm planning it and
getting ready to order the radios ($$$). I'm considering an RST 564
audio panel and an RST marker beacon receiver. I've corresponded
with folks who have built these units, but I don't think I've spoken
to anybody who has flown with them.
I have a vague recollection of somebody who was unhappy with an RST
marker beacon receiver, but I can't remember who it was.
Anybody on the list have any experience to share?
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
Canopy nearly finished
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <john(at)catlover.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges |
Larry:
Don't forget to unpack so the paper doesn't stay in contact with the
aluminum.
--
Best Regards, John Bright, Newport News, VA, USA, john(at)catlover.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Yikes (CHATTER) |
Jeez -- snakes, fire ants, scorpions.... and I was worried about that
little puddle of water that always leaks in under the shop wall when it
rains.... I guess I should count my blessings!
Randall (sure glad to be an Oregonian) Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
PS. My kitty would NEVER pee on my airplane! (Then again, he'd
probably never go after a copperhead either....)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Bolander-RFLB50 <Bob_Bolander-RFLB50(at)email.sps.mot.com> |
| Subject: | RE>Re- RV-List- Yikes! CHAT |
RE>Re: RV-List: Yikes! CHATTER 5/28/97
I live in Austin, Tx. 2 days ago, killed a 3" scorpion in my garage, left
on motorcycle to get ice cream and ran over a 5' rattler on loop 360. Just
comes with the territory.
BB
--------------------------------------
Date: 5/28/97 2:08 AM
From: rv-list(at)matronics.com@AZBCSM1
In some ways I hesitate to mention this but we don't got these problems on
the Wet Side (as we Washingtonians fondly refer to the western side of the
Cascade Mountains).
Granted, I may see an occasional small spider making a web in my shop or
have to chase a wasp. Snakes?? I haven't seen one in Seattle for at least
20 years. We do have them in the country but, even there, they are
respectable snakes and don't invade the people domain.
Now, I have a cousin living just west of San Antonio, TX. I visited her
about two months ago and plan to drive down there in about two weeks. They
have SNAKES and FIRE ANTS. I was baptized by a fire ant on my last trip
there. I hope to avoid that this time. As far as snakes go, if I was to
find ANY snake skin in my shop you can count on the fact that I would not be
going in there until I was certain that no snake, alive or dead, was any in
the vicinity.
You note that you are retired Army; maybe that is a criteria for being able
to live in these areas. My cousin is retiring from the Air Force on June
13, rank of bird Colonel. Not bad for a woman with only 22 years service; I
tell her it is because she follows my advice, NOT!!
John
>
> It's that time of year and the local wildlife are alive and well.
>Recently, I found a 1 1/2 foot snake skin in my shop but didn't think much
>of it. A couple of days later I found a 5 foot snake skin right by my
>radio! That got my attention. In Kansas here we get some pretty big
>Copperhead snakes.
> My recent situation is that the snakes are out of hibernation and
>the wasps and spiders are starting to build their nests.
> I have two wings done and the empennage. Guess where they want to
>build their nests? That's right! Inside the newly constructed pieces.
> It prompted me to tape up all of the openings so there are no
>unauthorized passengers in the future.
> My advice to any builders that are like me and live in areas with a
>lot of wildlife; be careful when you move pieces around that cover up
>attractive areas for them to live. I spend 10 to 20 hours a week in my
shop
>so they are definately not afraid of me being there.
> Does this deter me in any way? NO WAY! I want my RV4! (I am
>retired Army, so this might account for my absense for common sense in
these
>areas)
>
>Good Luck!
>
>Tim Sweemer
>
>RV4 started fuselage
>
>
>
John Ammeter
ammeterj(at)seanet.com
3233 NE 95th St
Seattle WA, 98115 USA
206-525-5445
RV-6 N16JA
First flight August 1990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Reiff <Reiff(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild primer |
I am posting this for Mr. Jerry Thorpe, a local builder who is working on
a RV-6 quickbuild kit and does not use PC's. He would appreciate replies
from anyone who may have had a problem similar to the following, and if
so what they did about it.
Jerry was rinsing off primed aluminum sheets with water and the primer
started peeling off in hand-sized pieces.
He contacted Van's and got a letter back saying it was either a bad batch
of paint, or the folks who produce the QB kits applied it wrong. He was
told not to worry about it as primer is not necessary ("Piper and Cessna
don't do it"), but if he wanted to he (Jerry) could re-prime it.
He contacted the manufacturer, Sherwin-Williams, and was told one
characteristic of the P60G2 Vinyl primer Van's is using is a tendency to
lift itself if it is applied too thick. The dry film thickness should be
0.2 to 0.4 mils, compared to 1 mil for DuPont Variprime. He has measured
the film thickness of the lifted pieces.
Jerry is concerned about the quality of the prime job in the inaccessable
areas like inside the wing, that if it peels off there he can't do
anything about it, and he won't have the extra corrosion protection he
paid for.
If anyone has had a similar experience, Jerry would appreciate you
contacting him at 414-593-5470, or E-mail me and I will pass on to him
(E-mail me directly as I am not on the list).
Thanks.
Bob Reiff
RV-4 #2646
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Message Problems... |
Hi Bob,
More than a few people have been complaining that messages you post to
the List don't have any data in them. I'm not sure what do or say about it
since the messages I get from you through the List have data, and the
archive file also contains the data.
The only thing I can think of is that somehow your messages contain some
special characters or control character that is terminating the message before
it is completely resent.
Have you changed email programs or ISPs in the last few weeks that might
be a place to start troubleshooting?
I have subscribed a non-Matronics email account of mine to the List and
will monitor it for your messages and see if it happens to me too. Could
you send a couple of test messages to me and separately to the List so that
I can compare the headers and data?
Thanks,
Matt Dralle
RV-List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Mehrhoff" <99789978(at)msn.com> |
I have a 66 X 90 hanger with the big end open. Have always had lots of dirt
dobbers. I always fought them with soapy water in a backpack sprayer. Last
fall I bought 4 of the things you plug into an outlet to keep rodents away.
Guess what? So far this year no dirt dobbers. I am still keeping my fingers
crossed.
Stan Mehrhoff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
>All of Bob Nuckolls messages from the list that I get do not contain text.
>Is anyone else having this problem?
>
>Dan Morris
Dan, (And Matt)
I get two messages from Bob N. and the second one is always identical to
the first with the "=" followed by a number. Several listers do this
double message thing. I don't know if it's me or them or the list but it
started after Matt had that long down time over a week ago. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray Murphy, Jr." <murphy(at)mail.coos.or.us> |
Yes, I know that quandry that you're in concerning the 6-6A choice. My wife
would prefer the 6A and we both like the looks of the 6. We decided on the
6A since my wife is terrified of a taildrager. When I took my test flight I
asked Ken about the differences. I told him that one of my dreams was to be
able to fly to some of the back contry strips and fish in Idaho. He told me
that he'd had his 6A into many of those same strips with no problem and that
the 6A had an advantage in landing and stopping over the 6. Good Luck on
your decision.
Ray and Nancy Murphy
murphy(at)mail.coos.or.us
RV6A empenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
> Sec. 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
> (c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
Key word: "approved"
FAR Part 21 (TSO C23c), NAS-804 and AS 8015-A
Note that "approved" includes having it inspected and repacked within the
last 120 days by a licensed parachute rigger rated for that particular type
of parachute.
Parachute Types:
Back, Seat, Chest, and Lap. The last two are not practical for a pilot and
the Seat is rare enough that if you actually found one you would have a
tough time finding a rigger that could service it.
> no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
> may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
horizon.
>
>I could find no exit speed ratings in Parts 91 or 105.
Ok, out comes the Parachute Manual :)
The official document is Aerospace Standard 8015A-Minimum Performance
Standards for Parachute Assemblies and Components, Personnel.
..
1.2 Weight/Speed Ranges
1.2.1 Category A: 90kg (198 lb) @ 130 knots
1.2.2 Category B: 115kg (254 lb) @ 160 knots
1.2.3 Category C: 115kg (254 lb) @ 175 knots
--snip--
>weight parameters for a particular chute). I believe at exit the horizontal
>velocity component diminishes almost instantaneously.
>
>Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
>
>
How fast does a "broken" airplane, that has a redline of say 220mph, go?
Now realistically, if you get out of the plane at say 150 knots you will
slow to about 100 knots in about 3 to 4 seconds --that's about a thousand
feet-- and it isn't likely that you are going horizontal when you try to
get out. If you can get the airplane to go into level flight you will
probably stay with it.
This is just a practical thing. If you are going to go to the trouble of
wearing and maybe depending on a parachute you might want to know what it
is rated for.
Personally I've walked away from over 1500 half-an-airplane-ride (skydive)
landings. Realistically it is only easy to get out of an airplane that is
flying straight and level as recently demonstrated by 5 parachutists in a
C-205 who were surprised by a flat spin from 3500 feet. They probably had
almost 30 seconds to get out (no I didn't see the video footage). No
disrespect here, my sympathies go out to their families. If I looked back
and, say, saw the tail or just the elevator missing at say 2000 feet I know
I'm behind schedule (getting out). Easy or not, if I'm going to go up and
fly in a manner that I might possibly screw something up so as not to be
able to get it back and no matter how remote the chance of me actually
being able to get out is I still think it is nice to have a "Plan B". And
some of them do make comfortable seat backs.
This is only meant to offer some practical information about parachutes and
getting out of an airplane. I'm a former parachute center
operator/instructor, licensed parachute rigger and parachutist (customer
now). If anyone finds fault with any of the info I have presented (aside
from jumping out of perfectly good airplanes) please feel free to correct it.
(Sorry about rambling on but today was my day to jump and, well, that good
ol' northwet sunshine had the ceiling too low.. and raindrops are pointed
on top). I think I just heard the beer light come on.
Mike McGee jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com N6358G
A ship in port is safe but that is not what ships are for..
..the ship has sailed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft oils |
| From: | triedel(at)juno.com (Ted W Riedel) |
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bumflyer(at)aol.com |
I have really tried to throttle myself and confined my opinions to a private
reply; however the question of center of gravity has puzzled me for years.
Which is more tail heavy? The 6 or the 6A? No one seemed to know and the
samples in the handbook didn't show the all important engine and prop
differences. This is something we all wanted to know as a consideration for
our choice.
I know this could spark a great debate with 20 or thirty opinions well
substantiated with arguments about heavy tail wheels and heavy nose wheels.
Or how about the effect of more aft main gear on the 6A.
Unfortunately I know the answer.
I you are making the choice based on Center of Gravity (or baggage capacity),
forget it. They are both the same.
A fellow builder and I used the same engine and prop but his was a tail
dragger and mine was a 6A. Mine has a slider and is ten pounds heavier. Our
center of gravity was within a few hundredths of an inch, which is beyond our
ability to measure. We used the same scales.
Now I know the next question is which is faster and how much? I assume his
is but will let you know in about a month. Right now Mine has no fairings or
pants and his is in the paint shop.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
I have over 1200 hours in tail draggers and learned to fly in them so I feel
qualified to comment on the RV-6 vs the RV-6A. I have flown both the 6 and
the 6A and the both fly the same in the air. I can feel no difference in
handling. Both are outstanding!!! On the ground is another matter. To taxi
a 6, you have to stretch to see over the nose or do "S" turns. If you have
the tip up canopy, it is even more difficult to taxi if the canopy is tilted
up to let a bit of air in. In the 6A, visibility is excellent. The 6A is
much easier to taxi. On takeoff, the 6 requires quick reactions to keep
things going right down the runway and when the tail comes off the ground
even quicker reaction is required to keep things straight. It is possible to
crash on takeoff in a 6 if you are not ahead of the plane. In fact, a 6 did
just that on its first flight a Spirit of St. Louis airport. On the 6A a bit
of right rudder is all that is required to keep things going right and
takeoff is a breeze. I can't imagine how you could loose control on takeoff
in a 6A. Landing is much more difficult in a 6. If you are not right on
speed and have just the right attitude, you will bounce. This bounce can
quickly become a series of bounces if you are not careful. Directional
control in a 6 is also much more difficult. you literally have to fly the
plane down to walking speed. The 6A is a peice of cake to land. When you
touch down, the natural tendency is for the nose to fall and the plane does
not bounce. Once the nose gear is on the ground the rest is a total no
brainer. The plane wants to track down the runway like an arrow. Why
subject yourself to grief to gain a couple of miles per hour and some
possible improved looks. The tail dragger croud will tell you that "Real
pilots fly tail draggers." Well, I'm here to tell you that Real pilots also
fly nose draggers and have a lot more fun because they don't have to worry
every time they land that they may bend their toys and they can taxi with
ease to and from the runway. I would bet that the average RV pilot flying a
6 can't land any shorter than the average pilot flying a 6A. I can land and
stop my 6A in less than 600 feet consistently. When Mike Seager was at my
house for four days and gave 24 check out rides in the factory 6, I watched
every one of the flights. I saw a lot of good pilots have a lot of trouble
both on takeoff and landing in the 6. I have never seen a pilot have trouble
with a 6A. Decide now and you won't end up with a heavy tail. Other
considerations include resale value and insurance costs. Both favor the 6A.
I am standing by in my Air Force issue Nomex fireproof flying suit for the
flames about to come my way from the 6 guys, so fire away. You'll never
convince me that a 6 is worth the trouble.
Jim Cone, RV-6A flying great.
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Forrest <gforrest(at)nwc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Message Problems... |
Bob
I receive all your messages;however, all of your messages stop downloading
of the remainder of the messages. I get a message saying that there are
characters that are not recognized and ask if I want to delete or retry.
Your messages look fine until after your name in the cartoon area. I see
several strings of =30=30=30=30. This might be the area that is causing
problems.
Jerry Forrest
>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>More than a few people have been complaining that messages you post to
>the List don't have any data in them. I'm not sure what do or say about it
>since the messages I get from you through the List have data, and the
>archive file also contains the data.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark & Candy LaBoyteaux <tailspin(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | IO-320B1A Problems. |
Well, I have a few questions for those of you who are familiar with
Lycomings.
I have an IO-320B1A to put on my -6a, and I have already replaced the
sump in order to mount the injector unit on the bottom. My Barry mounts
arrived from Van's today, and I discovered that there are four special
spacers that are used on the mounting of -B1A and -C1A engines that I am
missing. The first place I called to try to track down a set of these
was Bobby's Plane Parts in Texas, with no luck. My next call was to
Van's. I recieved much sympathy and they wished me luck in my search.
The part number that I need is LW-74465, does anyone know where I might
be able to locate a set of these?
Another thing that I discovered is that the engine mount bolts that I
bought from Van's are going to be too short once I locate the missing
spacers that this engine requires. Do any of you builders that are using
a -B1A engine happen to know what length of AN bolts you wound up using?
One more thing, I also bought a new Woodward prop governor from Van's.
So I decided to go ahead and bolt it on. The studs on the governor pad
are too short. There's just about one thread sticking out. Rats! Now I'm
really bummed out! Has anyone else had this problem with the Woodward
governor? It looks like all I need to do is install some longer studs,
but where is the best place to buy this type of hardware? Aircraft
Spruce and Specialty and others list AN hardware, but I haven't seen
anybody list the coarse thread hardware that is used on Lycoming
engines. By the way, why is it that all other aircraft hardware uses
fine threads, but Lycoming engines all use coarse thread hardware?
Looks like it's not gonna get bolted on by this weekend.
Mark LaBoyteaux
tailspin(at)ix.netcom.com
RV-6a N106RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kevin lane <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I received a Jeg's car racing parts catalog today and noticed they sell rpm
limit modules. Does something similar exist for aircraft? I was thinking
about the 2650 rpm limitation on the Sensenich prop. and how easy it will be
to overrev in loops or 8's. Apparently it randomly grounds out the coil
rather than simply shutting the engine down to keep the engine within
limits. kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry H. Prado" <jerryprado(at)wa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
Bob Reiff wrote:
>
>
> I am posting this for Mr. Jerry Thorpe, a local builder who is working on
> a RV-6 quickbuild kit and does not use PC's. He would appreciate replies
> from anyone who may have had a problem similar to the following, and if
> so what they did about it.
>
> Jerry was rinsing off primed aluminum sheets with water and the primer
> started peeling off in hand-sized pieces.
>
> He contacted Van's and got a letter back saying it was either a bad batch
> of paint, or the folks who produce the QB kits applied it wrong. He was
> told not to worry about it as primer is not necessary ("Piper and Cessna
> don't do it"), but if he wanted to he (Jerry) could re-prime it.
>
> He contacted the manufacturer, Sherwin-Williams, and was told one
> characteristic of the P60G2 Vinyl primer Van's is using is a tendency to
> lift itself if it is applied too thick. The dry film thickness should be
> 0.2 to 0.4 mils, compared to 1 mil for DuPont Variprime. He has measured
> the film thickness of the lifted pieces.
>
> Jerry is concerned about the quality of the prime job in the inaccessable
> areas like inside the wing, that if it peels off there he can't do
> anything about it, and he won't have the extra corrosion protection he
> paid for.
>
> If anyone has had a similar experience, Jerry would appreciate you
> contacting him at 414-593-5470, or E-mail me and I will pass on to him
> (E-mail me directly as I am not on the list).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bob Reiff
> RV-4 #2646
Two weeks ago, I spoke with Van's who informed me that the primer used
on the quick builds was a clone of the Sherwin-Williams product. I just
completed applying primer to a large number of parts using the
Sherwin-Williams eg2-980 product - 1:1 mix with the 981 reducer. I
applied it at approx 45 degrees and was very impressed with the
adhesion. As the day warmed up, I was no longer able to visually see it
migrate and etch so I stopped. Tonight, I ran some tests on scraps that
I had sprayed. After bending, sanding and applying various solvents,
only MEK or the reducer itself had any effect. I had the opportunity to
talk to the regional rep who insisted that 'moisture sensitivity" was an
issue with this product and he insisted that it should be 'sealed'.
While putting my parts up, a drop of sweat fell on a spar web. The water
was quickly absorbed and discolored the product.
In summary, I am very happy with the etching and adhesive qualities of
the product, however, don't expect moisture to bead up like it will with
an epoxy product.
Any feedback on applying a 'shop coat' of something on top of it on spar
components ? Is build up an issue?
Jerry Prado
rv6A, wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ve7fp(at)jetstream.net (Ken Hoshowski) |
| Subject: | Re: RV Builders Vancouver Area |
----------
> From: Ken Hoshowski <ve7fp(at)jetstream.net>
> To: tedd(at)idacom.hp.com
> Subject: RV Builders Vancouver Area
> Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 9:36 PM
>
> Ted,
> Send me your mailing address and I will send you a complimentary copy of
> the Western Canada Rvator along with a membership list. This will give
you
> the names of many lower mainland builders. If you enjoy the newsletter.
> We would welcome you to our group. Membership dues are $10.00 Ccn or
$7.50
> U.S. for our quarterly newsletter.
>
> Regards
>
> Ken Hoshowski, Editor RV6 C-FKEH 160 HP C/S
> Western Canada Rvator First Flight Sept 8 1994
>
> Note : Our local Salmon Arm Flying Club Air Affair is coming up on June
> 14/15. Free spaghetti dinner to flyins on Sat. Sunday pancake breakfast
> starts at 8 A.M. Fly bys, Aerial demo's, giant flea market, etc. Good
> motels available or Billets available for visiting RVers. Our good
friend
> John Ammeter from Seattle didn't know what a billet was. We Canadians
talk
> funny??? Eh, John.! We call it a chesterfield, you call it a couch,
> anyway a billet is free accomodation and we welcome our American friends
> to our fly in. The last time John flew up we had to put him in the
dungeon
> (bedroom under the garage) and the house still reverberated from his
> snoring. Les Williams, I am sure will confirm this. Van's have been
> invited but as yet have not confirmed attendance. They have been up a
> number of times along with some of that great bunch from the Portland
area.
> I understand that Mike Seager will be up to give training rides to those
> who want them. We expect about a dozen RV's in attendance. Last year we
> had 10 RV's out of 85 flyins. Hope you might consider some of our local
> hospitality. All Rver's on the list are invited.
>
> P.S. Matt, This is a great list and you are to be commended for the
effort
> you put in. We started building in 1989 (serial # 20332) and can
honestly
> say we have met and continue to meet and enjoy the friendships we have
> made. With few exceptions the RV bunch are a great bunch of people. In
> addition to building and flying a great airplane we appreciate the
> comaraderie and friendship of all the RV builders we have met in both the
> U.S. and Canada.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | L & M Rowles <lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Dirt dobbers |
At 03:03 AM 29/05/97 UT, you wrote:
>
>I have a 66 X 90 hanger with the big end open. Have always had lots of dirt
>dobbers.
Stan what are dirt dobbers?
Les Rowles
Po Box 1895
Traralgon
Australia 3844
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Bottiglieri <rb(at)ozramp.net.au> |
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | L & M Rowles <lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au> |
Hi All,
Has anybody experienced fluctuating fuel pressure in the cruise? The
engine is a 0-360.
The bloke is convinced it not vapor lock.
Les Rowles.
Les Rowles
Po Box 1895
Traralgon
Australia 3844
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dirt dobbers |
| From: | bshaw5(at)juno.com (William H Shaw) |
Les -
Dirt dobbers or mud daubers, as we call them in my area (upstate NY) are
wasps that love to build their nests in any small hole or tube, e.g.,
pitot tubes or fuel tank drains. I've had these things happen on my
Cessna 120 and are a royal pain. Hope this answers your question.
Bill Shaw
bshaw(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Arter <philip.arter(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 #2 Changes? |
Vincent S. Himsl wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Just received latest RVator and read the changes of RV8 #2 over the
> prototype. Mention was made of a new improved vertical stabilizer and
> rudder. Question to the list/Van's is..... Do our empennage kits have the
> newer version? If not, could someone who knows the difference between ours
> and the new elaborate a little more on the difference in performance.
>
> Any options for those who have not begun the improved pieces? Retrofits?
>
> This request is to the RV-list rather than Van's directly as I believe it to
> be a question of general interest.
>
> Vince Himsl
> Moscow, ID
> RV80296 Tail
Vince, hi
I believe all the RV-8 kits have the larger VS and counter-balanced
rudder. The prototype was unique.
--
Phil Arter, RV-8 #80005
philip.arter(at)mci2000.com
http://acd.ucar.edu/~arter/RV8.html
(303)459-0435 home
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Davis" <jdavis1(at)ford.com> |
rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | (Fwd) Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A... |
--- Forwarded mail from ("Jeffrey Davis")
From: "Jeffrey Davis" <jdavis1(at)av5036.pd8.ford.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:46:42 -0400
Subject: Tip on delaying the decision between 6 and 6A...
I have spent time in many different conventional gear aircraft ranging from
Champs to Beech 18s. The Champ is a great plane to learn the fundamentals.
The Champs I have flown are very easy to land. In a couple hours you should
start to feel comfortable. Don't forget to start on the grass and move to the
pavement as your confidence and experience builds. Grass is the place to
learn.. After you master the Champ I would recommend getting some time in
something like a Luscombe 8 or a Stinson 108. Both of these airplanes will
provide you with a new challenge. The Luscombe is a little quicker on final
and has narrow, tall gear (and a bad reputation). The Stinson also is a bit
more difficult to land smoothly and adds the complexity of flaps.
I am building a 6 and have a few hours in the conventional gear version. They
are very easy to handle on the ground. If you can handle a Champ/Super Cub or
Luscombe, you will do fine in the RV. My wife is a pilot (C152) and wanted a
trike but after a few hours in a Super Cub and now in a Luscombe, she can't
understand why she was so scared of conventional gear.
Good luck with your conventional gear training - Utilization should be one of
the main drivers behind selection of the gear configuration. If you think you
will fly the trike more, build it. If cross wind landings and "Fly until it is
tied down" are more your style, go for the conventional gear.
>I have NEVER flown a taildragger, but I like the looks of them and their
>rough-field handling abilities (forget that 2 knot speed difference!)..
>But, I don't want to make the decision without some taildragger time.
>So, I am joining a flying club that has a 1946 Aeronca Champ (can someone
>please comment on the handling differences between this and an RV-6?
>AS THEY RELATE TO LEARNING TO T/O or LAND?!). I hope to use
>what I learn from flying the Champ to help me decide which RV to build.
>(Again, please don't think I'm implying that the Champ and RV handle
>.the same! I just want to know if I feel comfortable handling the Champ,
>would I feel at least as comfortable handling the RV-6?)
>Stephen Heinlein
>sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (Almost done with second wing...)
---End of forwarded mail from rv-list(at)matronics.com
--
Jeffrey S. Davis
Senior Research Engineer
Advance Vehicle Technology
Ford Motor Company
Phone (313)845-5224 Fax (313)845-4781
---End of forwarded mail from ("Jeffrey Davis")
--
Jeffrey S. Davis
Senior Research Engineer
Advance Vehicle Technology
Ford Motor Company
Phone (313)845-5224 Fax (313)845-4781
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dirt dobbers |
Stan Mehrhoff wrote:
>
>
> I have a 66 X 90 hanger with the big end open. Have always had lots of dirt
> dobbers. I always fought them with soapy water in a backpack sprayer. Last
> fall I bought 4 of the things you plug into an outlet to keep rodents away.
> Guess what? So far this year no dirt dobbers. I am still keeping my fingers
> crossed.
>
> Stan MehrhoffI was very surprised to rid my infested out-building of mice with
one of
these devices. Before installing it, I would see and hear mice every
time I went out there. It's been a year now since I've seen one. Since
the RV is being built in there, it's very important to keep those
corroders out! You can bet they'll be in the hangar too.
Brian Eckstein
6A-Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sheinlein(at)VNET.IBM.COM |
Subject:Effects of "swivel" nosewheel on 6A vs 6 decision
Thanks to everyone so far for their replies concerning my recent post
on my dilemma as to whether to build a 6a or a 6. This list is
fantastic and all the info I have been getting is GREAT! Thanks to
everyone for their help, please keep the stuff coming! Also, everyone
avoided the flamebait... awesome! I have gotten nothing but flame-free,
super-helpful comments, suggestions, and opinions. I haven't decided
yet what I'm going to do, but I do have another question which might
influence my decision somewhat.
And that is: "What is the story on that swivel nosewheel?"
I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
nosewheel.
I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
As always, any help here is much appreciated!
Stephen Heinlein
sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (still pondering 6 vs 6a decision)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CYoung9519(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 or RV-6A? |
Stephen,
I have several hundred hours in various tail dragger types, from ultralights
to factory built and homebuilt. I took transition training in the RV6 a year
ago and bought a 6A in January of this year. I'm very happy with my decision
to go with the 6A. It really is easier to land, taxi and do anything on the
ground. In the air, there seems to be very little difference including
speed. Good luck.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Kelley <patk(at)mail.ic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dirt dobbers |
L & M Rowles wrote:
>
> Stan what are dirt dobbers?
Les, they are a kind of wasp that builds it's nest of dirt and spit. If
they can, they will build in an existing hole or tube and stop up the
ends with their 'mud', but they will also happily attach a dirt tube to
a flat surface if it is in a protected area (say, between stored sheets
of aluminum). Each tube is filled with an egg and a paralysed spider.
These are solitary wasps, not like the paper wasps, and not as
agressive. However, their nests are a pain to remove. Sorry for the
natural history lesson, but there is a way to reduce the population.
Fill an old pickle jar about half full of gatorade and leave it out in
the area you want to protect. The stuff in gatorade is poison to the
wasps. This won't completely stop them, but every bit helps.
PatK - RV-6A - Wing structure complete, top skins going on.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
>
(Snip)
>I know this could spark a great debate with 20 or thirty opinions well
>substantiated with arguments about heavy tail wheels and heavy nose wheels.
> Or how about the effect of more aft main gear on the 6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Builders |
(snip),
>
>For the last few months, I have been looking at my unstarted -4 fuselage
>kit sitting in the garage, feeling guiltier by the day. I am considering
>having someone build the fuselage.
>Joe Rex
>Looking at fuselage box
>
As I see it, it would not be any different then buying the Quick build kit.
I don't know where you are located. Art Chard of Van's (now retired was
doing it) here in Oregon along with the fellow mention a few postings ago
(Dave, I believe). Both of these fellows are good builders. Many many others
out there.
Have A Great Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Junk email: Free Aircraft Tool Catalog |
I'm missing all that junk mail. Are you sure that the junk comes from being
on the matronics list?
Gene -- Still trying to work up the nerve to cut on the canopy
cafgef(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Test Message for Matt . . . |
Matt,
Here's a lengthy test message . . . direct and copy
through the list server . . . I'll let you know what
I see too =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Re: Copy of: switch ratings
/It is important to check the DC rating on the switch. =
/You will note that many of the RS Switches only have =
/AC ratings. =
There are about 100 ways for manufacturer's to "rate"
thier switches. I know of at least 20 different
specifications in the military documents alone. The
way switches are used in airplanes (less than 500
operations per year) the mechanical ratings of about
ANY switch will give good service in an airplane.
Generally speaking, a switch that is suited for =
10 amps at 125 volts AC will perform well at 10
ams and 14 volts DC. The most important aspect of
switch selection for d.c. operation is how "snappy"
it is.
I'll quote an excerpt from the AeroElectric Connection's
opening for the chapter on switches . . . .
-----
Switches, relays and contactors are a family of basic =
devices used to control flow of current in an electrical =
system. The generic switch has been around from the =
very beginning of electrification. Houses were convert
ed from gas or oil to electrical illumination by literally =
fastening lamp fixtures to ceilings, switches to walls and =
connecting the whole mess together with wires that =
were stapled to the surface. Even in these rudimentary =
beginnings, switches were constructed to accomplish =
connection or disconnection of electrical circuits with a =
snap. As one rotated the handle of an early light =
switch, a feeling of winding up a spring was unmistaka
ble. At some point, tension was sufficient to push =
internal parts past a detent and the switch would =
complete its operation with a "click"; a sudden release =
of tension could be felt in the fingers.
=
The need for snap action was well understood, espe
cially in the early days of domestic power distribution. =
Most houses were first supplied with direct current =
(d.c.) in contrast with present day systems which supply =
alternating current (a.c.). In the section on over voltage =
protection I described special design efforts required =
to control the fire between spreading relay contacts =
which are attempting to bring a failed alternator/regu
lator system under control. When d.c. was routed to =
our ancestors homes, the problem of controlling high =
voltage had to be addressed. In this instance, the high =
d.c. voltage was not developed by a collapsing magnetic =
field. The voltage was already high; 100 volts or so as =
delivered to the back of the house!
=
A simpler device known as a knife switch was universal =
in industrial applications. It operates in a manner which =
is suggested by its name: a blade of conductive material =
was moved by an insulated handle so that it was forced =
between two spring loaded leaves of conductive materi
al thus making a connection. Breaking connection was =
accomplished by simply pulling the blade from between =
the leaves. =
=
My earliest recollection of knife switches is from old =
black and white movies. The good Doctor Frankenstein, =
standing over his patient, is yelling instructions to Igor =
who manipulates many switches and knobs on the =
laboratory apparatus. Operation of these switches is =
always accompanied with flashes of fire and puffs of =
smoke. The effects were undoubtedly enhanced for the =
benefit of the movie viewers, but then fire and smoke =
was not totally out of character for this type of switch. =
Indeed, hesitant or sloppy operation of a knife switch in =
a high voltage circuit would produce long, hot blue =
sparks accompanied by subsequent damage to the switch.
=
Purveyors of early electrification products and services =
knew that consumers would not be favorably impressed =
with little fires and puffs of smoke at their fingertips. =
Snap action switches were developed in a successful =
attempt to keep "lights" off of walls and up on ceilings =
where they belonged! Control of high voltage d.c. using =
snap action switches required no instruction or special =
action on the part of the switch operator. A child could =
easily accomplish a making or breaking of connection. =
Thus children began to "make" more connections than =
they "broke" and the seeds of eternally illuminated =
children's bedrooms were planted. They thrive to this =
day!
--------------------------
14 volt d.c. circuits DO NOT fall into the "too hard"
pile for controlling arcing at contacts. The battery
contactor should have a diode or MOV across its coil
to corral inductive kickback, the starter contactor too.
Landing lights are the only devices with a
potentially high inrush and this is generally limited
to about 5X due to wire losses; a 50 amp inrush isn't
going to kill a switch with a few operations. I like
to call people's attention to the switches used on thousands
of Cessna 150's. I'll guarantee you those little plastic
rockers cost under $1 when they were originally installed.
The vast majority of them are still in service after 30
years. The C-150 I fly the most has all original switches
and the airplane has over 3000 hours on it.
/They almost certainly have gold contacts on the switches =
/and probably would only support low current DC unless =
/specifically stated that they can support higher currents. =
Gold is used only on very LOW current switches and it
is easily burned away if the switch's current ratings
are exceeded even for an instant. You won't find any
ordinary switches that use gold contacts.
/Putting high current DC through these switches could =
/possibly result in arc over and welded contacts.
I've never seen a welded contact in a hand operated switch.
Contactors do it regularly and that's mostly due to contact
wear and metal transfer after many operations. Even the
very best Cuttler-Hammer "aircraft quality" contactors
weld shut and or burn up . . got one on my desk right now
that came out of a KingAir air conditioning system. Sucker
is pure toast! Except for an occasional sticking starter
contactor (you need a starter energized light on panel !!!)
stuck contacts in single engine airplanes are VERY rare.
/Automobile switches would work fine but do check the =
/rating of the switch first.
Except for landing light and pitot heat, most airplane
power control circuits are quite light . . . Even if
you OVERLOAD a switch to 200% of its "rating" you may
reduce it's laboratory life from 50,000 cycles down
to 5,000 cycles . . . how long is it going to take you
to "wear out" that switch in your airplane?
Pick switches with substantial mechanical "feel" and
good construction. Wiring terminals should be secure
in the housing and not "wiggle" when pushed on. And yes,
get a switch good for 7-10 amps and it will work fine
about anywhere in your airplane.
/RS do have some miniature toggles with high current =
/DC contacts - my catalogue is in the office and I =
/am a home wid a code so I can't dig out the numbers.
The miniature toggles are generally limited to 5 amps
and they have pretty close contact spacing when open.
I do not recommend these devices for power control in
airplanes. They're fine for audio and instrumentation
switching or power control under an amp or so.
/Are automobile switches of suitable quality for =
/fitting into our Europa? I have looked high and low for =
/suitable DC rated units without much joy. Is there a =
/common divider to work out a dc rating for an ac rated switch? =
The terms "quality" and "rating" are certainly unquanitified
terms and in the context of this discussion, pretty meaningless.
We need to learn failure tolerant design . . ASSUME that
EVERYTHING you put in is going to fail at some point in
time. If you need it for comfortable completion of flight,
have a backup system. If NOT don't worry about it. In any
case, the only reason for upgrading the QUALITY of a part
should be because you're tired of replacing it, not because
it damned near got you killed.
Then it doesn't matter WHAT kind of switches you use. I
hightly recommend the standard toggles that mount in 15/32"
round holes. They are universally produced by hundreds
of manufacturers, they are available with .25" fast-on tabs
for easy installation and replacement. My idea of the
ideal switch is one that can be replaced in 5 minutes for
$5, sitting in the pilot's seat with only a nut-driver in =
hand.
/I was just wondering about using themocouples for an =
/alternate power supply?
A very perceptive question!!! And . . . believe it
or not, it's not really to far out of reach . . =
at least in principal.
/AFAIK they are used on missiles and bomb { as in H, =
/as in serious big bangs } fuses. =
Actually, the device you're refering to is a "thermal
battery" which is still a chemical battery like the
ones you use in your flashlight. In this case, the electrolyte
doesn't work until it's heated to a molten state at about
700 degrees F or hotter. We did a design review to consider
a thermal battery in our latest upgrade to the AQM-37D,
high altitude, Mach 4 target. These batteries are attractive
for weapons systems because of their ability to deliver
a lot of watts for a short period of time (generally limited
to 10-20 minutes). They store very well (shelf life on the
order of 10-50 years) and come to life in about 100-300
milliseconds after the thermite is touched off inside by
an electrical squib from outside. We decided not to use
it this time due to some changes in our lauch protocols that
would have risked reduced reliability in other areas of
the target's performance. But back to your original premise . . .
Thermocouples are capable of delivering useful amounts of
energy. One of the most common examples are the early
electric gas valves for furnaces that took advantage
of a remote thermostat. A thermocouple on the pilot
light was connected in series with a thermostat
in the house and a coil in the gas valve. The output
voltage of these thermocouples was only 150-200 MILLIVOLTS
so the valve coil was a special design. The CURRENT
available was considerable so there was a useful amount
of energy but a common mistake of installers or
repair-persons unfamiliar with the technology was to =
wire with ordinary 22AWG thermostat wire and throw away =
too many millivolts in the conductors. I discovered this in
my first exposure to such a system in a house I was =
renting about 25 years ago. The house had been remodeled =
in the summer; the thermostat moved and rewired. In the fall,
End of test . . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Jim,
GO FLY A KITE!!!
Bill Mahoney
Sherman, CT
RV-6
N747W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges |
Ditto from me! $102 to ship my wing kit to San Diego. If I had ordered my
wing when I ordered the empennage I would not have gotten the prepunched
wing skins. It was worth waiting for.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (wings)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
I recommend waiting --
>it costs you a little bit, but the improvements are darn well worth it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RodWoodard <rodwoodard(at)mcione.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Swivel nosewheel |
Hello Stephen:
I've got 90% of my time in a Piper Cherokee. Last August, Fred Stucklen was
out here in Colorado visiting. He let me fly left seat in his 6A. (Fred's a
brave man.)
I can tell you that it the swivel nosewheel was absolutely no problem for
me. I had no problem taxiing the length of our 8800' runway. Landing and
the subsequent roll-out felt every bit as secure and stable as my Cherokee.
The only problem I encountered in flying Fred's airplane is that RV's are
so incredibly aerodynamic. I'm used to reducing power from cruise about 1/2
mile from the airport. I've got no problem losing the 20 mph or so down to
a reasonable downwind speed. I tried that with Fred's -6A.... reduced the
power all the way back to 1900rpm... the RV only slowed to about 130 mph.
I didn't want to just pull the plug on the power and shock cool Fred's
engine so I made gradual power reductions as I continued on downwind.
Needless to say, I was still carrying far too much speed on final and we
went around and tried it again. I'm pretty confident though that I could
feel very comfortable transitioning from my Cherokee to the -6A after a
couple of hours with an experienced RV-driver.
Best regards,
Rod Woodard
Loveland, Colorado
RV-8, #80033
> And that is: "What is the story on that swivel nosewheel?"
>
> I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
> nosewheel.
>
> I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
> susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
> nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
> As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
> straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
>
> As always, any help here is much appreciated!
>
> Stephen Heinlein
> sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (still pondering 6 vs 6a decision)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Tail/Nose (decision chatter) |
I would like to say that I agree with Jim Cone for the most part. I have
some tail wheel time (3000+) most all back 40 yrs.+ in Cubs, Luscombe,
Swift, etc. For about 35 yrs I was in the heavies (25,000+) and didn't fly
the light stuff during that period. I got an instructor here last year and
took a several hrs of instruction in a 140. I have to admit there was some
wobbling for a while and the wheel landings on a windless day I still work
hard, (for me wheel landing work better under the condition that they are
intented for..windy/x-winds) anyway it was a re-learning experience. Not
only keeping the plane straight but flaring down in that hole (747 does that
to your perspective). But soon I was think about watching that nose very
carefully. I still drawing deep breathes as I sink into the above mentioned
hole and so I have to force my self to go lower, but I still land a little
high and firmer then is desired. I fly the 140 now mostly because I enjoy
it for some unexplainable reason. But my ldgs & TO's are better in the 172
now, which I believe is due to the taildragger training. I can personally
testify that even a 747 can give you test in a cross wind, it like to go
into the wind just like its smaller brothers.
So I'm of the opinion that some tail training would help us all. I intend
to budget a minimum of 10 hrs of dual with Mike Seagar if he is available
before I fly my -6. I have found over the years I start get the drift around
10 hrs. Now some folks are faster on the up take then me. That is a personal
figure I have worked out. And the record shows it has worked so far for me.
I stated before that I ended up with a -6 because of my engine (and I kind
of wanted one anyway). I had originally choose the -6A. I believe Jim is
correct in re-sale, seeing down the taxi way and someother things about the
tail dragger, also. There are just a lot scare stories about tail draggers
and fear breeds mistakes...but how do you RV-3, RV-4 and RV-6 guys with
experience feel? Would you do it again? There must be a good cross section
of experience and skill to help the new guys and the guys on the fence.
I hope this type of exchange does not upset the majority of net guys. I do
feel this type information is part of the whole process and might help some
new builders.
What do You think?
Have A Great Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant E. Young" <gyoung(at)crl.nmsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
If that isn't a Van's answer, I don't know what is.
grant-
(a less than anonymous RV-6 builder who thinks Van's has a great
airframe but lousy customer/technical support)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
Oh Boy ! Libel..Defamation..Lawsuit...Good name sullied...Ad infinitum.
Ad nauseum.
Are these RV terms ? Is it any wonder that people don't
invite other people up for a ride too often anymore ? Let's enjoy the
list for good RV comment..
Austin
Rv-6, paint soon ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David J. Fitzgerald" <theredbaron(at)earthlink.net> |
-> RV-List message posted by: "David J. Fitzgerald"
Hello,
An easy way to understand nosewheel stability is to look at a Big Wheel or
kid's tricycle. A big wheel is a castoring type device also. If you roll it
backwards it will tend to swap ends due to the placement of the center of
gravity with respect to the wheels and center of rotation. This is deemed
negative stability. If you roll the big wheel like a tricycle gear airplane
it tends to straighten out even if you roll it with the wheel slightly turned.
(this is positive stability). Therefore, a tricycle gear aircraft will still
have a positive stability whether it is a steerable or swivel type!
The Grumman Tiger has a full castoring nosewheel and needs to be steered
with the brakes and not rudder inputs. This makes for a much less complex
system. On the plus side there is no limit to the nosewheel angle like there
is on a Cessna - this allows for very tight turns. On the negative side it
is slightly more difficult to control tracking with brake inputs,
but nothing major.
-----------------------------------
David Fitzgerald
RV-8 Serial #80333
theredbaron(at)earthlink.net
-----------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RPM limiters |
-> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
Kevin,
I would consider using your self as the RPM limiter. You never know when a
situation may arrise when you need that extra RPM.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
-> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
OVER REACTING JUST A BIT ARENT WE JIM?
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: Test Message for Matt . . . |
-> RV-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001)
Hi Bob,
Well, I did find something interesting with your message. On my non-matronics
email account, the "==> RV-List message..." line had been corrupted and a
the "==>" replaced with some binary (non-ascii) character! The reason the
characters were converted appears to be related to the MIME headers in your
message - specifically the "quoted printable". On my non-matronics mailer,
the following headers were added when the message was received:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
roxanne.llnl.gov id IAA17 904
Basically the conversion as described in these two headers will convert
a sort of 'ascii encoded' binary data. It also appears that the encoding
uses the "=" character as the signal that the following two characters
actually represent some binary character. The sequence "=3D" that many
people see in your messages is actually how the "=" character is escaped
so that "=" can be printed.
So here's my theory: Each RV-List message starts with the sequence
"==> RV-List...". Note the un-escaped "=" as far as MIME is concerned.
It appears that "==>" when translated is some binary character. It would
also appear that some people's mail programs are ending the message download
when they encounter the character.
I have changed the "posted by" banner from "==>" to the less controversial
sequence "-->".
I could be completely full of fuel lube on what's going on here, but hey,
its a theory!
Bob Nuckolls - Please post another message to the List for testing.
Those of you having no-data problems - Please let me know via direct
email to "dralle(at)matronics.com" if Bob's first message entitled
"RV-List: Test Message for Matt . . ." contained any data, and more
importantly, if his second test (yet to be sent, and beginning with the
new "--> RV-List Message posted..." banner contained readable text.
Thanks for the help everyone. Like I said, I'm not sure if this is it
or not but is seems like a good possibility.
Matt Dralle
RV-List Admin.
>--------------
>
>Matt,
>
>Here's a lengthy test message . . . direct and copy
>through the list server . . . I'll let you know what
>I see too =
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Acker <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
-> RV-List message posted by: Robert Acker
>I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
>nosewheel.
I tried to stay out of the nose vs. tailwheel debate since the archives are
*packed* with the issue. I remember it was a very difficult decision for me
too though. I am nosewheel trained, and have a whopping 1.5 hours of
tailwheel time so weigh my opinions accordingly.
The 6A is easier when on the ground in all respects, you "drive" it around.
The 6 must be "flown" until tiedown, like all taildraggers. In the air, no
difference.
Unlike some have witnessed, I have seen many 3's, 4's and 6's taking off and
landing and none bounced around madly or looked like they were out of
control in any way.
I know of one instance where two people each thought the other was taxiing
the 6 they were in. It just rolled straight with no input until an object
up ahead finally caused some pedal pushing. Discussions with many 4/6
pilots convinced me its not that big a beast, and generally much easier than
any other taildragger they've flown.
My mission is lots of localized fun flying, with the occasional x/c. If my
mission was lots of x/c, I think I would consider the 6A (flight fatigue,
local unfamiliarity, etc).
In the end, I changed my 6A order to what I really wanted to build and fly.
Just wait till you get to the engine/prop and VFR/IFR panel decisions, those
are worser (spelling police - spelling error intentional)!!!
Good luck,
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Acker <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
-> RV-List message posted by: Robert Acker
>Several listers do this
>double message thing. I don't know if it's me or them or the list but it
>started after Matt had that long down time over a week ago. Al
It's not on purpose. Ever since the list got back up and running, if I hit
"reply" to a message it puts rv-list(at)matronics.com twice in the "To:" field.
I have to remember to remove one of them, or the list gets hit with a double
message.
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bstobbe(at)juno.com (Bruce D Stobbe) |
\-\-\> RV-List message posted by: bstobbe(at)juno.com (Bruce D Stobbe)
Steve wrote:
snip
>As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
>straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways"
>resistance?
>
I'm not a high time taildragger pilot, but I think that the main reason a
trike is less prone to ground looping has more to do with the fact that
the CG is forward of the main gear rather than aft of the main gear - and
the heavy end wants to be in front. As I understand it, that's also why
it is important to make your directional control inputs as soon as you
detect movement of the nose, rather than wait until the heavier tail
builds up some momentum which can develop into a ground loop rather
quickly (on some aircraft).
FWIW, I also struggled with this decision and ended up with the
taildragger. My reasoning: looks better (IMO), ever-so-slightly faster
(I hope), and, I wanted to add a new challenge and skill to my flying
abilities (I hope the new skill doesn't end up having anything to do with
salvaging a ground-looped a/c :>)).
As an aside, and not that I'd recommend it, the FARs do not require a
signoff or any other special rating to fly an experimental taildragger
aircraft. If you're crazy enough you can legally hop right in and go for
it. What's the logic behind that?
Bruce Stobbe
RV-6; N508RV (res)
fuselage becoming lonely - I gotta get back at it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
-> RV-List message posted by: randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson)
please send unsubscribe messages to the correct address,
rv-list-request(at)matronics.com. 600 people have to hit the delete key
whenever someone sends an "unsubscribe" to the rv-list.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
-> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
Fred,
This is becoming a very interesting subject. Just being a pilot provides you
with the authority to perform preventive maintenance, or does it? Prevntetive
maintenance is part of Part 43 we are excluded from part 43 with the
exception of 43D (used for condition inspections).
I have gone through pages and pages of FAR's over the last couple of weeks
trying to determine legaly what we can or cannot do. The truth is there is
nothing I can find that says we can or we cannot work on our own aircraft.
They have put the responsobility in our laps and given us no guidelines to
follow.
Part 91.163
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for
maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance
with Part 39 of this chapter.
(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations
on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable
regulations , including Part 43.
Here we are again part 43, we are excluded does this also mean we cannot do
preventive maintenance on experimentals? preventive maintenance all falls
under part 43.
You are also correct on inspections 91.169 subpart (c) excludes us again
from 100hr inspections and annual inspections and I see nothing about
condition inspections.
I know Ive read most of the information I use as my guideline from the
advisory circulars. I dont believe the advisory circulars are legaly binding,
however they offer us a good source of information to work from. I personally
maintain my airplane as if it were a (spam can) for my own safety as well as
whoever I might be taking along. would anyone else like to take a crack at
this? Its not so easy!
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McNamara <mcnamara(at)sbt.infi.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Don McNamara
> I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
> susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
> nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
> As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
> straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
Stephen--
I currently drive a Grumman Yankee, which is a lot like a -6A in many
respects. Of course, it's also a lot different in most of the important
characteristics (speed). Anyhow, it also has a free-castoring
nosewheel, and I've never had any trouble tracking on a runway. You use
differential braking to maintain direction while taxiing and during
initial powerup for takeoff (which, in the Grumman, is less than
exhilirating.) After that, the rudder becomes effective, and it flies
like anything else. Plus, it turns on a dime, so spinning around at the
gas pumps is a blast.
Building the -8, and expecting there to be an -8A before I have to make
that decision, I'll face the same dilemma. I'll probably stick with
conventional gear so I can become one of those fabled "real pilots."
Don't worry about the nosewheel. If you can groundloop a plane with a
training wheel, you've got bigger problems to deal with.
Hope that helps.
--Don McNamara
80113
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris D Cencula <ccencula(at)ford.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris D Cencula
UNSUBSCRIBE CCENCULA(at)MAILHOST.ELD.FORD.COM
UNSUBSCRIBE CCENCULA(at)MAILHOST.FORD.COM
UNSUBSCRIBE CCENCULA(at)ETCH08.ELD.FORD.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | johntate(at)essex1.com (John Tate) |
--> RV-List message posted by: johntate(at)essex1.com (John Tate)
VNET.IBM.COM!sheinlein(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
>
> Subject:Effects of "swivel" nosewheel on 6A vs 6 decision
>
> Thanks to everyone so far for their replies concerning my recent post
> on my dilemma as to whether to build a 6a or a 6. This list is
> fantastic and all the info I have been getting is GREAT! Thanks to
> everyone for their help, please keep the stuff coming! Also, everyone
> avoided the flamebait... awesome! I have gotten nothing but flame-free,
> super-helpful comments, suggestions, and opinions. I haven't decided
> yet what I'm going to do, but I do have another question which might
> influence my decision somewhat.
>
> And that is: "What is the story on that swivel nosewheel?"
>
> I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
> nosewheel.
>
> I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
> susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
> nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
> As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
> straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
>
> As always, any help here is much appreciated!
>
> Stephen Heinlein
> sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (still pondering 6 vs 6a decision)
Stephen
The key here is the position of the main gear to the center of gravity
of the aircraft. A nose weel aircraft will track straighter by having
its mains behind the center of gravity. Picture a cart as apposed to a
weelbarow.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
--> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
Hi all,
One of you complained about Van's support:
> (a less than anonymous RV-6 builder who thinks Van's has a great
> airframe but lousy customer/technical support)
My experience with Van's technical support is that they do an excellent job.
Okay, I confess, I've had a lot of experience with computer support -- as both
receiver and giver of it. A friend once dealt with a nasty customer by hanging
up on him in a clever way. While customer was ranting, the engineer shouted
"Hello, hello" into the phone as if he was unable to hear anything and then hung
up.
I have more trouble reaching people in other companies when I want to buy
something than I do from Van's when I want free support. In about a dozen
calls, I've gotten one busy signal. The phone is almost always answered by some
human who actually knows something, in fact, they've known all I needed.
I've yet to ride in one but I believe all the reports on how great the RV flies
but I can say that the documentation needs a lot of work. Many points of the
design need work to make the aircraft easier to build. But customer support?
I
wonder what you want?
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing the canopy frame
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCHRICK_Mark/usa_carrollton_tx(at)usx011.stm.com |
Importance: High
| Subject: | For SALE: 76' Decathlon 8KCAB |
rv-list-request(at)matronics.com, rv-list(at)matronics.com
--> RV-List message posted by: SCHRICK_Mark/usa_carrollton_tx(at)usx011.stm.com
--openmail-part-00dac823-00000001
1976 Decathlon 8KCAB
1350TTAF
Lycoming 0-320 (150 Hp) Strong Engine
484 SMOH
Compression HIGH (77,78,76,77)
FULL inverted system
Constant Speed Prop
Apollo 760 COMM
King KT-76A Transponder
G-meter
EGT/CHT
(2) 5-point harnesses
Gap Seals
Spades
Wheel pants
Fresh Cover 1989
2 parachutes available
Annual: April 97 extensive ($2000) New seat AD, cables,ect...
Logs available by fax or mail
Red/ White/ Blue stars and stripes scheme from factory
Book value: $47,000 plus ; $39,500 Low book
Asking: $41,500
Mark Schrick
1397 Boysea Drive
San Jose, Ca 95118
(408) 266-1599 Phone/Fax
--openmail-part-00dac823-00000001
FROM: SCHRICK_Mark/usa_carrollton_ca@usx011
djason(at)ix.netcom.com,
rv-list-request(at)matronics.com,
rv-list(at)matronics.com,
rv-list-request(at)matronics.com,
cmadden(at)wwi.net,
rstear(at)mipos2.intel.com
--openmail-part-00dac823-00000001--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNES_ERIC(at)Tandem.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges - Financial Perspective |
--> RV-List message posted by: BARNES_ERIC(at)Tandem.COM
I'm doing the sub-kit route at this point. Here's why:
4) I think shipping/crating costs are somewhat cummulative.
3) Shipping costs are not too much for tail & wing kits.
2) LATEST UPDATES on sub-kit.
1) If I put the money I'm not spending in the bank (4%), or don't
borrow it (12%):
4% 12%
------ -------
a) $3700 wing kit - wait 6 months = $ 70 $ 210
b) $3000 emp. kit - wait 12 months = $ 120 $ 360
c) $3500 finish kit - wait 18 months = $ 210 $ 630
------ -------
TOTAL SAVED NOT purchasing entire kit $ 400 $ 1200
Now, some of that gets eaten up with price increases, but not that much.
And you can time your purchases before prices go up. Plus there are the
insurance/storage costs and headaches (any cats in the storage place?)
when buying all at once. I think it definitely shows that WAITING
DOESN'T COST ANYTHING, and may save you money.
So, given #2, why buy all at once?
EB #80131 - Rudder (HS and VS done, FINALLY!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RPM limiters |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Gesele
>
>I received a Jeg's car racing parts catalog today and noticed they sell rpm
>limit modules. Does something similar exist for aircraft? I was thinking
>about the 2650 rpm limitation on the Sensenich prop. and how easy it will be
>to overrev in loops or 8's. Apparently it randomly grounds out the coil
>rather than simply shutting the engine down to keep the engine within
>limits. kevin
>
>
>
Kevin,
I'd be hesitant to install an RPM limiter that grounds the mags on a dual
magneto system. Does this thing have a failure mode that would permanently
ground both mags? On a race care it's no big deal, you loose the race and
coast to a stop. In an aircraft over water you get wet. I consider the
throttle the best, and most fail safe, RPM limiter available.
Just my $.02
Scott Gesele N506RV (Learning to paint)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John B. Abell" <jbabell(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John B. Abell"
I'm about ready to install a pitot-static tube and other components in
my wing. I intend to use my RV-6A primarily for cross country flying
including IFR. I've been considering two alternative heated
pitot-static tubes: (a) the AN5814, which is mounted under the wing and
is one of the pitot tubes for which Warren Gretz sells an installation
kit that looks like a good deal, and (b) the AN5816-1 Kollsman type.
The Kollsman tube is about 9.5 inches long and is intended to fasten to
what I think would be a 1 inch O.D. tube with four screws. There's a
picture of both types in the ACS catalog. The Kollsman is mounted so
that it projects straight forward of the wing leading edge. It seems to
me that the Kollsman tube has the better probability of sampling
undistrubed air than the under-wing type.
I would greatly value the comments and opinions of RV-List members on
these two alternatives. Observed and validated airspeed data would be
especially helpful.
Thanks.
Jack Abell
RV-6A N333JA (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry E. Walker" <efford(at)bellatlantic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to prime lots of pieces at once? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry E. Walker"
>
> << Stamping the numbers into the aluminum is a possibility, but presents
> dangers of its own. Another alternative would be to make a part
> number map of the pieces as they lay on the painting stand and
> re-write the numbers on top of the primer with a Sharpie pen after the
> paint dries.
>
> Has anyone else painted large numbers of parts at once? How did you
> remember which part was which? Any advice is welcome! Thanks in
> advance. >>
>
> After cleaning, just use a sharpie to write the number on. It will show
> through the primer
>
I bought a Black & Decker vibrascriber to mark parts. Works great just
like the parts to the wings that Van does..
Jerry Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mheaps(at)direct.ca (mike heaps) |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 #2 Changes? |
--> RV-List message posted by: mheaps(at)direct.ca (mike heaps)
>
>Hello,
>
>Just received latest RVator and read the changes of RV8 #2 over the
>prototype. Mention was made of a new improved vertical stabilizer and
>rudder. Question to the list/Van's is..... Do our empennage kits have the
>newer version? If not, could someone who knows the difference between ours
>and the new elaborate a little more on the difference in performance.
>
>Any options for those who have not begun the improved pieces? Retrofits?
>
>This request is to the RV-list rather than Van's directly as I believe it to
>be a question of general interest.
>
>Vince Himsl
>Moscow, ID
>RV80296 Tail
>
Hi Vince
I belive that the prototype is only a prototype, and changes mention in the
RVator are reflected in all pre delivery kits.
Mike Heaps
Chilliwack British Columbia
RV80280 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denny Harjehausen
t.
>
>And that is: "What is the story on that swivel nosewheel?"
>
>I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
>nosewheel.
>
>I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
>susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
>nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
>As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
>straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
>
Tracking is slightly better even with a free castering nose wheel, as
mentioned earlier because of the main wheels and CG relationship. I saw a
Grumman take for the weeds and cave the the nose gear under and slide to a
halt on the prop. It is equiped like the -6A. The instructor on the aircraft
said they had a weak brake on the down wind side and couldn't hold it with
rudder. A Steerable in that case probably would have save the day.
Have A Great Day!
Denny Harjehausen, retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler)
>--> RV-List message posted by: "John B. Abell"
> The Kollsman is mounted so that it projects straight forward of the
> wing leading edge. It seems to me that the Kollsman tube has the
> better probability of sampling undistrubed air than the under-wing type.
I think the Kollsman tube also has a better chance of sampling someone's thigh
on an airshow field. It may also disturb airflow over the top of the wing.
On the other hand, it might be cool if you put a couple of them on each side
and paint them to look like machine guns.... :-)
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mike Wills
Hal,
Your assembling a quickbuild and asking for it to be easier? I would ask
you the same question, what do you want?
I have yet to find anything that could not be figured out by a careful
study of the plans, but I would agree that Vans leaves it up to the builder
to figure out the most suitable technique to assemble some parts. Personally
I enjoy the challenge.
As far as support, we have phone and online support as well as this list.
There are also 1500+ flying aircraft worldwide that can be studied for tips
and inspiration. It cant get much better than this can it?
Mike Wills
RV-4 (wings)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>--> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
Many points of the
>design need work to make the aircraft easier to build. But customer
support? I
>wonder what you want?
>
>
>Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing the canopy frame
>halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@denmark-c.it.earthlink.net>
> I've been considering two alternative heated
> pitot-static tubes: (a) the AN5814, which is mounted under the wing and
> is one of the pitot tubes for which Warren Gretz sells an installation
> kit that looks like a good deal, and (b) the AN5816-1 Kollsman type.
>... The Kollsman is mounted so
> that it projects straight forward of the wing leading edge.
I opted for the AN5814 with Warren's mounting hardware. I've not yet
flown my RV-6A, but I can tell you I was quite impressed with
Warren's work and his customer service. His product was first rate,
and installed easily.
FWIW, I suspect the design sticking out of the front of the wing
might be more likely to be damaged by people accidentally walking in
to it.
Tim
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry H. Prado" <jerryprado(at)wa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry H. Prado"
Grant E. Young wrote:
>
>
> If that isn't a Van's answer, I don't know what is.
>
> grant-
> (a less than anonymous RV-6 builder who thinks Van's has a great
> airframe but lousy customer/technical support)
Grant,
I respect your position. However, I never meant to convey such an
oppinion as mine. I have had very good support from Van's. My situation
was less than ideal, having bought a built tail from someone on the east
coast who mis-stated the quality of the work and a wing kit circa 1992.
Between Van's and the EAA advisor, I've been able to start building.
Jerry Prado
#22418 - RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fwd: Tools for sale |
| From: | HARRY PAINE <HPair(at)thegrid.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: HARRY PAINE
-- [ From: HARRY PAINE * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
------ TOOL LIST FOR SALE
Harry Paine
477 printz rd
Arroyo Grande Cal 93420
805-481-2524
90% angle drills 1/4 28 thread rebuilt---------------------- -----------
225.00*
45% angle drills 1/4 28 thread rebuilt -------------------- -----------
225.00*
*
D
Flush Rivet set with rubber guard extra wide 1 1/4 " wide much nicer than
Averys. This is the best I've even seen while they last $10.00
# 8 nut plate jig ..............................................
..........12.00
15 mil thick 3M Alum sound damping tape (used on 767) 9" wide not
available anywhere else other than 3M Sold by linear foot minimum 10' order
1.00/ln. ft.
All Items tools guaranteed 30 days or your money back. Items sold and
shipped UPS COD Cash or certified check.
** Limited Availability sold on a first come first serve basis.
Email Harry Paine @
Hpair(at)thegrid.net
call 805-481-2524 & leave message
------- FORWARD, End of original message -------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Price <dwprice(at)webspan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Quickbuild primer |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Price
Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
>
> Hi all,
>
> One of you complained about Van's support:
>
> > (a less than anonymous RV-6 builder who thinks Van's has a great
> > airframe but lousy customer/technical support)
>
> My experience with Van's technical support is that they do an excellent job.
> Okay, I confess, I've had a lot of experience with computer support -- as both
> receiver and giver of it. A friend once dealt with a nasty customer by hanging
> up on him in a clever way. While customer was ranting, the engineer shouted
> "Hello, hello" into the phone as if he was unable to hear anything and then hung
> up.
>
> I have more trouble reaching people in other companies when I want to buy
> something than I do from Van's when I want free support. In about a dozen
> calls, I've gotten one busy signal. The phone is almost always answered by some
> human who actually knows something, in fact, they've known all I needed.
>
> I've yet to ride in one but I believe all the reports on how great the RV flies
> but I can say that the documentation needs a lot of work. Many points of the
> design need work to make the aircraft easier to build. But customer support?
I
> wonder what you want?
>
> Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing the canopy frame
> halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
Hal may I suggest you read the original post,My brother is expecting a
QB to be delivered any day now and I hope he dos'nt see the same thing.
Dave Price
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sensenich props, et al... |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy)
>I received a Jeg's car racing parts catalog today and noticed they
>sell rpm limit modules. Does something similar exist for aircraft? I
was
>thinking about the 2650 rpm limitation on the Sensenich prop. and how
easy it
>will be to overrev in loops or 8's. Apparently it randomly grounds out
the
I've noticed a lot of concern lately on the Sensenich prop in regards to
overspeeding. Folks, it just isn't a problem with reasonable throttle
management. I loop and roll my 6A regularly with a Sensenich/0-320
combo. In a loop, as you come over the top and start back down, you
smoothly retard the throttle. That's it. I've never used a CS equipped
aircraft for aerobatics, but I would imagine that even then you need to
retard the throttle on the way down to keep the airspeed down.
For the record, the limit is 2600, and I've only exceeded it twice by
about 20-30 rpm for a couple of seconds. Neither time was due to acro,
but just descending at too high an airspeed. It is possible to overspeed
at high power settings during descent, but I don't do that very often
anyway. I have an E.I. tach, which can be calibrated for any max RPM.
The red LED at the top of the arc flashes when you hit 2600 and is very
noticeable.
I think the Sensenich prop is VERY efficient, and has more than enough
going for it to compensate for the rpm limitation. A lot of people think
the limitation causes a lot of problems, but everyone I know that uses it
loves it. The limitation is really a non-issue.
P.S. If anyone cares, the picture in the new RVator of Ed O'Grady is
actually me.
Ed (O'Grady) Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Al Mojzisik
>--> RV-List message posted by: ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy)
>I've noticed a lot of concern lately on the Sensenich prop in regards to
>overspeeding. tle on the way down to keep the airspeed down.
>For the record, the limit is 2600, and I've only exceeded it twice by
>about 20-30 rpm for a couple of seconds. Neither time was due to acro,
>but just descending at too high an airspeed. It is possible to overspeed
>at high power settings during descent, but I don't do that very often
Ed,
Isn't the concern for overspeeding in a "power applied" condition and not a
"windmilling" situation? I thought the power pulses are what set up the
prop harmonic that may lead to destruction. (Shuddering all over at the
thought)
Al
________________________________________________________________________________
--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
>>All of Bob Nuckolls messages from the list that I get do not contain text.
>>Is anyone else having this problem?
>I get two messages from Bob N. and the second one is always identical to
>the first with the "=" followed by a number. Several listers do this
>double message thing. I don't know if it's me or them or the list but it
>started after Matt had that long down time over a week ago. Al
If it helps to find the problem-- I get the same as Al has stated. It will
also stop my coping from the server and ask me if I want it converted or
ignored. I must then select one or the other before it will continue. I am
using Eudora Pro and I think there is something called mimi or so that I
have on 'yes'. Seems like some time ago someone mentioned that may make a
difference?
John Darby RV6 N61764 flying
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kenneth Turner Demmons <demon(at)netside.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kenneth Turner Demmons
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel H. Morris III" <Morristec(at)icdc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Daniel H. Morris III"
A pitot sense head or static source must be extended a minimum of about 1/3
cord in front of the leading edge to get to undisturbed air.
Dan Morris
Morristec(at)icdc.com
----------
> From: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> To: Morristec
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives
> Date: Thursday, May 29, 1997 5:38 PM
>
>
> Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com [163.179.3.6] by bbs.icdc.com with
smtp
> Received: from matronics.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP
(8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
> Received: by matronics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
> Errors-To: bounces(at)matronics.com
> X-Mailer: InterCon TCP/Connect II 2.3.1
> Message-Id: <9705291624.AA16552(at)marble.claris.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:24:16 -0800
> From: claris.com!mauser(at)matronics.com (Richard Chandler)
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives
> Sender: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler)
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "John B. Abell"
> > The Kollsman is mounted so that it projects straight forward of the
> > wing leading edge. It seems to me that the Kollsman tube has the
> > better probability of sampling undistrubed air than the under-wing
type.
>
> I think the Kollsman tube also has a better chance of sampling someone's
thigh
> on an airshow field. It may also disturb airflow over the top of the
wing.
>
> On the other hand, it might be cool if you put a couple of them on each
side
> and paint them to look like machine guns.... :-)
>
>
> --
> Richard Chandler
> RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gusndale(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash Strobe Kits |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gusndale(at)aol.com
Hi Everyone!
I've been lurking on the list for a few months now and really
appreciating the wealth of expertise and experience here. I'm getting close
to finishing my wings (RV6A) now and have a question I hope you can help me
with.
I want to put nav/strobe/position lights on the wingtips with separate
power supplies at each wingtip. I know I can get a Whelen kit from Van's or
a lot of other sources for about $700. Here's the Question: Aeroflash has a
"double flash" Nav/strobe/position kit available through Frederick Custom
Airframe; Austin,Texas for about $400. This sounds like a deal, but I don't
know anything about the Aeroflash kit or Frederick Custom Airframe except
what was on a one page flyer I picked up at a builder's group meeting. Does
anyone have enough experience with Aeroflash kits (reliability,completeness
of kit, etc.) to offer an opinion whether the Aeroflash unit is good or if I
should just spend the money and go with Whelen? Also does anyone have
experience with Frederick Custom Airframe?
Thanks in advance to all who respond.
Dale Wotring
Vancouver, WA
RV6A finishing up the wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 #2 Changes? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Benedict
Vince and RV-List,
The RV-8 #1 first flew in July '95. Obviously, we put time on it prior to
arriving at Oshkosh '95, but the flight there and back, plus subsequent
testing confirmed that some changes were necessary for that *RV feel*. One
of the noticeable items was a small amount of yaw when encountering
turbulence. Van spent the fall of '95 evaluating this annoyance and changes
that could be made to regain the RV feel. This change was as described in
the RVator. By Sun 'N Fun '96, we had a handle on it and introduced the
tail kits. Although the #1 -8 is still sporting the original tail, it did
have a different unpainted stab and rudder on it for a while, but not
wanting to waste an almost good component and paint job, we are still
flying the original. With all the demo flights that we have done in the
aircraft during the last year, not one person has commented about the yaw.
So, where does that leave us? Chances are most people would probably not
even "pick up the problem" if you were building the original tail, but all
of the tail kits in the field are just like the yellow #2. Now all 375 RV-8
builders can sleep peacefully tonight;)
The changes to the fuselage are just creature comforts, like more elbow
room in the back seat. The baggage door was moved to the opposite side and
I do not know what prompted that move, possibly because the area was
expanded vertically down the side of the fuselage by the entrance to the
baggage area, and the engine controls and fuel lines needed the left side
of the fuselage for traveling to the firewall. I believe Van also lowered
the top of the fuselage slightly to improve visability over the nose. Bill
>
>Hello,
>
>Just received latest RVator and read the changes of RV8 #2 over the
>prototype. Mention was made of a new improved vertical stabilizer and
>rudder. Question to the list/Van's is..... Do our empennage kits have the
>newer version? If not, could someone who knows the difference between ours
>and the new elaborate a little more on the difference in performance.
>
>Any options for those who have not begun the improved pieces? Retrofits?
>
>This request is to the RV-list rather than Van's directly as I believe it to
>be a question of general interest.
>
>Vince Himsl
>Moscow, ID
>RV80296 Tail
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@norway-c.it.earthlink.net>
In the RV-6A slider configuration there are 3 ribs that support the
glareshield and to which the instrument panel attaches. The three
pieces are 2 ea F-6107 and 1 ea F6108.
Wouldn't you know it, these pieces interfere with my ideal location
of my flight instruments. These pieces are 1.5 - 2" high at the
instrument panel, but they get longer (more vertical extent) forward
of the instrument panel, so they sit right where the back end of
some of my instruments and radios should go.
(view this with a non-proportional font to see picture clearly)
------------------------------------|
| |
| F-6107 / |
| / |
| / |<--instrument panel
| / |
| / |
| /
I'm considering modfying F-6107 by cutting off some of the angled
portion and reinforcing it with some angle. The result would be:
------------------------------------|
| F-6107 _______________________|
| | |
| | |
| | |<--instrument panel
| | |
| / |
| /
It seems to me that F-6107 thus modified would still be strong enough
to support the instrument panel and glare shield, especially in view
of the notched angle piece that's riveted to the entire
underside of the glareshield right behind the instrument panel. Any
comments on my idea?
Also, does anybody know how big of a hole is required for the post
lights Van's sells?
Thanks,
Tim
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Test Message for Matt . . . |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Matt,
It seemed to all come though intact this time . . . =
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose wheel not ground looping. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Benedict
Ground looping is primarily caused by the relationship of the center of mass
of the aircraft with respect to the axle placement. Trigear aircraft have
the center of mass forward of the main axles, so this mass pulls the gear
along. The conventional gear has the center of mass aft of the gear, so
the mass is pushing the main gear. All is fine until this mass gets out
from behind the gear, then it swings around and wants to pull the mass with it.
If you want to see a simple example, next time your wife goes grocery
shopping, volunteer to go along and push the cart. This will earn you
points!, as long as she does not know that you are experimenting. When the
cart is about half full, go around a corner at normal cart speed and notice
how easy it is to straighten out once you have made a 90 degree turn. The
mass of the cart is pulling the main non-steerable wheels. Then turn the
cart around and push it around the corner at the same speed with the
castering wheels in the back, like a tail dragger. Now the mass is pushing
the main wheels and you will experience a different steering sensation as
you go around the corner. Yes Martha, even a grocery cart can ground loop.
Make sure your wife is out of sight when performing the experiment. Bill,
the backward grocery cart driver, but supporter of the training wheel up
front, not because of the landings, but the great visability when taxiing
on the ground. Actually, landing a tail dragger gives a pilot a greater
sense of accomplishment than landing a trike.
>
>Subject:Effects of "swivel" nosewheel on 6A vs 6 decision
>
>Thanks to everyone so far for their replies concerning my recent post
>on my dilemma as to whether to build a 6a or a 6. This list is
>fantastic and all the info I have been getting is GREAT! Thanks to
>everyone for their help, please keep the stuff coming! Also, everyone
>avoided the flamebait... awesome! I have gotten nothing but flame-free,
>super-helpful comments, suggestions, and opinions. I haven't decided
>yet what I'm going to do, but I do have another question which might
>influence my decision somewhat.
>
>And that is: "What is the story on that swivel nosewheel?"
>
>I have only a Cessna background and so am only familiar with a steerable
>nosewheel.
>
>I understand how a steerable nosewheel aircraft would be less
>susceptible to ground-looping. But, I can't understand how a swivel
>nosewheel plane could be any better in this case than a tailwheel!
>As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
>straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways" resistance?
>
>As always, any help here is much appreciated!
>
>Stephen Heinlein
>sheinlein(at)vnet.ibm.com (still pondering 6 vs 6a decision)
>
>
>
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
/I received a Jeg's car racing parts catalog today =
/and noticed they sell rpm limit modules. Does =
/something similar exist for aircraft?
=
How about a constant speed prop?
/I was thinking about the 2650 rpm limitation on the =
/Sensenich prop. and how easy it will be to overrev =
/in loops or 8's. Apparently it randomly grounds out =
/the coil rather than simply shutting the engine down =
/to keep the engine within limits. kevin
Such a device may well limit rpms but remember that
you have to shut off TWO systems. Also, when sparks
stop happening, uncombusted fuel/air piles up in exhaust
systems with predictable results when the sparks come
back on! Very hard on exhaust systems . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Benedict
>>I've noticed a lot of concern lately on the Sensenich prop in regards to
>>overspeeding. tle on the way down to keep the airspeed down.
>
>>For the record, the limit is 2600, and I've only exceeded it twice by
>>about 20-30 rpm for a couple of seconds. Neither time was due to acro,
>>but just descending at too high an airspeed. It is possible to overspeed
>>at high power settings during descent, but I don't do that very often
>
>Ed,
>Isn't the concern for overspeeding in a "power applied" condition and not a
>"windmilling" situation? I thought the power pulses are what set up the
>prop harmonic that may lead to destruction. (Shuddering all over at the
>thought)
>
>Al
>
Ed and Al and others, If we could get Martin Sutter to comment, He has
some interesting info on the 180hp Sensenich prop (it is not available so
don't ask. They are still working on it). Sens has been using his plane
for most of the tests. On one version of the prop, they determined that
the prop developed a serious harmonic that would terminate the props
existence (and maybe the planes) in just a few minutes if left in this mode.
This mode was when the plane was pushing the prop during a low power-setting
descent.
Sensenich has a web page and they openly discuss the tests they have
performed. It is quite interesting. You can get there through the Yeller
pages (sp) or Van's homepage (I think) or try www.sensenich.com (it works,
I just tried it). Bill
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Greener" <rgreener(at)micron.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert Greener"
Hi everyone,
I have an RMI engine analyser / 0-320 Lycoming engine with the High Country
exhaust system as supplied by Vans.
Question: Where do I drill the hole on the exhaust system for the EGT
probes?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks.
Rob Greener, RV-6A, N418RL (Reserved), WILL fly in June 1997.
rgreener(at)micron.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Top <jjtop(at)cts.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Top
>--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
>If it helps to find the problem-- I get the same as Al has stated. It will
>also stop my coping from the server and ask me if I want it converted or
>ignored. I must then select one or the other before it will continue. I am
>using Eudora Pro and I think there is something called mimi or so that I
>have on 'yes'. Seems like some time ago someone mentioned that may make a
>difference?
John:
I also use Eudora Pro and get the same alert on Bob's and several other
lister's messages. If you select the delete option you only get one
message, the one without all the "=" codong. doesn't solve the total
problem but helps some.
John Top
Phone: (619) 549-3556
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Quickbuild primer |
--> RV-List message posted by: "les williams"
I don't have any experience with the QB primer lifting, but I do have a
question as to what "primed aluminum sheets" he had a problem with. As far as
I know there are no parts primed that have not already been made a part of an
assembly, and I wonder what one would be doing washing it down with water to
start with. If he was preparing to recoat it, I think a cleaner like
"acryli-clean" or similar should have been used. But I agree that it
shouldn't come off, regardless, and that the only solution is to re-prime or
leave it as is. I have found one area on my QB where the primer wiped away as
if it wasn't mixed or applied properly and had not etched into the metal. I
will be re-priming that area anyway and applying a top coat, so I won't worry
about it.
Les Williams/RV-6AQB/N24LW (res)/started finish kit 5/23/97
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of Bob Reiff
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 7:12 PM
Subject: RV-List: Quickbuild primer
I am posting this for Mr. Jerry Thorpe, a local builder who is working on
a RV-6 quickbuild kit and does not use PC's. He would appreciate replies
from anyone who may have had a problem similar to the following, and if
so what they did about it.
Jerry was rinsing off primed aluminum sheets with water and the primer
started peeling off in hand-sized pieces.
He contacted Van's and got a letter back saying it was either a bad batch
of paint, or the folks who produce the QB kits applied it wrong. He was
told not to worry about it as primer is not necessary ("Piper and Cessna
don't do it"), but if he wanted to he (Jerry) could re-prime it.
He contacted the manufacturer, Sherwin-Williams, and was told one
characteristic of the P60G2 Vinyl primer Van's is using is a tendency to
lift itself if it is applied too thick. The dry film thickness should be
0.2 to 0.4 mils, compared to 1 mil for DuPont Variprime. He has measured
the film thickness of the lifted pieces.
Jerry is concerned about the quality of the prime job in the inaccessable
areas like inside the wing, that if it peels off there he can't do
anything about it, and he won't have the extra corrosion protection he
paid for.
If anyone has had a similar experience, Jerry would appreciate you
contacting him at 414-593-5470, or E-mail me and I will pass on to him
(E-mail me directly as I am not on the list).
Thanks.
Bob Reiff
RV-4 #2646
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KennyCobb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bakersfield Fly-In & Bar-B-Que |
--> RV-List message posted by: KennyCobb(at)aol.com
Bakersfield, Ca EAA Chapter 71 BBQ & Fly-In will be June 7th.
The Bar-B-Que dinner will be served around 3:30 pm. Our featured speakers
for the fly-in will be Jon Sharp, owner/pilot of "Nemesis" and his crew chief
Steve Ericson. Jon will trailer his world record holding Formula One racer
for display. There may even be a few RV's there. Last year I think we had 33
RVs in attendance. The Fly-In will be at Bakersfield Muni airport ( L-45 ) .
Ken Crabtree
kennycobb(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
Well I started to write a long response to Jim Cones view of -6 vs -6A
but after going back and re reading his post I realized he must be
writeing tongue in cheek because the -6 is just as easy to land and
takeoff as the -6A. Most people tend to over control the rudder
inputs at first on a -6 but as soon as you get the feel of it
there is no more rudder input required than there is -6A to keep
going straight down the runway. I don't care if you are flying a
nose dragger or tail dragger you should not stop flying the airplane
until the engine is stopped.
I learned to fly in a tail dragger and soloed in 6 hrs and having
instructed for the last 20 years specilizing in tail draggers have
taught several Cessna types to fly their RV's in ten hours or less.
The -6 is a pussycat so if you want a -6 do not let the fear of
not being able to handle it stop you from building one,
and yes the -6 is sexier thank you very much.:-)
Now having said all that, build what you really want and well
feel comfortable with knowing your own piloting skills.
Nose wheel airplanes crash just as easy on landings and takeoffs
as tail draggers so just be carefull.
I have landed my RV-6 in 24 knot 90 degree crosswind, it was not
comfortable but I feel it was just as safe as it would be in a
trigear airplane.
Happy building and flying
Jerry
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Elon <elon.o(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RPM limiters |
--> RV-List message posted by: Elon
kevin lane wrote:
> I received a Jeg's car racing parts catalog today and noticed they sell rpm
> limit modules. Does something similar exist for aircraft? (snip)
-----------------------------------
Kevin:
Most of the rev limiters I know work in conjunction with the same brand electronic
ignition
system i.e., MSD, Acell, Mallory and they don't work with aircraft mags. However,
I'm sure the
electronic ignition folks could find a way to adapt it. But why?
It will limit the RPM but it can't stop overspeed. By that I mean if you are decelerating
in a
race car and accidently downshift to a lower gear you will overspeed the engine.
In your
airplane, if you don't pull back enough on the throttle you will still overspeed.
Esentially,
you will be windmilling the engine and the prop will be driving the engine to overspeed.
With
or without the rev limiter you will still have to pay careful attention to the
throttle setting.
Limiters work if NO EXTERNAL FORCE is applied to the engine. If you are decelerating
in a car or
windmilling in a plane both forces are driving the engine toward overspeed and
the limiter cannot
cancel the effect.
Nice idea, but you just can't beat that constant $peed prop!
Elon
ps. Now a "compression release" or a "jake" brake may be another story :-).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Miller, Jr." <rgmiller(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA finds several design omissions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert G. Miller, Jr."
aol.com!Bumflyer(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
>
> Second, I just had my RV-6A inspected by the real FAA. It was three weeks
> ago and his name was David Soucie, from the Maintenance division of the
> Denver FSDO. It was a two and a half hour ordeal where he checked everything
> I could imagine.
I hope my inspector is as good as yours was. A few months back I
mentioned in a post on a totally different topic that a friend of mine
(an airline capt. with 9000 hours and a professional air show pilot) was
killed because the Russian manufacturer of his brand new fancy aerobatic
plane neglected to install a one cent cottar pin in the nut that held
the elevator push rod to the bell crank. It is rather sobering to think
that something so small and inexpensive could cause such tragic results.
Robert Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KOZINSKI GARY <kozinski(at)symbol.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: KOZINSKI GARY
Bob, drill a hole about 6 inches down on the #3 output. This is what I
was told to do by a Lycoming rep. on my 172 with an 0-320.
Gary K
20038
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Walsh <jwalsh(at)ftp.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Walsh
>>Reply to your message of 5/30/97 4:16 AM
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>>
>>Well I started to write a long response to Jim Cones view of -6 vs -6A
=09
FWIW, AOPA has an article on their web page about taildraggers and takeoff=
/landing accidents.
They found that the overall number of accidents is only slightly higher for=
taildraggers. They suggested that most of this may be due to the fact th=
at most taildraggers are MUCH older than their nosegear counterparts and su=
bject to more mechanical problems. If you want to read it, you're on you=
r own.=20
I don't recall exactly where it is. =20
John
=09
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
49-51,53,55,57,59-62,64-65,67,69-70,72,74-75,77,79-80,82,84,86,88-92
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
--> RV-List message posted by: wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen)
Ryan,
I agree with your findings as I've also searched the FAR's for the
same answers. I finally resorted to getting advice from several
FAA FSDO personal. I say several, because, as we all know, each
and every one of them has their own interpretations of the FAR's.
Getting the opinion of several, spread out over the country, has lead
me to believe that if we, as repairman certificated individuals for our
own planes, approach maintainable issues the same way as an A&E
or IA does on a certified aircraft, the FAA will be satisfied. This
also includes the record keeping process and the use of certified
parts where ever possible. Using this approach, and having a good
working relationship with the local FAA personnel, seems to be
working for me.
I personally won't let this limit me from utilizing the "experimental"
nature of our aircraft. This degree of freedom from the FAR's
certainly opens up the realm of improvement over the 1930's level
technologies to which certified aircraft are limited. But if we are to
retain
that freedom, we must ALL work towards the zero accident level goal
of the FAA. This means that everything from basic workmanship
standards, to innovative implementations of new technologies, to the
standard and necessary implementations of basic systems, must be
approached from the standpoint of the best life and overall reliability
that
is possible.
With "experimental" aircraft being built predominately by persons whom
are still
learning the processes involved, it's also important that the
experimental
community work together to educate those involved. This list, the EAA,
and others certainly work in those directions. At it's present rate of
growth,
"experimental" aircraft could soon become the predominate type flying.
With that growth will come greater scrutiny and more regulation. Our
future
success may lay in the fact that we are able to regulate ourselves.
writes:
>-> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
>
>Fred,
> This is becoming a very interesting subject. Just being a pilot
provides you
>with the authority to perform preventive maintenance, or does it?
Prevntetive
>maintenance is part of Part 43 we are excluded from part 43 with the
>exception of 43D (used for condition inspections).
> I have gone through pages and pages of FAR's over the last couple of
weeks
>trying to determine legaly what we can or cannot do. The truth is there
is
>nothing I can find that says we can or we cannot work on our own
aircraft.
> They have put the responsobility in our laps and given us no guidelines
to
>follow.
>Part 91.163
>(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for
>maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including
compliance
>with Part 39 of this chapter.
>(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations
>on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other
applicable
>regulations , including Part 43.
> Here we are again part 43, we are excluded does this also mean we
cannot do
>preventive maintenance on experimentals? preventive maintenance all
falls
>under part 43.
> You are also correct on inspections 91.169 subpart (c) excludes us
again
>from 100hr inspections and annual inspections and I see nothing
aboutcondition inspections.
> I know Ive read most of the information I use as my guideline from the
>advisory circulars. I dont believe the advisory circulars are legaly
binding,
>however they offer us a good source of information to work from. I
personally
>maintain my airplane as if it were a (spam can) for my own safety as
well as
>whoever I might be taking along. would anyone else like to take a crack
at
>this? Its not so easy!
> Ryan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bumflyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bumflyer(at)aol.com
Van has done a bit of writing on the subject which I can't recall where or
when but I remember the bottom line which is he has put his in the right
place for accuracy. Forward of the airplane is best BUT it must be a lot
further than the example you cite. IE more like two or three feet.
________________________________________________________________________________
--> RV-List message posted by: Cafgef(at)aol.com
<< I you are making the choice based on Center of Gravity (or baggage
capacity),
forget it. They are both the same. >>
No one has mentioned this so far so here's my .02
The thrill of the tail dragger has to do with the location of the CG in
relationship to the brakes. The CG has to be situated between the three
wheels so that the airplane will sit in a stable position. RV-6A has CG in
front of brakes (main wheels). That is leading the brakes. RV-6 has CG
following the brakes.
When you put on the brakes, the CG wants to be if front of the drag. If you
have a tail tragger, then there is a turning moment because the CG wants to
get into the place it really wants to be. That is in front. Stomp the
brakes hard in a tail dragger and the tail will sure want to get in front if
there is any unbalance at all.
Gene Cafgef(at)aol.com
with a 6A so I can get the thrill of flying and not so much thrill in
landing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jnl96(at)hcnews.com (Jim & Linda Hyde) |
--> RV-List message posted by: jnl96(at)hcnews.com (Jim & Linda Hyde)
subscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bumflyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Kit Shipping Charges - Financial Perspective |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bumflyer(at)aol.com
Having been a Van's customer for over five years, I realize the list
newcomers are indeed discovering why there are so many of us enthusiastic
customers, even with the myriad of gripes about customer support etc.
First and I think foremost, is the sub kit approach. It is a great way to
go. It is cheaper for 95% of us who are going to take a few years to
complete. This approach always instilled a confidence in my mind that Van
intended to be around for a long time, supporting his customers, and not
after the quick buck. His advertising budget is also miniscule, and he
obviously isn't paying those folks who answer the phones the big bucks to
give Public Relations answers. No they are builders who can answer your
questions on building. He hasn't had slick instructions and plans because
they cost a lot of dough and might encourage folks to build without studying
them which Van would find distasteful.
These things are all related. We get weird answers on the phone sometimes
but we get about three times the value in the kits and we get incredible
customer support where it counts- The very best airplane on the market, at a
low cost which is totally supported with spare parts and follow on
engineering.
These are my own opinions and definitely biased. I welcome any debate.
I don't work for Van's or anyone else.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul and Janet Lein <37xjglj(at)cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul and Janet Lein <37xjglj(at)cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
While installing my elevator control stops, I got to thinking about the
thread that runs occasionally about oil canning and cracking in elevators
with .016 skins. The elevators on my particular airplane were built by a
previous owner, but a look inside the elevator skin with a flashlight
shows there's no RTV, etc. (This kit has had more homes than little
orphan annie.) I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
advice?
Paul Lein
RV 6A - IO-360 and AD prop on order
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
| Subject: | Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
Sorry to bother the whole list with this question. Can any Colo. RVers
recommend an avionics shop where I can get my transponder/encoder
re-certified? I live in Lexington, Nebraska (south central) so eastern Colo
or Wyoming or western South Dakota would be fine. I could go to Lincoln or
Omaha, NE but they charge "biz jet" rates and I think they prefer not to
deal with us little guys. Mine was certified June 21, 1995. Does the
certification expire on the 21st or the end of June?
Please respond off-list.
Thanks,
Bob Skinner RV-6 BSkinner(at)navix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nosewheel/Tailwheel |
| From: | ron.taborek(at)flight642.com (RON TABOREK) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ron.taborek(at)flight642.com (RON TABOREK)
I've enjoyed the nosewheel/tailwheel discussion since I got my licence
on Champs, flew nosewheel aircraft ever since, and am about to get some
supercub time as a prelude to flying my RV-4.
My appreciation is that while the tailwheel requires more skill those
skills are well within the capabilities of pilots. One of the best
descriptions of exactly what those skills are, I believe, is contained
in an article in Sport Aviation of April 1992, page 35, entitled "
Taming The Taildragger Pilot." I recommend it highly.
Essentially it describes why and how to use the rudder to control an
unstable system which has a tendency to overswing. it recommends
catching any deviation as early as possible and using brief rudder taps
to stop, reverse and restore any deviation.
The author, Davisson, describes it much better than I do! For me he
took away the mystery of tailwheel aircraft being difficult and replaced
it with a good description of what you do to control something like
this.
ron.taborek @flight642.com RV-4 Installing O-320 Toronto
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Bob,
Why don't you bring it down to Wichita? We've got about
a half dozen shops in the area that can handle it. =
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bibb <rbibb(at)fore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash Strobe Kits |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Bibb
I have the Aeroflash units installed on my -4 and they appear to work fine.
THe reason I say appear is that I have not flown yet so I can't speak to
reliability in an operational environment.
RB
>--> RV-List message posted by: Gusndale(at)aol.com
>
>Hi Everyone!
> I've been lurking on the list for a few months now and really
>appreciating the wealth of expertise and experience here. I'm getting close
>to finishing my wings (RV6A) now and have a question I hope you can help me
>with.
> I want to put nav/strobe/position lights on the wingtips with separate
>power supplies at each wingtip. I know I can get a Whelen kit from Van's or
>a lot of other sources for about $700. Here's the Question: Aeroflash has a
>"double flash" Nav/strobe/position kit available through Frederick Custom
>Airframe; Austin,Texas for about $400. This sounds like a deal, but I don't
>know anything about the Aeroflash kit or Frederick Custom Airframe except
>what was on a one page flyer I picked up at a builder's group meeting. Does
>anyone have enough experience with Aeroflash kits (reliability,completeness
>of kit, etc.) to offer an opinion whether the Aeroflash unit is good or if I
>should just spend the money and go with Whelen? Also does anyone have
>experience with Frederick Custom Airframe?
> Thanks in advance to all who respond.
>
>
>Dale Wotring
>Vancouver, WA
>RV6A finishing up the wings
>
>
Richard E. Bibb Direct: 301-571-2507
Vice President, Federal Operations Main: 301-564-4404
Fore Systems Federal, Inc. FAX: 301-564-4408
6905 Rockledge Drive, #800 Pager: 800-719-1246
Bethesda, MD 20817 www.fore.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001)
>--------------
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>Bob,
>
>Why don't you bring it down to Wichita? We've got about
>a half dozen shops in the area that can handle it. =
>
>
>Bob. . .
>--------------
Did those of you having problems receiving messages from Bob Nuckolls without
any data receive the above message alright? It came across fine to my
non-matronics account. Please reply directly to me at "dralle(at)matronics.com"
and not to the List. Thanks!
Matt Dralle
RV-List Admin.
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement by cutting F-6107 |
--> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
Hi,
Depth of a beam gives it it's strength. If I remember right - check up on me
and no lawsuits! The strength of a beam is:
W * D * D * D where W is width and D is depth. Width times depth
cubed!
You propose to reduce depth dramatically.
Maybe you could make and fit another part - call it F-6107a. Fit it to be as
big as F-6107 but move it to one side, between instruments.
Or, make a F-6107 from 4130 which is maybe 3 times as stiff as the original and
make it thicker.
I've wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea to run a "post" from the aft end of
F-6107, down the panel and then down behind the console to the floor.
The panel is pretty sturdy stuff but considering that 40 pounds of panel and
avionics becomes 360 pounds at 9G... I'd hate to have it fall out in my lap
during a maximum G manuver.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing canopy frame
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re:Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
Apparently to prevent possible future oil-canning, Paul asked :
> I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> advice?
>
There is the old mechanic's maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing canopy frame
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
Bob,
There is a shop at Downtown Fort Collins airport that does excellent work .
This job will run you around 50 bucks. Unfortunatly I cant remember the
buisnesses name.
There is another good shop at Centenial airport named Mastcom this is run by
a father daughter teem and they do nice work at a very fair price.
Mastcom
7395 S Peoria
Englewood Co.
303-799-6289
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Experimental Maintenence |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
Fred,
My hats off to you!!! And I agree with you 100%
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dennis Persyk"
----------
> From: Paul and Janet Lein <cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu!37xjglj(at)matronics.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Elevator skins
> Date: Thursday, May 29, 1997 11:53 PM
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul and Janet Lein
<37xjglj(at)cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
>
> While installing my elevator control stops, I got to thinking about the
> thread that runs occasionally about oil canning and cracking in elevators
> with .016 skins. The elevators on my particular airplane were built by a
> previous owner, but a look inside the elevator skin with a flashlight
> shows there's no RTV, etc. (This kit has had more homes than little
> orphan annie.) I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> advice?
> Paul Lein
> RV 6A - IO-360 and AD prop on order
Paul,
The RTVs which have sufficient durometer value ("hardness") to do any good
are generally pretty viscous. You would need a low-viscosity RTV that was
"runny" enough to flow into the trailing edge cavity. I work with several
RTVs and gels in my profession, so I have access to quite a few, but none
currently are of the type you need. The RTV should also be a "neutral
cure" variety that cures without releasing acetic acid, another limiting
requirement.
If you try and inject the RTV in from the ends you will only secure the
end-most few inches.
I wouldn't worry about it. There are lots of RVs flying with 0.016
elevators, no RTV and no cracks.
Dennis 6A fuselage in jig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV6junkie(at)aol.com
<< It seems to me that F-6107 thus modified would still be strong enough to
support the instrument panel and glare shield, especially in view of the
notched angle piece that's riveted to the entire underside of the glareshield
right behind the instrument panel. Any comments on my idea?>>
I did the same thing as you have described. Make the notch as small as
necessary but leave enough clearance for vibration (3/4" or so).
<>
Standard Instrument-screw holes.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kevin lane <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | two RV6A's, one T hanger |
--> RV-List message posted by: kevin lane
we are currently figuring out how to best store two RV6A's in a 40' x 40' T
hanger. A dolly which allows the planes to be rolled in sideways so the
props are facing one another seems most pratical. This way the engines are
readily accessible, not tucked up against the wall. Has anyone designed a
dolly that works? I was thinking it would need only two wheels, like the
lumber carts at Bld Sqr., and the wings could be used to steer it in. Maybe
a lever could lower the bed to ground level to ease loading the plane. Our
other idea was a ramp and raised platform with overlapping wings. This
would require a 18" high platform and winch to pull the plane up, which
conjures images of winching a wing thru a door or something equally
disasterous. A solution is worth $210/mo.( One folding wing, that's all I
need, the ultimate for that Navy paint scheme). kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Moore" <dmoore8(at)tuelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Moore"
> --> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
>
> Apparently to prevent possible future oil-canning, Paul asked :
>
> > I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> > answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> > foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> > advice?
> >
I would advise against it for three reasons:
- additional weight
- would have to mass balance (more lead or switch to uranium)
- unless environmentally sealed, it could trap moisture against the skin,
and that means corrosion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash Strobe Kits/Frederick Custom Airframe |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mlfred(at)aol.com
<< I want to put nav/strobe/position lights on the wingtips with separate
power supplies at each wingtip. I know I can get a Whelen kit from Van's or
a lot of other sources for about $700. Here's the Question: Aeroflash has
a
"double flash" Nav/strobe/position kit available through Frederick Custom
Airframe; Austin,Texas for about $400. This sounds like a deal, but I don't
know anything about the Aeroflash kit or Frederick Custom Airframe except
what was on a one page flyer I picked up at a builder's group meeting. Does
anyone have enough experience with Aeroflash kits (reliability,completeness
of kit, etc.) to offer an opinion whether the Aeroflash unit is good or if I
should just spend the money and go with Whelen? Also does anyone have
experience with Frederick Custom Airframe?
Thanks in advance to all who respond. >>
Well, I know the guy who runs the place. I usually see him in the mirror. I
also know his wife.;-) She's VERY supportive. (Boy, that should get me some
points!)
The price is correct ($415 plus shipping), with a manufacturers 2 yr from
date of purchase warranty. I have arranged with the manufacturer to put
longer (18") leads on the strobe bulbs, so we can mount the power supplies no
the front of the main spar, behind the Duckworks landing light cutouts (for
serviceability). I'm sure those on the list who've purchased from me will
attest to the arrival of the parts. I ask folks to send a check AFTER arrival
of the units. I haven't been stiffed yet!
Single flash is a bit cheaper, and I can also get the single unit (adapted
wingtip unit) for the v stab for $155 (single flash) plus shipping.
Let me know if I can help!
Who posted the flyer? I need to thank this person.
Check six!
Mark Frederick
mlfred(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
--> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
Does anyone else have a military camouflage paint scheme on their rv? I
am seriously considering one for a rv-4, but can't find any info on
patterns and paint type. If anyone has info like this please e-mail me
or give me a number where I can call you. Thanks, alot. MCL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
--> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
I just got a quote from an insurance company (Falcon Ins. Comp. of
Arizona) 20,000.00 hull coverage. $1019.00 per year. 500.00 earned
since test hours not flown off yet. 100.00 deduct not in motion.
1,000,000.00 liability. Covered from first flight. My experience:
commercial, single eng. land. no instrument rating. total time 1240
hrs. 300 of that in taildraggers. How does this coverage sound to
others who have insurance? Is this a good price, or can it be beat by
much? Tell me what you think. thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: Tools, tools and more tools] |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:26:35 -0400
From: Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Tools, tools and more tools
Hi everybody,
Yah, it's me, the new kid again. I want to thank everyone who responded
to my last question. I may give Sid a call if my local Cleco and CP
distributers can't get the job done.(or done at an exorbitant price).
FYI You can find your local Chicago Pneumatic distributer at:
http://www.chicagopneumatic.com/itdl.html
Cleco was a little tougher to find. I did some searching on Alta Vista's
search engine and discovered they are now Industrial Energy Products
Division of INTOOL Inc.
http://www.i-trade.com/catalog/tpusa/00000090/airetool.htm
I sent an email to them airetool(at)airetool.com and Larry Van Deusen
larryvan(at)erinet.com answered the next day with the info on my local
distributer.
Both local distributers faxed me the parts list info within the hour.
The parts are
now ordered and I didn't even have to drive down to Miami 30 miles away.
:-) Hell, I knew if I wasted enough time on my computer it would
eventually save me a few seconds.
Does anyone have any experience with Wick's spring back dimple dies? By
the ad copy, I suspect they are the same as Avery's. Any experiences
and/or opinions out there?
Charlie Kuss
Drooling and trying to separate the pages of all these tool catalogs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Ruddock <markr(at)iwl.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Ruddock
Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
>
> Apparently to prevent possible future oil-canning, Paul asked :
>
> > I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> > answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> > foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> > advice?
> >
> There is the old mechanic's maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
> Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Installing canopy frame
> halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
I am very new to RVs but I felt it important to say that if you do
decide to do anything to the control surfaces, make sure to
aerodynamically balance them again.
Regards,
Mark Ruddock
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
>--> RV-List message posted by: RV4131rb(at)aol.com
>
>Bob,
> There is a shop at Downtown Fort Collins airport that does excellent work .
>This job will run you around 50 bucks. Unfortunatly I cant remember the
>buisnesses name.
> There is another good shop at Centenial airport named Mastcom this is run by
>a father daughter teem and they do nice work at a very fair price.
>Mastcom
>7395 S Peoria
>Englewood Co.
>303-799-6289
Thanks for the info.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Union Hydraulics" <unionhyd(at)s140.aone.net.au> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Union Hydraulics"
unscribe unionhyd(at)s140.aone.net.au
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wanted-Pneumatic Squeezer |
| From: | tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman) |
--> RV-List message posted by: tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman)
writes:
>
>Tom,
> could you e-mail me the details on your "harbor freight" press
>setup,I
>like the cost alternative to the squeezers.thanks
>
>chris marion
>RV-6 HS
>cincy,OH
>
Chris,
Harbor Freight sells an inexpensive (aoubt $20, I think) press arbor. It
has a very heavy steel base, stout yoke, 1" square ram, and a handle to
manually control the ram. I drilled a .401" hole in the steel base to
accept standard cupped rivet sets. I set the spars with the 3/16" rivets
shop-head-down, and braced the rest of the spar with wood blocks to keep
it level. I drove the rivets by pounding the ram against the shop heads
with a 3-lb short-handled sledge hammer, while applying constant pressure
to the handle on the press arbor. I found that this method requires two
guys: one to wield the hammer, and one to stabilize the rest of the spar.
The rivets turned out beautifully.
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 preparing to mount wings
________________________________________________________________________________
<19970529.132734.18190.0.BStobbe(at)juno.com>
| From: | tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman) |
--> RV-List message posted by: tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T. Craig-Stearman)
>\-\-\> RV-List message posted by: bstobbe(at)juno.com (Bruce D Stobbe)
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
>>straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways"
>>resistance?
I have seen some less than rigorous answers to this question and just
can't resist responding :-).
To answer the question, consider the layout of a taildragger and a trike
relative to the center of gravity on each airplane. On the taildragger,
the CG is behind the main wheels, while on the trike the CG is forward of
the main wheels. Draw a diagram of the footprint of each airplane (at
pavement level), showing the three wheels and the center of gravity. Now
apply a side load to the main wheels of each airplane (as, for instance,
when landing in a crab). For the taildragger, the resistance of the main
wheels to scrubbing sideways applies a destabilizing force. That is, the
side load on the main wheels will tend to increase the crab angle,
increasing the side load still more. For the trike, the opposite is
true. The resistance of the main wheels to scrubbing sideways applies a
stabilizing force. That is, the side load on the main wheels will tend
to decrease the crab angle, decreasing the side load.
Now consider a second effect. Landing with any vertical velocity in the
taildragger will tend to increase the airplane's angle of attack, usually
just as the pilot applies aft elevator to correct his sink rate. The
combined effect increases the tendency to bounce. Landing with a small
vertical velocity in the trike will tend to decrease the airplane's angle
of attack, which will decrease the tendency to bounce. These effects
require the pilot to pay greater attention to detail when flying a
taildragger, producing a better pilot.
This discussion illuminates my greatest complaint about my six years
teaching Air Force student pilots to fly the T-37. The Tweet is a trike,
and hell-for-stout. The student could flare the thing twenty feet in the
air and slam it into the runway in a thirty-degree crab. The ol' Tweet
would absorb the impact without complaint and straighten itself out
without any correction from the hyperventilating student, who then likely
thought he made a decent landing! A taildragger would not tolerate such
abuse, and would therefore teach the students to recognize crab angles
and descent rates.
Van has done a wonderful job addressing the usual complaints about a
trike airplane (heavier, slower, less maneuverable than a comparable
taildragger). Even so, I much prefer a taildragger for pure pleasure and
for disciplining lazy pilot habits. And let us face the ugly truth: a
taildragger is ALWAYS prettier than its nosewheel counterpart! (C-140 vs
C-150, C-180 vs C-182, T-6 vs T-28, DC-3 vs DC-(6?), RV-6 vs RV-6A)
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 preparing to mount wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder/encoder re-certification |
--> RV-List message posted by: mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler)
> Did those of you having problems receiving messages from Bob
> Nuckolls without any data receive the above message alright? It
> came across fine to my non-matronics account. Please reply directly to
> me at "dralle(at)matronics.com" and not to the List. Thanks!
Since you made the change to --> in the from line, I have not had a single
MIME-encoded message that I needed to open in literal mode. The change seems
to have worked.
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
--> RV-List message posted by: mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Union Hydraulics" --> RV-s140.aone.net.au>
>
> unscribe unionhyd(at)s140.aone.net.au
Dang! These Aussies have a different word for everything! :-)
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROY HARRILL" <KHarrill(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives |
--> RV-List message posted by: "ROY HARRILL"
John,
I have just gone through that decision process and identified at least two
other alternatives: using a Piper pitot and using a Cessna pitot. Using a
Cessna and the Gretz mount puts the pitot within the range specified on the
plans; the Piper approach places the pitot opening aft and closer to the
skin than the specs in the plans. Reports by builders who have used the
Piper say it is accurate. Van's says they haven't tried it. After
purchasing and fitting a Cessna pitot, I have decided to use a Piper
because of the location on my tiedown rings.
Hopes this helps!
Ken Harrill
RV - 6 wings
PS I now have an extra pitot and mount (Cessna) available at a very
attractive price to anyone who may be interested.
----------
> From: John B. Abell <ix.netcom.com!jbabell(at)matronics.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Pitot-Static Tube Alternatives
> Date: Thursday, May 29, 1997 11:07 AM
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John B. Abell"
>
> I'm about ready to install a pitot-static tube and other components in
> my wing. I intend to use my RV-6A primarily for cross country flying
> including IFR. I've been considering two alternative heated
> pitot-static tubes: (a) the AN5814, which is mounted under the wing and
> is one of the pitot tubes for which Warren Gretz sells an installation
> kit that looks like a good deal, and (b) the AN5816-1 Kollsman type.
> The Kollsman tube is about 9.5 inches long and is intended to fasten to
> what I think would be a 1 inch O.D. tube with four screws. There's a
> picture of both types in the ACS catalog. The Kollsman is mounted so
> that it projects straight forward of the wing leading edge. It seems to
> me that the Kollsman tube has the better probability of sampling
> undistrubed air than the under-wing type.
>
> I would greatly value the comments and opinions of RV-List members on
> these two alternatives. Observed and validated airspeed data would be
> especially helpful.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jack Abell
> RV-6A N333JA (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Flaherty <yogieb(at)pipeline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mike Flaherty
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dennis Persyk"
>
>
>
>----------
>> From: Paul and Janet Lein <cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu!37xjglj(at)matronics.com>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Elevator skins
>> Date: Thursday, May 29, 1997 11:53 PM
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul and Janet Lein
><37xjglj(at)cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
>>
>> While installing my elevator control stops, I got to thinking about the
>> thread that runs occasionally about oil canning and cracking in elevators
>
>> with .016 skins. The elevators on my particular airplane were built by a
>> previous owner, but a look inside the elevator skin with a flashlight
>> shows there's no RTV, etc. (This kit has had more homes than little
>> orphan annie.) I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
>> answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
>> foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
>> advice?
>> Paul Lein
>> RV 6A - IO-360 and AD prop on order
>
>Paul,
>The RTVs which have sufficient durometer value ("hardness") to do any good
>are generally pretty viscous. You would need a low-viscosity RTV that was
>"runny" enough to flow into the trailing edge cavity. I work with several
>RTVs and gels in my profession, so I have access to quite a few, but none
>currently are of the type you need. The RTV should also be a "neutral
>cure" variety that cures without releasing acetic acid, another limiting
>requirement.
>If you try and inject the RTV in from the ends you will only secure the
>end-most few inches.
>I wouldn't worry about it. There are lots of RVs flying with 0.016
>elevators, no RTV and no cracks.
>Dennis 6A fuselage in jig
Paul,
I hesitate to use any foam inside any control. Some early Cessna 206's had a
foam material in the elevator trim tab. After some years, water would soak
into the foam and cause corrosion. Cessna produced a new tab that had
stiffeners riveted to the skin.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ammeter <ammeterj(at)seanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: two RV6A's, one T hanger |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Ammeter
I've got a 42' wide by 32' deep T hangar and, using a CAD program, decided
that I couldn't fit two RV's in it.
I'm assuming that you've got 20' from the front to the first wall and then
20' into the bottom of the T.
Since the RV is over 20 feet long you'll have to overlap the noses. That
will mean that one RV is closer to the door than the other. The Horizontal
Stab is about 10 feet long so the centerline of the fuselage will be about 5
feet from the wall; this gives 15 feet left for the wing. Sounds good until
you remember the other RV will be a fuselage width closer to the door.
Forget the above. I just went into my CAD program and tried it out using
RV-6's drawn to scale. It'll work but you will have very little extra room.
Maybe it's worth the $210/month to you, especially if you don't fly much. I
think you would have to use a dolly as you mentioned, however.
John
>--> RV-List message posted by: kevin lane
>
>we are currently figuring out how to best store two RV6A's in a 40' x 40' T
>hanger. A dolly which allows the planes to be rolled in sideways so the
>props are facing one another seems most pratical. This way the engines are
>readily accessible, not tucked up against the wall. Has anyone designed a
>dolly that works? I was thinking it would need only two wheels, like the
>lumber carts at Bld Sqr., and the wings could be used to steer it in. Maybe
>a lever could lower the bed to ground level to ease loading the plane. Our
>other idea was a ramp and raised platform with overlapping wings. This
>would require a 18" high platform and winch to pull the plane up, which
>conjures images of winching a wing thru a door or something equally
>disasterous. A solution is worth $210/mo.( One folding wing, that's all I
>need, the ultimate for that Navy paint scheme). kevin
>
>
>
John Ammeter
ammeterj(at)seanet.com
3233 NE 95th St
Seattle WA, 98115 USA
206-525-5445
RV-6 N16JA
First flight August 1990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Ammeter <ammeterj(at)seanet.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Ammeter
Just a couple of thoughts.
Would you sell me your RV for $20,000? That's what you're offering to the
insurance company. It sounds high to me but then I don't have hull
coverage. I think my liability only cost around $400/year and I'm a 260
hour SEL pilot with about 190 hours in TD's.
I'd check with AVEMCO and definately get more hull coverage if I had to have
that coverage.
John
>--> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
>I just got a quote from an insurance company (Falcon Ins. Comp. of
>Arizona) 20,000.00 hull coverage. $1019.00 per year. 500.00 earned
>since test hours not flown off yet. 100.00 deduct not in motion.
>1,000,000.00 liability. Covered from first flight. My experience:
>commercial, single eng. land. no instrument rating. total time 1240
>hrs. 300 of that in taildraggers. How does this coverage sound to
>others who have insurance? Is this a good price, or can it be beat by
>much? Tell me what you think. thanks.
>
>
John Ammeter
ammeterj(at)seanet.com
3233 NE 95th St
Seattle WA, 98115 USA
206-525-5445
RV-6 N16JA
First flight August 1990
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: paint scheme |
--> RV-List message posted by: Al Mojzisik
>--> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
>Does anyone else have a military camouflage paint scheme on their rv? I
>am seriously considering one for a rv-4, but can't find any info on
>patterns and paint type. If anyone has info like this please e-mail me
>or give me a number where I can call you. Thanks, alot. MCL
>
Michael,
I have a gallon of Mil-Spec Olive Drab paint. Let me know if you need it. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
Paul;
Sometime back, The RVator had some info regarding this. Seems to me it
was more prevalent in those that had the 360s in them. There was discussion
about not 'stopping up' the drain ability of the elev etc. and then there
was some discussion about using a tube on some of the RTV applicators to get
the stuff back to where you wanted it.
You may want to check back issues of the RVator on this, around 93 or so.
> about the>thread that runs occasionally about oil canning and cracking in
elevators >with .016 skins. could not get any conclusive
>answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
>foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
>advice?
>Paul Lein
>RV 6A - IO-360 and AD prop on order
>
John Darby RV6 N61764 flying
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
Al;
If you read what Sens. put out, they don't differentiate between what
kinds of over speed it is, just a 'never exceed' rpm. You may well be
correct in your understanding of it, but at no time have I seen any such
supported by Sens. And yet, they make no such caveat for the acrobatic
limit as well on their paper work, but as you may have seen on their
homepage, they immediately adjacent mention that you would probably exceed
the rpm in a dive. This gives rise to my belief that their assumption that
the pilots inability (?) to control the rpm is the reason they limit the
acro. approval of the prop.
>Isn't the concern for overspeeding in a "power applied" condition and not a
>"windmilling" situation? I thought the power pulses are what set up the
>prop harmonic that may lead to destruction. (Shuddering all over at the
>thought)
>
>Al
>
John Darby RV6 N61764 flying
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Louis E. Smith Jr." <lsmith(at)coastalnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash Strobe Kits/Frederick Custom Airframe |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Louis E. Smith Jr."
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mlfred(at)aol.com
>
>
><< I want to put nav/strobe/position lights on the wingtips with separate
> power supplies at each wingtip. I know I can get a Whelen kit from Van's or
> a lot of other sources for about $700. Here's the Question: Aeroflash has
>a
> "double flash" Nav/strobe/position kit available through Frederick Custom
> Airframe; Austin,Texas for about $400. This sounds like a deal, but I don't
> know anything about the Aeroflash kit or Frederick Custom Airframe except
> what was on a one page flyer I picked up at a builder's group meeting. Does
> anyone have enough experience with Aeroflash kits (reliability,completeness
> of kit, etc.) to offer an opinion whether the Aeroflash unit is good or if I
> should just spend the money and go with Whelen? Also does anyone have
> experience with Frederick Custom Airframe?
> Thanks in advance to all who respond. >>
>
I purchased the Aeroflash kit for my RV-8 from Frederick Custom Airframe.
The units are very similar to the Whelen ones. I would say that the
average person probably could not tell the installed units apart. The kits
are complete. Don't hesitate to do business with Mark Frederick. I met
him at Oshkosh 96 and have since been out to Ausin, TX on a business trip
and stopped by for a visit at Frederick Custom Airframe. Mark is a great
guy to do business with.
Regards,
Louis Smith
lsmith(at)coastalnet.com
Rocky Mount, NC
RV-8 #80126 N801RV reserved
RV-4 #2844 N102LS sold
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r.acker" <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Tools, tools and more tools] |
--> RV-List message posted by: "r.acker"
>Does anyone have any experience with Wick's spring back dimple dies? By
>the ad copy, I suspect they are the same as Avery's. Any experiences
>and/or opinions out there?
I've bought lots of stuff from Avery's and its all good. However, when I
broke my 3/32" dimple dies (my fault...very tight corner on thick skins) I
replaced them with a pair from Cleaveland. The Cleaveland dies are
definitely worth the extra money...polished to a mirror finish and I do get
better dimples.
Also, their edge rolling tool is much better. If anyone wants an Avery one
let me know.
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mack <donmack(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Updated web site |
--> RV-List message posted by: Don Mack
I have added emp. & wing pictures to my web page.
Thanks to Matt D. for letting me "borrow" one of Matronics pics.
Don Mack
donmack(at)flash.net
http://www.flash.net/~donmack/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy)
>Ed,
>Isn't the concern for overspeeding in a "power applied" condition and
>not a windmilling" situation? I thought the power pulses are what set
up
>the prop harmonic that may lead to destruction. (Shuddering all over at
Al, I don't know where the nodes actually come in, and I don't really
want to find out. :-) Although, you can't really get there in a
windmilling situation. To hit 2600 you have to have a LOT of power in,
and be in a pretty good descent. I can't get that RPM in level flight
with full power at 3000'.
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
--> RV-List message posted by: RV6Russ(at)aol.com
I installed a vapor return line using the .030 orifice. Tee off next to the
carburetor and run the return line back to at least upstream of the elec
boost pump.(would be better to go all the way back to a tank - but its a
big plumbing job). I also have a fuel flow meter and so I installed a
shut-off valve down behind my heels so I can shut it off when I don't need or
want it open. This system is widely used and works well. Good luck -
RV6Russ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: "les williams"
I don't have the dates of the RVators that this subject was discussed, but it
was. I believe that it was suggested to insert some non-corrosive RTV (like
Permatex Ultra Blue) at the trailing edge at the end of each stiffener pair,
if this becomes a problem. Access would be by drilling a small hole. Not all
planes have experienced this.
My first RV-6A had two small cracks start at the trailing edge of the rudder.
I was running an 0-320 with wood prop. After I sold it, a metal prop was
installed, and I understand that the skin has now cracked at the last rivet on
every rudder stiffener. I don't know if this is from an unbalanced prop or
from the added vibration transmission of a metal prop, or?
Bottom line is, I don't think I would worry about it now, but would keep a
real close eye out for any crack developing and then take measures to stop and
prevent any more.
Les Williams/RV-6AQB/N24LW (res)/finish kit
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of David Moore
Sent: Friday, May 30, 1997 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Elevator skins
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Moore"
> --> RV-List message posted by: halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne)
>
> Apparently to prevent possible future oil-canning, Paul asked :
>
> > I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> > answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> > foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> > advice?
> >
I would advise against it for three reasons:
- additional weight
- would have to mass balance (more lead or switch to uranium)
- unless environmentally sealed, it could trap moisture against the skin,
and that means corrosion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
>--> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
>I just got a quote from an insurance company (Falcon Ins. Comp. of
>Arizona) 20,000.00 hull coverage. $1019.00 per year. 500.00 earned
>since test hours not flown off yet. 100.00 deduct not in motion.
>1,000,000.00 liability. Covered from first flight. My experience:
>commercial, single eng. land. no instrument rating. total time 1240
>hrs. 300 of that in taildraggers. How does this coverage sound to
>others who have insurance? Is this a good price, or can it be beat by
>much? Tell me what you think. thanks.
Michael,
I have my RV-6 insured with AUA, 800-727-3823. The premium is $880.00.
Hull value is $35,000 and I have $500 deductable all risk basis, all risks
basis not in flight and 100 deductable all risks not in motion. Single
limit bodily injury and property damage including passengers of: $100,000
each passenger; $1,000,000 each occurrence.
Pilot data: 49 years young, SEL, 1,102 tt, 287 in RV-6, 944 tailwheel, 127
hrs last 12 months.
Bob Skinner RV-6 BSkinner(at)navix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)msn.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "les williams"
Putting aside all the reasons why taildraggers and nosewheel aircraft do this
or that and getting back to the original question, I will tell you what I did.
After ordering a 6A, most of my "macho" taildragger friends chided me into
changing my order to a 6 and that's what I first received. But the closer I
got to putting that extra bulkhead in, the more I struggled with that choice.
Finally, I sat down and listed all the positive and negative points that I
felt about each. After counting each and weighing them out in my mind, I
"consciously" ended up with what my "unconscious" knew was right for me all
along. I left out that extra bulkhead so that changing back would be most
difficult. I finished building and then thoroughly enjoyed flying my -6A for
350 hrs and never regretted choosing that gear design. And, as you will see
in my signature line, I'm doing it again.
It' a tough decision for a lot of people, but whichever you chose, in the end,
it will be the right one for you! Good luck.
Les Williams/RV-6AQB/N24LW (res)/finish kit
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of John T. Craig-Stearman
Sent: Friday, May 30, 1997 3:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: -6 vs -6A
--> RV-List message posted by: tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com (John T.
Craig-Stearman)
>\-\-\> RV-List message posted by: bstobbe(at)juno.com (Bruce D Stobbe)
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>As far as I can see, there's nothing that keeps the plane tracking
>>straight, since the nosewheel doesn't provide any "sideways"
>>resistance?
I have seen some less than rigorous answers to this question and just
can't resist responding :-).
To answer the question, consider the layout of a taildragger and a trike
relative to the center of gravity on each airplane. On the taildragger,
the CG is behind the main wheels, while on the trike the CG is forward of
the main wheels. Draw a diagram of the footprint of each airplane (at
pavement level), showing the three wheels and the center of gravity. Now
apply a side load to the main wheels of each airplane (as, for instance,
when landing in a crab). For the taildragger, the resistance of the main
wheels to scrubbing sideways applies a destabilizing force. That is, the
side load on the main wheels will tend to increase the crab angle,
increasing the side load still more. For the trike, the opposite is
true. The resistance of the main wheels to scrubbing sideways applies a
stabilizing force. That is, the side load on the main wheels will tend
to decrease the crab angle, decreasing the side load.
Now consider a second effect. Landing with any vertical velocity in the
taildragger will tend to increase the airplane's angle of attack, usually
just as the pilot applies aft elevator to correct his sink rate. The
combined effect increases the tendency to bounce. Landing with a small
vertical velocity in the trike will tend to decrease the airplane's angle
of attack, which will decrease the tendency to bounce. These effects
require the pilot to pay greater attention to detail when flying a
taildragger, producing a better pilot.
This discussion illuminates my greatest complaint about my six years
teaching Air Force student pilots to fly the T-37. The Tweet is a trike,
and hell-for-stout. The student could flare the thing twenty feet in the
air and slam it into the runway in a thirty-degree crab. The ol' Tweet
would absorb the impact without complaint and straighten itself out
without any correction from the hyperventilating student, who then likely
thought he made a decent landing! A taildragger would not tolerate such
abuse, and would therefore teach the students to recognize crab angles
and descent rates.
Van has done a wonderful job addressing the usual complaints about a
trike airplane (heavier, slower, less maneuverable than a comparable
taildragger). Even so, I much prefer a taildragger for pure pleasure and
for disciplining lazy pilot habits. And let us face the ugly truth: a
taildragger is ALWAYS prettier than its nosewheel counterpart! (C-140 vs
C-150, C-180 vs C-182, T-6 vs T-28, DC-3 vs DC-(6?), RV-6 vs RV-6A)
Regards,
Tom Craig-Stearman
tcraig-stearman(at)juno.com
RV-4 preparing to mount wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry H. Prado" <jerryprado(at)wa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: paint scheme |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry H. Prado"
Michael C. Lott wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
> Does anyone else have a military camouflage paint scheme on their rv? I
> am seriously considering one for a rv-4, but can't find any info on
> patterns and paint type. If anyone has info like this please e-mail me
> or give me a number where I can call you. Thanks, alot. MCL
Just visit your local serious hobby shop specializing in radio control
planes. They will have all the infor and detail you need.
Jerry Prado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry D. Hoatson" <lhoatson(at)e2.empirenet.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry D. Hoatson"
Michael C. Lott wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
> I just got a quote from an insurance company (Falcon Ins. Comp. of
> Arizona) 20,000.00 hull coverage. $1019.00 per year. 500.00 earned
> since test hours not flown off yet. 100.00 deduct not in motion.
> 1,000,000.00 liability. Covered from first flight. My experience:
> commercial, single eng. land. no instrument rating. total time 1240
> hrs. 300 of that in taildraggers. How does this coverage sound to
> others who have insurance? Is this a good price, or can it be beat by
> much? Tell me what you think. thanks.
Have you checked Avemco, with their EAA discount? I was VERY SURPRISED
at how competetive they were on the Cessna 170A - I had zero taildragger
time, and there was no surcharge for a spouse student pilot with zero
hours period. Couldn't find any of the discount or 'free agents' that
could touch the rates. They do a funny thing with the hours, and count
the taildragger time double, which would make you a 1,540 hour pilot for
insurance purposes - it worked for us!
Love to know what else you come up with...
Larry
--
Larry D. Hoatson Yucaipa, CA Redlands (L12) Airport
lhoatson(at)empirenet.com
KC6WYF via packet at: KC6WYF(at)W6JBT.SOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Restoring 1950 Cessna 170A N9948A... Looking forward to RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry D. Hoatson" <lhoatson(at)e2.empirenet.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry D. Hoatson"
Hello,
I've been putting together a list of tools, primarily based on the
section in the preview plans from Van's for the RV-6/6A.
There is a recommendation of a swiveling head flush rivet set. Does
anyone use these, are there specific applications where they're
necessary? Any feedback will be appreciated. We've just about made it
through the total restoration of the Cessna, and never even knew they
existed, let alone wish I had one.
Also, what about single and/or double offset universal sets?
Preferance, or are there places one cannot reach with one style or the
other?
Thanks in advance
Larry
--
Larry D. Hoatson Yucaipa, CA Redlands (L12) Airport
lhoatson(at)empirenet.com
KC6WYF via packet at: KC6WYF(at)W6JBT.SOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Restoring 1950 Cessna 170A N9948A... Looking forward to RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry D. Hoatson" <lhoatson(at)e2.empirenet.com> |
| Subject: | Kit Shipping Charges |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry D. Hoatson"
Thanks to all those who responded! I appreciate the collective wisdom,
and as usual, there were other factors involved that I didn't know to
consider until I asked!
One kit at a time seems most reasonable, I didn't realize the kits were
upgraded as time goes by.
Thanks again,
Larry
--
Larry D. Hoatson Yucaipa, CA Redlands (L12) Airport
lhoatson(at)empirenet.com
KC6WYF via packet at: KC6WYF(at)W6JBT.SOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
Restoring 1950 Cessna 170A N9948A... Looking forward to RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bennett(at)healey.com.au |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator skins |
--> RV-List message posted by: bennett(at)healey.com.au
> --> RV-List message posted by: Paul and Janet Lein <37xjglj(at)cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
I did an archive search and could not get any conclusive
> answers about the advisability of injecting RTV or some other sealant
> foam into the existing elevators. Do any of you RV-listers have any
> advice?
> Paul Lein
> RV 6A - IO-360 and AD prop on order
I understand it is standard now to put a plug of RTV at the aft end
of each stiffener during construction. I built mine before Van made
this change. I will find a way to do the same, although I have yet to
figure how. I have seen a cracked elevator and it's not a pretty
sight. There has been quite some discussion on the list about neutral
vs normal cure RTV, and there were test results reported that
indicated no problems with the acetic acid cure on aluminum.
Peter Bennett
Sydney Australia
RV6 building sliding canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bennett(at)healey.com.au |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Tools, tools and more tools] |
--> RV-List message posted by: bennett(at)healey.com.au
The Cleaveland dies are
> definitely worth the extra money...polished to a mirror finish and I do get
> better dimples.
>
> Also, their edge rolling tool is much better. If anyone wants an Avery one
> let me know.
>
> Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
>
I found my edge rolling tool (two rollers on a tube) less use than
pockets in underpants. The Avery one is better but it is a hair
trigger touch difference between getting a turn down and getting a
sharp crease along the edge.
You can get a more aggressive roll without a sharp crease by
radiussing the roller edges. Let your Scotchbrite wheel spin the
roller as it grinds the radius.
Peter Bennett
Sydney Australia
RV6 building sliding canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denny Harjehausen
(Snipped)
>There is a recommendation of a swiveling head flush rivet set. Does
>anyone use these, are there specific applications where they're
>necessary?
If you or who ever has a good sense of straight you won't need it.
I like it cause some people that help don't always get the gun straight
and put smilies in the thin skin (not me of course) so I always use it.
>Also, what about single and/or double offset universal sets?
I've used the single offset a couple of times, then I wished I would
have had the double offset. But then I really needed it. So then....(?)
>Larry D. Hoatson Yucaipa, CA Redlands (L12) Airport
>
>lhoatson(at)empirenet.com
>
>KC6WYF via packet at: KC6WYF(at)W6JBT.SOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
>
>Restoring 1950 Cessna 170A N9948A... Looking forward to RV-6
>
>
>
>
Have A Great Day!
Denny
retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRoss10612(at)aol.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: JRoss10612(at)aol.com
Larry,
I purchased the swivel flush set before beginning construction. I pulled it
out during my first riveting session with another experienced metalworker, he
was surprised at the ease of use the tool. Excellent results were obtained
with this set, myself driving the rivets, my friend bucking. He had completed
his aircraft without a swivel flush set and was impressed with the results.
In my opinion, the straight set is more difficult to use, although I'm sure
that with care excellent results can be obtained. The swivel set makes the
angle that the gun is held to the curved skins less critical, although it is
still important to drive rivets with the gun held 90 degress to the rivet
shank. Sure, you can do it with a regular straight set... but try holding
things perfectly straight with the rivet gun at 1 AM after a hundred rivets
or so.
Much the same was experienced with the double offset. It is easier to control
the set during driving as the double offset removes the eccentric loading
from the rivet head. Simply put, the set is less likely to slip off the rivet
head during driving. There are places on an RV (because of clearance) where
you will require the use of the double offset, so consider it necessary. You
may get away without one for a while, but you will eventually find just the
place where you will wish you had it.
In general, you will find more and more tools along the way that make things
easier and can help you obtain better results more quickly. Such is the case
with the pneumatic squeezer, pneumatic cleco tool, the many flush sets of
different lengths and diameters, dimple die sets and a bunch or bucking bars.
In building both wings, I found that the pneumatic cleco tool was invaluable
in reducing/eleiminating RMI (repetitive motion injury), however I held off
buying one for the longest time. By the way, I'm sure you've heard it before,
but Avery and Cleveland are both first class tool sellers, deal with either
one and you will not be sorry.
Anyway, just my opinion. Hope that spelling cop on the list isn't lurking...
Best of luck,
Jon Ross RV-80094 - getting ready to complete fuel tanks, fuselage should be
shipped in a week or so
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)msn.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "les williams"
One more comment on this question. I've talked to several -6 builder/pilots
who have said that they wish they had built a -6A, but I haven't talked to one
single -6A builder/pilot that wishes they had built a 6.
Les Williams/RV-6AQB/N24LW (res)/finish kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Diagrams for Vision Instrumentation |
--> RV-List message posted by: MikeT(at)aol.com
A local Puget Sound builder is installing the full up Vision engine
instrumentation system. I borrowed the install manual and made a set of
wiring diagrams for him ( and maybe me). I have posted these to John Hovan's
home page. They are titled 77-03/1 thru /6. Feel free to use them as needed.
Mike Talley - just finishing drilling the lh tank - RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Cafgef(at)aol.com
Does anyone know the failure mode of a sensenich prop? Just how does it fail
and where? How does one go about preflighting the prop so that one can find
the incipient failure before it progresses to the point of failure? I get
nervous about all this talk of props failing, especially when I have one such
prop on order.
Gene Francis: cafgef(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "craig" <craig(at)future.atlcom.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "craig"
unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "craig" <craig(at)future.atlcom.net> |
| Subject: | RV-4 Kit For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "craig"
FOR SALE
Empennage Kit (Vertical Skin Drilled up) (Horzional Skeleton assembled) ,
Wing Kit (Bannard Fast build kit in crate) (Phlogiston spar in Crate) and
COMPLETE plans. I have approx. 8000.00 invested.
Located in the Atlanta area.
Make offer. Could deliver.
craig(at)future.atlcom.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OrndorffG(at)aol.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: OrndorffG(at)aol.com
That sounds too high becki and I pay $1600 a year for both of us on our RV6A
with $60,000 full coverage....George Orndorff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r.acker" <r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "r.acker"
>>There is a recommendation of a swiveling head flush rivet set. Does
>>anyone use these, are there specific applications where they're
>>necessary?
>
> If you or who ever has a good sense of straight you won't need it.
> I like it cause some people that help don't always get the gun straight
> and put smilies in the thin skin (not me of course) so I always use it.
The swivel rivet set is very useful in situations were you don't have a
bucker to help you. I riveted most of my wing solo (I did get help for the
last 2/3 of the top skin...it went oh so much faster that way!).
I ran into situations where it was impossible to view the gun/surface
relationship...with the swivel set I could put it somewhere near what I felt
to be straight while my head and bucking bar were inside the wing. Pull the
trigger, good rivet, no smileys.
I normally don't recommend ATS, but they sell the same tool for cheaper as I
found out walking from the Avery booth to theirs at sun'n'fun :(
Rob Acker / r.acker(at)ix.netcom.com / RV-6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JHeadric(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: paint scheme |
--> RV-List message posted by: JHeadric(at)aol.com
Contact me and I will mail you some pix of my "P-51" RV5 paint scheme.
Looked good!
Jheadric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Fitzgerald <theredbaron(at)earthlink.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Fitzgerald
Hello,
I tried the Forrest agency and they quoted $1600/year with the $45,000 hull
coverage - the rest was the same. I only have 180 hours tho' - 70 of which
is in taildraggers. Let me know if you find other good quotes - I just
started the kit so it will be a while before I decide.
Talk Soon,
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RV-8 Builder Serial #80333
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael McGee <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sensenich props, et al... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee
>--> RV-List message posted by: Cafgef(at)aol.com
>
>Does anyone know the failure mode of a sensenich prop? Just how does it fail
>and where? How does one go about preflighting the prop so that one can find
>the incipient failure before it progresses to the point of failure? I get
>nervous about all this talk of props failing, especially when I have one such
>prop on order.
>Gene Francis: cafgef(at)aol.com
>
Failures of props like we are talking about here are not a product of a pre
flight condition--i.e., a crack or imperfection in the prop somewhere.
Try this prop test demo:
Find a yard stick (36" ruler) or just a thin piece of wood or metal that is
3 to 6 feet long. Hold it in the middle (just like your crankshaft holds
onto your prop. Now twist your forearm/wrist/hand back and forth to swing
the "propeller", slowly at first then gradually faster. As you twist back
and forth--faster, faster, faster--you begin to see the stick in your hand
(your prop) flex in the shape of as S. Even though it is spinning, this is
what your prop looks like under a strobe light any time the engine is
running. With a yard stick or a thin piece of wood you can twist it back
and forth fast enough that the tips will stand still. This is what your
prop is doing at those critical rpm's where the placard says AVOID
CONTINUOUS OPERATION AT... Now with your test prop in your hand, twist it
at that critical frequency (rpm) you just found and give it full throttle
(twist harder at the same rate). You probably just broke your stick. That
is what can happen if you run CONTINUOUSLY at those placarded rpm's.
So, it is not a problem that existed pre-flight. This is a dynamic thing
that is a product of a piston engine. It is not necessarily a design flaw
any more than the red line on your airspeed indicator. It is one of those
little compromises that come under the heading of design goals or mission
profiles.
One more thing, note that if you try two different length sticks you will
get two different resonant frequencies. This is why you are not supposed
to shorten your prop blades beyond the limits established by the
manufacturer. They've already tried them shorter in a test cell and had a
prop come apart. If you have a prop that you want to shorten the blades on
look up the limits first.
Mike McGee
jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM> |
| Subject: | Engine acquisition |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM>
Hi Folks:
Another new guy question: Since conventional wisdom has it that inactivity is
not good for an engine, how do you who know feel about the idea of buying a
freshly overhauled (or new) engine for a project that won't be completed for a
few years? What is involved in storing an engine long term? What needs to be
done to "un-store" it when the airplane is ready for it? Would this all be
worth the trouble or would it be better to just buy the engine when it's needed
(at the new, higher price)?
Thanks.
Tim Bronson, planning in Pittsburgh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM>
Hi Folks:
The nose vs. tail dragger discussion has made for some interesting reading. I
offer the following observations:
If you are not real comfortable with your situation, the joy of flight will be
greatly diminished. Many of us have completed flights successfully that
certainly could not be described as "fun." If getting the taildragger back on
the ground is something you worry about, this pleasure flying deal may not be so
enjoyable. A few hours of dual instruction should help with the decision. The
question you need to answer is not whether or not you CAN handle a taildragger,
but rather, do you ENJOY flying a taildragger?
Don't think you have to have "the right stuff" to check out in taildraggers.
Remember, a few years back every student pilot started in a t/d. If a non-pilot
can learn to fly one, someone who already has flight experience can certainly do
it. I logged all of two hours of t/d time in my first ten years of flying, then
I checked out in a J-3 in about an hour and a half. I am not Sky King either,
I
just went out with a good instructor on a nice day. I logged about ten hours in
the J-3, then took another ten years "off" before returning to the tailwheel.
Now my pleasure flying is exclusively taildragger, since that's what I have
access to. I prefer it, but certainly would never turn my nose up at a tri-gear
airplane.
Once you've satisfied yourself that you are competent and confident in a
tailwheel airplane, it becomes a matter of personal preference. You decide
whether the additional challenge of the tailwheel is stimulating or aggravating.
One other possible consideration is the question of redundancy. There are two
ways to steer a -6A on the ground: rudder (with sufficient airflow) and
differential brakes. The -6 offers both of those, plus tail wheel steering,
which will allow you to taxi even if you lose one or both brakes (which has been
known to happen).
By the time I start my RV, I'll probably have a choice between the -8 and the
-8A. No question in my mind; I'll stick with the straight 8. But the way I see
it, either way you end up with an airplane that's custom made for you. You
can't go too far wrong.
Tim Bronson Pittsburgh, PA Future RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Smidler <smidler(at)dcwi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Frank Smidler
Tim Lewis wrote:
> In the RV-6A slider configuration there are 3 ribs that support the
> glareshield and to which the instrument panel attaches. The three
> pieces are 2 ea F-6107 and 1 ea F6108.
>
> Wouldn't you know it, these pieces interfere with my ideal location
> of my flight instruments. These pieces are 1.5 - 2" high at the
> instrument panel, but they get longer (more vertical extent) forward
> of the instrument panel, so they sit right where the back end of
> some of my instruments and radios should go.
> I'm considering modfying F-6107 by cutting off some of the angled
> portion and reinforcing it with some angle.
> It seems to me that F-6107 thus modified would still be strong enough
> to support the instrument panel and glare shield, especially in view
> of the notched angle piece that's riveted to the entire
> underside of the glareshield right behind the instrument panel. Any
> comments on my idea?
>
I did just this very thing on the left rib so that I could center the 6
gauge flight cluster on the pilots position (9.75" offset from center of
panel) and position them high enough so that I could put switches
below. I don't see any structual problem with doing this if you
reinforce the edge by riveting on an angle.
Frank Smidler
RV-6, working on instrument panel and canopy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hpair(at)thegrid.net |
| Subject: | RV4 or RV6 wing tips for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: hpair(at)thegrid.net
I have a brand new set of wing tips for sale with nut plates already
installed, so ya can take them off for maintenance. Ready to drill the
holes in the wings. 1st $250.oo takes em .
Harry Paine
805-481-2524
hpair(at)thegrid.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rvbildr(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | V Stab Strobe fit |
--> RV-List message posted by: rvbildr(at)juno.com
How does one install the Whelen strobe tube, p/n # A625, inside the
vertical stab fairing on the RV-6? The base of the strobe tube is too
wide to fit inside the fiberglas tip, unless it is installed diagonally.
I've seen several fitted in the faired, (parallel to the longitudinal
axis) orientation, but haven't had the opportunity to ask the builder
how it was done. Any clues? Thanks.
You can fax me a drawing of same to 770-412-6655.
Mal
rvbildr(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: paint scheme |
| From: | lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald) |
--> RV-List message posted by: lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald)
RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
(Michael C. Lott) writes:
Does anyone else have a military camouflage paint scheme on their rv?
If anyone has info like this please e-mail me or give me a number where I
can call you.
Thanks, alot. MCL
Michael,
The paint you are looking for is made by PPG and comes in sand,black,
(which turns purple within six months), forest green and sage green.
Sorry, I don't have the numbers anymore, but then again, maybe you don't
want them. You can buy this stuff at Rochester Lead Works,
100 Anderson Ave., Rochester, N.Y.,14607--(716)-244-3800).
I know that these people have a book that tells what the numbers are.
BUT, If you consider that this is a Mil. Spec. paint and that the
military
has been using it in an effort to hide the heat signature of their
equipment, then you might consider finding out what the numbers are and
then find a commercial flat paint that matches. You might want to take a
look at a tank or hummer before you go the mil. spec. route.
HTH larry Mac Donald lm4(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320B1A Problems. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
Mark:
>I have an IO-320B1...
I too have an IO320-B1A. Fortunately, Mine came with the spacers (The
engine was still hanging from the Twin Comanche mount). If you can wait
until this weekend, I'll go out to my hangar and measure the bolts for you.
As for locating the spacers, I would just start calling the parts houses
list in Trade-A-Plane under "Lycoming Parts". (Just out of curiosity, how
much is a set of spacers new from Lycoming?)
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | IO320-B1A Mount Bolt Lengths |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
I applogize for sending this to the entire list. Someone posted a query
about the lengths of the mount bolt needed for an IO320-B1A, but
unfortunately, I have deleted that message and so I don't know who to reply
directly to.
All four bolts in mine were AN7-50A
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
>The 6A is easier when on the ground in all respects, you "drive" it around.
>The 6 must be "flown" until tiedown, like all taildraggers.
That sentence sure caused me to chuckle. I've been flying nothing but
taildraggers (Champ and a C120) for the past 18 months. Last weekend I
went for a BFR, and on a whim did the BFR in an Archer. There I was, out
of habit, taxiing around at very slow speeds and holding full up elevator,
and essentially 'flying' it all the way to the tiedown. Several times the
CFI commented "This isn't a taildragger". I chuckled at how much less
skill and attentivness it took to taxi the archer.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JHeadric(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine acquisition |
--> RV-List message posted by: JHeadric(at)aol.com
When the engine is assembled, it is usually put together with a heavy
preservative type lubricant and unless the engine is run, will not have any
contaminants inside, such as carbon, moisture, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sources for Alumiprep and Alodine |
| From: | schmidtjm(at)juno.com (James M Schmidt) |
--> RV-List message posted by: schmidtjm(at)juno.com (James M Schmidt)
Most automotive paint stores will carry those products.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | REEVES322(at)aol.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: REEVES322(at)aol.com
I have use swivel head rivet sets for some time now and Love them,,them
comform to the skin with out having to be so careful as to being
perpendictular..keeps the smily faces to a minimun. I bought mine from Avery
Tools and have nothing but the highest reguard for their tools..Good people
to do business with. The offset sets come in handy once in a while but I
cant remember exactly where. Good Luck!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: V Stab Strobe fit |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
>How does one install the Whelen strobe tube, p/n # A625, inside the
>vertical stab fairing on the RV-6? The base of the strobe tube is too
>wide to fit inside the fiberglas tip, unless it is installed diagonally.
>I've seen several fitted in the faired, (parallel to the longitudinal
>axis) orientation, but haven't had the opportunity to ask the builder
>how it was done. Any clues? Thanks.
>You can fax me a drawing of same to 770-412-6655.
>Mal
>rvbildr(at)juno.com
Mal,
All I have to look at is a picture but it appears that this unit would be
too large. The strobe that I used in the V.S. location is a A650 wing tip
strobe, which is smaller. I discarded the metal housing that holds the
glass to the base of the strobe. I cut a hole in the tip fairing and
gradually enlarged it so that the lens fit with the lip of the glass bearing
on the fiberglass. Where the material was thin, I potted in a mill
fiber/resin mix to make a more solid installation.
To hold the lens in place, I made a right angle bracket out of .032 with
one leg pressing on the base of the strobe, forcing the assembley tight into
the tip. The other leg fit against the rear spar of the V.S. and was
attached with one nut plate mounted on the inside of the tip rib/V.S. spar
juncture.
I'll bet if you trade for a A650, you'll be able to make it work.
Bob Skinner RV-6 BSkinner(at)navix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
--> RV-List message posted by: RV6AIR(at)aol.com
Just finishing up an RV6, 180, C/S, S/C. A few things remain to
be installed and I was wondering if someone has completed a similar
airplane and could tell me what empty weight and C.G. to expect.
Thanks,
Bob Lovering
RV6 22021 N7LA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine acquisition |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denny Harjehausen
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM>
>
>Hi Folks:
>
>Another new guy question: Since conventional wisdom has it that inactivity is
>not good for an engine, how do you who know feel about the idea of buying a
>freshly overhauled (or new) engine for a project that won't be completed for a
>few years? What is involved in storing an engine long term? What needs to be
>done to "un-store" it when the airplane is ready for it? Would this all be
>worth the trouble or would it be better to just buy the engine when it's needed
>(at the new, higher price)?
>
Mr. Hatch, who is widely respected in the engine department told a friend
and I to fill our engines up to top of the filler pipe with oil and turn it
over once a month, top to bottom..bottom to top and as I recall, to change
the oil after few months, that should gurantee that the cam and crank are
protected.....Price is something else, I keep saying they can't get any
higher, but they seem to....but who knows for sure when that will change.
There is all this talk of a new engine being developed by Cont. and others
at half the price of the current Lycs & Cont....It could happen...I bought a
used engine and am having it rebuilt and fancied up inside a little. Hoping
for some better than stock results. The projected cost is about 70% of a new
one.
Have A Great Day!
Denny
retflygtiger(at)proaxis.com
RV-6/ Fuselage
Lebanon, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two RV6A's, one T hanger |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy)
>we are currently figuring out how to best store two RV6A's in a 40' x
>40' T hanger. A dolly which allows the planes to be rolled in sideways
so
>the props are facing one another seems most pratical. This way the
You might be able to "nest" them if you have 20' from the doors to the
walls of the indentations. With one facing in and the other facing out
they should fit. A 6A is just a hair under 20' long.
You will have to roll out the out-facing one to get the in-facing one
out, but I think this will be a lot less hassle than using a dolly and
going sideways. I have a 6A and an ultralight nested in this fashion and
it works well. Before putting them away, give a guess at which one will
be utilized next and nest accordingly.
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
Now that I've finished installing a King KLX-135A in my RV-6, I thought I'd
pass along a couple of interesting bits of information about it that may
help someone in the future who is trying to make a purchase decision:
1. The KLX-135A will accept Mode C altitude information from your encoder.
(This altitiude info is used by the KNLX-135A for SUA alerts.) When wiring
up the outputs from your encoder, simply parallel the KLX-135a and your
transponder. Of course, the encoder output PRESSURE altitude, which brings
us to fact #2:
2. The KLX-135A does not have an RS232 serial air data input. If it did,
my RMI microEncoder could send it the altimieter setting. I do not know if
other GPS/COM products have such a serial air-data input, but it's worth
checking out.
Entering the current altimeter setting into the KLX-135A is also a bit of a
pain. You must use the right-hand pair of knobs to get to SETUP page 8,
hit the CRSR button, and then use the same knobs to enter the current
altimeter setting.
Entering the current altimeter setting in this manner involves so much
heads-down time that I suspect I'll end up turning the SUA Alert feature
off.
As an aside, for the first time today, I was sitting in the airplane, with
the KLX135A Comm, PS2000 intercomm, AND the CD player going, listening to
it all through the headset. Pretty Cool.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | Master & Starter relay on battery box |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
I need some input from those of you who have mounted your master and
battery relays on the battery box. It appears that this would make it
difficult to remove the battery box and gain access to the battery without
disconnecting cables from the relays.
How did you do it?
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV6 Wing Mounting |
--> RV-List message posted by: grihen(at)juno.com
Well Guys and Gals, I guess I have taken leave of my senses after working
on my RV6 for a year and a half. I am in the process of bolting on my
wings but I cannot find anything in the plans that show what nuts and
washers go on the bolts that hold the wings on the 604 bulkhead. Drawing
15 comes the closest by telling what size reamer to use on the holes.
What am I missing here? I am sure that I have overlooked something.
John Henley (grihen(at)juno.com)
Standing By
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MP gauge on fixed pitch prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Glenn & Judi <flyers@anet-chi.com>
Hi,
I have recently heard of a normally aspirated, fixed pitch RV that was
equipped with a manifold pressure gauge.
Until now, a MP gauge is something I have only seen on aircraft equipped
with a constant speed or variable pitch prop.
Has anyone else seen this who might be able to explain how it is used on
a normally aspirated fixed pitch engine?
Thanks in advance,
Glenn Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 vs RV-6A |
--> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
My tongue was not in my cheek when I wrote about the 6 vs the 6A. The 6A is
easier to takeoff and land by a long shot. Insurance and resale values are
facts. The 6A is cheaper to insure and gets more at resale time. The 6 is a
great plane and can be mastered but the 6A is easier.
Jim Cone
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
I was pleased to see my plane and instrument panel in the Rvator as well as
the picture of me after my first flight with the RV grin. I was also pleased
that my first flight was noted. However, there was an error in the comment
about how much they liked my newsletter. It is not the Mid-America RVator.
It is Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter, incorporating the Midwest
RVator. It really isn't a local newsletter, and is dedicated to helping you
build your RV better and easier while avoiding the mistakes that others have
made who are ahead of you in construction. Many people, including Tony
Bengelis, have told me that it is one of the best newsletters around. If you
are interested, subscriptions are $5.00 per year, which just covers my costs.
It is published quarterly. Subscribers get all issues for the years that
they subscribe to. I have the back issues for 1995 and 1996 which cover the
building of an RV from the beginning. They are also available for $5.00 per
year. I offer a money back guarantee and have never had any takers. Send me
an E-mail if you want to subscribe and I will send you the first two issues
of 1997 and they can cross your check in the snail mail. I wish that some of
the subscirbers who have written me about my newsletter would have send a
copy of their praise to the RV list. I work very hard to produce a
newsletter that is helpful and entertaining. Thanks for the opportunity to
toot my own horn.
Jim Cone, Editor
Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
422 Savannah Ridge Drive
St. Charles, MO 63303
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | King KLX-135A & Navaid Devices |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
I called the folks at Navaid devices yesterday, and they told me that some
customers are reporting problems interfacing their autopilot to the King
KLX-135A, but they also had no more data that that.
In looking at the specs of both units, I fail to see the reason why. The
KLX-135A has the standard pair of 0-150mv outputs designed to drive a CDI
needle, and according to the man I talked to at Navaid Devices, that's
exactly what the autopilot wants.
Has anyone else on the list had any experience connecting a King KLX-135A
to a Navaid Devices autopilot?
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | INSURANCE QUESTIONS |
--> RV-List message posted by: George McNutt
Here is my 2 cents about insurance.
Insurance rates vary from company to company because of the different fin=
e
print restrictions which limit company exposure to loss. To get an accura=
te
analsys of rates you must compare apples to apples. This can only be done=
by asking for quotes on identical coverage from each company. In my case =
I
ask for a million dollar combined single limit policy with no restriction=
on family members, and that is the coverage I carry on my C-182.
You will find that most companys quotes will be very close for identical
coverage and many will be lower than Avemco.
Most pilots feel they need a million or more liability, hundred thousand
passenger hazard per seat plus hull coverage.
Why "combined single limit" - here is how my agent explained it to me.
If we prang into a school yard full of kids the million liability coverag=
e
will not be enough, however the insurance risk is low because statisticll=
y
most prangs only take out a few trees or part of a wheat field.
=
One hundred thousand per seat passenger hazard is inadequate if the
accident is serious, the combined single limit would divide the million
between third party liability and your buddy in the right seat. Beware th=
e
policy that limits coverage of family members to $25,000 (see fine print =
in
policy). Statistics show that the majority of serious accidents involve a=
smoking hole in a wheat field with a family member in the right seat, thi=
s
means a low payout for the insurance company. Farmer $500, wifes estate
$25,000 + hull.
Combined single limit would pay farmer $500, wifes estate balance of the
million, plus the hull. (Wifes estate hopefully willed to kids) =
Combined single limit coverage is about $200 more than standard policy
because the insurance companys exposure is higher. As for numbers, I pay
$1125 Canadian ($875 U.S.) for one million combined single limit policy
including $55,000 hull. Hull rates decreased this year. (ATR, active
airline pilot =3D lowest rate) =
The above is my understanding and may not be gospel, however it may set y=
ou
to thinking of questions to ask your insurance agent.
George McNutt, - H.S.
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MP gauge on fixed pitch prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
> I have recently heard of a normally aspirated, fixed pitch RV that was
>equipped with a manifold pressure gauge.
> Until now, a MP gauge is something I have only seen on aircraft equipped
>with a constant speed or variable pitch prop.
> Has anyone else seen this who might be able to explain how it is used on
>a normally aspirated fixed pitch engine?
>Glenn Gordon
Glenn,
I have a M.P. gauge in my 150 hp RV-6. According to an article in the
RVator, you can determine 75% power by adding the first two digets of the
rpm to the m.p. If the figures add up to 48, it equalls 75% power. I took
the figures from the article and interpolated (?) and came up with the
"inbetween numbers" of:
40 48.0%
42 55.0%
43 58.0%
44 62.0%
45 65.0%
46 68.0%
47 72.0%
48 75.0%
49 78.0%
50 82.0%
51 85.0%
52 88.0%
Hopefully, this is correct as I've been flying my RV using these figures.
Manifold pressure can also be used to help determine the health of the engine.
By the way, I do have the Lycoming manual that has the power charts for
the 150 hp. However, the print quality is poor and very small and even a
magnifying glass is no help to my bi-focalled eyes. Does anyone on the list
have this info and would you be willing to make a copy for me? At the very
least, would someone be willing to use the above figures and compare them to
"the book". I was just reading AOPA and in one of the articles, they
indicated that a IO-360 in a Mooney would be at 75% power at 4,000 feet when
operated at 23"/2,700 rpms, 24"/2,600 rpms or 26"/2,400 rpms. These figures
add up to 50 so, which one is correct? Have I been operating under 75%
power all this time?
Bob Skinner RV-6 BSkinner(at)navix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MP gauge on fixed pitch prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: LesDrag(at)aol.com
<< Hi,
I have recently heard of a normally aspirated, fixed pitch RV that was
equipped with a manifold pressure gauge.
Until now, a MP gauge is something I have only seen on aircraft equipped
with a constant speed or variable pitch prop.
Has anyone else seen this who might be able to explain how it is used on
a normally aspirated fixed pitch engine?
Thanks in advance,
Glenn Gordon
>>
Hi All,
Brad Overholser (Pelican Aviation), Kent Rockwell (Rocky) and I have flown
our RV-3's with a MP gauge, fixed pitch props, and a Lyc. O-320, Lyc. IO-320,
and Lyc. O-290, respectively.
The one significant advantage of having the MP gauge is that it allows you to
set the power before the transition from climb to cruise is complete.
Knowing the difference in MP between the three RV's allowed us to state a
power setting during the transition to cruise, or for any power changes.
BTW, I heard that certification is going to be required for formation flight.
Anyone one know any particulars??
In order to determine the horsepower from the engine, an accurate MP and tach
are required.
Spam cans with fixed pitch props have "known" MP's for given RPM and
altitudes, for there charts. So they don't need a MP gauge.
Jim Ayers
LOM M332A Ivoprop RV-3 N47RV Maroon Marauder
LesDrag(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Miller, Jr." <rgmiller(at)sprintmail.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert G. Miller, Jr."
Michael C. Lott wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott)
>
> I just got a quote from an insurance company (Falcon Ins. Comp. of
> Arizona) 20,000.00 hull coverage. $1019.00 per year. 500.00 earned
> since test hours not flown off yet. 100.00 deduct not in motion.
> 1,000,000.00 liability. Covered from first flight. My experience:
> commercial, single eng. land. no instrument rating. total time 1240
> hrs. 300 of that in taildraggers. How does this coverage sound to
> others who have insurance? Is this a good price, or can it be beat by
> much? Tell me what you think. thanks.
Mike:
I don't know about price, but your hull coverage is too low. Do you
realize that if your a/c suffers $20,000 or more in damage, the company
is going to write the check for $20,000 and TAKE YOR PLANE FOR SALVAGE.
Robert Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 vs RV-6A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
aol.com!JamesCone(at)matronics.com wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
>
> My tongue was not in my cheek when I wrote about the 6 vs the 6A. The 6A is
> easier to takeoff and land by a long shot. Insurance and resale values are
> facts. The 6A is cheaper to insure and gets more at resale time. The 6 is a
> great plane and can be mastered but the 6A is easier.
>
> Jim Cone
> jamescone(at)aol.com
Well Jim I don't want to get into a pissing match with you on the list
because I appreciate the good information you post to the list. When
you say that the -6A is is easier by a long shot you are just plain
wrong, it may be easier for you to land and take off a tri-gear but that
does not mean that that is so for the rest of us. The -6 is one of the
easiest taildraggers there is to land and take off. Your long post on
how much safer the -6A is made it sound like the -6 was dangerous and
I just don't want anyone that is building a -6 to get the idea that it
is unsafe because that is just not so. By the way how are going to steer
your 6A on landing or takeoff if you should lose a brake? the -6 does
not need brakes to takeoff or land. I am baseing my feelings on
21 years of instructing and almost 900 hrs of RV time. I realize I
may not be as experienced as you but the -6 is as safe and easy as the
-6A, You've got me on the visability on the ground but even that is not
a problem because visibility is still great. and yes I will land just
as short as you do and on rougher fields without fear of damageing the
nose gear.
Sorry that I did not get to meet you when you were out here at Van's
Bill Benedict told me that you came all the way out here to see
the picture of your airplane on Van's customer desk.:-)
Fly safe
Jerry
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: V Stab Strobe fit |
z>
--> RV-List message posted by: Frank van der Hulst
>How does one install the Whelen strobe tube, p/n # A625, inside the
>vertical stab fairing on the RV-6? The base of the strobe tube is too
>wide to fit inside the fiberglas tip, unless it is installed diagonally.
>I've seen several fitted in the faired, (parallel to the longitudinal
>axis) orientation, but haven't had the opportunity to ask the builder
>how it was done.
A thought... an RV-4 builder suggested I be careful where I fitted the
flashing red beacon on the VS of my RV-6. If you fit it too near the front,
it'll flash into the cockpit. I'd imagine a strobe flashing into the
cockpit would be even more distracting!
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CYoung9519(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: INSURANCE QUESTIONS |
--> RV-List message posted by: CYoung9519(at)aol.com
George:
Thanks for the information on aviation insurance. Would you be willing to
tell us the name of your company? Thanks in advance for your anticipated
cooperation.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bumflyer(at)aol.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bumflyer(at)aol.com
Jim I don't want the list to think no body loves you.
I have published a newsletter for the last three years, called the Rocky
Mountain RVator. (Don't send money we aren't looking for circulation
records). In the process of doing this job I established exchange agreements
with all known RV newsletter publishers and hence have read most out there.
Jim's is the best . It is also the cheapest, most dependable, best
reproduced and has a sense of humor. Send him your 5. If you're smart you
will go for the last two years while they are available. Must reading for
slider builders.
On the matter of 6 vs. 6A. They are both great airplanes well within the
capabilities of average aviators. To the listers, who tend to decide by
surveys and analysis.... Listen to the guy who said he had known some 6
owners who wished they had built a 6A and no 6A builders who wished they had
built a 6.
For you listers who are hassling with a decision, first define what is fun
for yourself. You can no more define which is best for some one else than
you can define what is fun for someone else. For example for me hiking
swimming and parachuting are emergency procedures and not fun. Skydiving
and tail dragging are not my idea of fun. But a whole lot of people out
there think differently. My idea of fun is flying a powered responsive
airplane in the air. Taxiing to the hangar is no more fun for me than
putting air in the tires.
My favorite comment so far was the fellow who said he wouldn't 'turn up his
nose' at a nose dragger. How about the rest of you lighten up??
I don't work for Jim Cone or anyone else.
D Walsh
________________________________________________________________________________
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@denmark-c.it.earthlink.net>
> I wish that some of
> the subscirbers who have written me about my newsletter would have send a
> copy of their praise to the RV list.
>
> Jim Cone, Editor
> Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
> 422 Savannah Ridge Drive
> St. Charles, MO 63303
> jamescone(at)aol.com
OK, here goes: I subscribed to Jim's newsletter in 1996. The $5
subscription was THE BEST $5 I've spent on my RV-6 project.
Jim's article on canopy construction saved me countless hours. As I
and others have noted in the RV-list over the years, Van's
instructions on the canopy aren't so good. Jim's instructions are
great, and they WORK.
I sent Jim another $10 to buy the 1995 back issues and to subscribe
for 1997. Absolutely worth every penny. Thanks Jim.
Tim
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MP gauge on fixed pitch prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
>Has anyone else seen this who might be able to explain how it is used on
>a normally aspirated fixed pitch engine?
Glenn;
It's not very technical on my part, I use the man. press. gauge to fill up
that hole over there in my panel. Since it is there, I use it to set power
on let downs (keep m/p at or above 15 in.) and to mach it together with the
rpm for approximate power output of the engine. Other than that, it's just
cool. I had one given to me, thought it would look better in the panel than
on the shelf. Just thankful they didn't give me an anvil!!! Can't think of a
better reason at the time.
If you look close and do some interpolation on the Lyc. operators manual,
you can figure out the combination of mp and first two digits of rpm as 48
is 75% of engine power.
And I thank Bob Skinner for admitting that he too is having trouble with
that chart, I thought for a while there that I was getting old.
John Darby RV6 N61764 flying
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6 Wing Mounting |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
>I cannot find anything in the plans that show what nuts and
>washers go on the bolts that hold the wings on the 604 bulkhead. Drawing
>15 comes the closest by telling what size reamer to use on the holes.
>What am I missing here? I am sure that I have overlooked something.
>John Henley;
I would suggest putting 3/8 nuts and washers on the 3/8 bolts and 1/4 nuts
and washers on the 1/4 bolts. :<) Having gotten that out of my system......
I did have trouble with the length of the bolts on mine. I had to use the
max. number of washers on some of them. The problem seemed to be that the
spar laminates are a little splayed apart in there and by time you get a
bolt hammered in, the thread showing looks as if it will take X number of
washers and then the bolt to leave the magical two threads showing. But as
you torque it down, the spar laminates compress and next thing you know you
are trying to tighten the nut up against the shoulder of the bolt. Good way
to get proper torque but it doesn't tighten the spar to the frame! Add to
this that some bolts need to be longer due to passing through some of the
additional flanges in front of the bulkhead, well, that lead to a lot of ins
and outs!!!
Mine were so different that when I took the bolts out to disassemble to
move to the airport, I wrote next to the hole what length and how many
washers each took, because the first assemble took so many trial and errors
to get it right. But they are so accessible(this is tongue in cheek for
those who don't have a sense of humor), you don't HAVE to do that!!!
After the exercise of all of this, some one told me to take a wire with a
90 degree bend in the end that sticks out very short, run it in the hole,
hook the 90 degree bend on the back side, use your finger to mark the front
side, hold your finger mark, take the wire out and match it to a bolt
length that would work, and then put that bolt in. Damned simple, it shows
that I'm smart because I don't think simple!! (hows that for ego?)
John Darby RV6 N61764 flying
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Osgood <Rick(at)ccc.henn.tec.mn.us> |
| Subject: | Chevy Vortec project Belted Air Power |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Osgood
Has anyone heard any new info on the Belted Air project?? Is it
available, final cost, new performance figures, etc....
Thanks to all
RV6A - wings (finally warm in Minnesota :)
--
Rick Osgood
Rick(at)ccc.henn.tec.mn.us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <RNuckolls(at)compuserve.com> |
rv-list
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
/The same board is used for the 40 and 60 Amp versions - =
/The board is capable of 60 Amps but the master relay, on
/the board, is only rated at 40 Amps. When 60 Amps is desired, =
/you solder three pads together on the board, or buy it already =
/done and add a remote master solenoid. Typical wiring diagrams =
/are provided.
Master relays should always be mounted within inches of
the battery to minimize the amount of un-protected, always
hot wire between the battery and the master relay. VERY
IMPORTANT . . . the battery master should also control
starter current . . . starter contactors can stick shut
and give you no auxiliary means for shutting off the flow
of power to the starter.
/Any load over 9 Amps will require a regular circuit breaker, or =
/heaven forbid, a fuse. So your pitot heat will need it's own =
/breaker and switch.
Why is it desirable to put part of your circuit protection
on an expensive, fabricated assembly that is NOT flexible
in terms of future additions that still makes you cover
things like pitot heat and landing lights as a separate
bus and protection system? What's the problem with a fuse?
If the job is done right, the probability of a fuse opening
is very close to zero . . . when it does, there's something
broke . . . and there's no value in fiddling with it it flight.
/If you don't use switch 2 for the alternator field, it's =
/available for any 5 amp load.
What are the alternatives? Are you considering an alternator
with a built-in regulator? Granted, they're attractive for
simplicity of installation but cannot be fitted with over
voltage protection. One of my readers smoked several
expensive gizmos in his airplane on the way to Sun-n-Fun
due to failure of a built-in regulator. He planned to modify
the system per my recommendations after Sun-n-Fun but it
didn't last that long. . .
/The remote switch capability is neat in that it allows you to group =
/switches as you desire, not as they require.
As long as you're going to dismount the switches, what's
the advantage to be gained with a $250 product that costs
more than two to three times as much as some very practical
alternatives?
/I install a lot of specialty items in buildings
/and since they have started using ptc's our service problems have =
/plummeted. I'm just tickled with their performance, besides, I =
/no longer have to worry about the location of the nearest radio =
/shack for replacement fuses when "I" blow one.
Buildings and airplanes have nothing in common with respect to
electrical systems design considerations. Airplane branch feeds
from the bus DO NOT nuisance trip . . . at least they shouldn't
if they're designed right. The fact that self-reseting breakers
are a boon to anyone's lifestyle is a testament to poor design.
In over 1,000 hours of flying, I've never had a breaker open in
flight on airplanes ranging from C-120 to A-36. If a breaker
ever DOES open, I'm NOT going to mess with it in flight (except
for the 60 amp alternator breaker on Pipers and Cessnas . . .
that one is DESIGNED to nuisance trip). Of the 150,000 airplanes
in the GA fleet and assuming an average of 15 breakers per
airplane, there are over 2 million breakers flying of which
the vast majority will never be called upon to do their job.
Why? because reliabilty is supposed to be designed in.
Hate to be pedantic about this but there are serious
deficiencies with the EXP-Bus design in addition to
failure to meet their advertising hype. I've caught some
flack about posting the 4-page critical design review
on this product to the list . . . yet people among =
you recommend this product and at the same time, didn't =
read what I wrote about it . . . one fellow told me he automatically
deletes any piece over a few thousand bytes; a "don't bother
me with facts, my mind is already made up" syndrome.
If someone believes in this product, then at least do me the
honor of debating my evaluation, especially if you're going
to recommend it to the less enlightened in such glowing terms.
List-servers are for the disemination of good information and =
a forum for weeding out the bad . . .I won't post the design =
review again but if anyone cares to read it for information =
-or- the purpose of engaging in useful debate, I'll respond =
to e-mail requests for copies.
=
Regards,
Bob . . . =
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DoOOo=3D(_)=3DoOOo=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
| |
| Go ahead, make my day . . . |
| Show me where I'm wrong. |
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
72770.552(at)compuserve.com
http://www.aeroelectric.com
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)msn.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "les williams"
Hey Jim,
Ya got a great newsletter. Those you don't get it are missing out. Listers:
subscribe.
Thanks,
Les Williams/RV-6AQB/N24LW (res)/finish kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OrndorffG(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: INSURANCE QUESTIONS |
--> RV-List message posted by: OrndorffG(at)aol.com
Chuck,
we us AUA 1-800-727-3823 and ask for Mac McGee tell him you had talked with
me he's a good guy and like to insure RV's....George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RV-8 Tilt Canopy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: MAlexan533(at)aol.com
I own an RV-4 and am contemplating building an RV-8, mostly because I need a
project! My question is, is the RV-8 available with the standard RV-4 type
tilting canopy? I sat in the RV-8 at Sun n Fun, and I love everything about
the plane except the big roll bar going across my field of vision. This bugs
the heck out of me, as I'm used to having unrestricted visibility in the
RV-4, and I feel it is very important for safety reasons. Also it is simpler
to build, and lighter to go with the tilt canopy. Another question; Has
anyone finished their RV-8 tail kit yet? If so, how long did it take you? If
you built an RV-4 before, what time-savings would you estimate is attained
due to pre-punched parts? Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | 95-96 back issues of newsletter |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
Jim,
I like the 2 issues of your newsletter so much that I want you to send
me the 1995 & 1996 back issues before they are all gone!! You'll find my
check for $10 in your mail this week.
Charlie Kuss
3000 S. Ocean Blvd. #103
Boca Raton, Fl. 33432
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | INSURANCE QUESTION |
--> RV-List message posted by: George McNutt
Thanks for the information on aviation insurance. Would you be willing t=
o
tell us the name of your company? Thanks in advance for your anticipated=
cooperation.
Chuck
My insurance is through a local aviation insurance broker in Vancouver
B.C., Willis Corroon Aerospace, and is placed with CAIG (Canadian Aviatio=
n
Insurance Group) of Toronto Canada. CAIG places the insurance risk with
several member companies and my designated company is St. Paul Fire &
Marine Insurance Co.
Prior to 1994 I used Avemco, however when I requested removal of their
limits of liability on family members the rates increased to the point th=
at
they were uncompetative. =
George McNutt - H.S =
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Bergh" <dbergh(at)cyberhighway.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Bergh"
----------
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
>
> I was pleased to see my plane and instrument panel in the Rvator as well
as
> the picture of me after my first flight with the RV grin. I was also
pleased
> that my first flight was noted. However, there was an error in the
comment
> about how much they liked my newsletter. It is not the Mid-America
RVator.
> It is Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter, incorporating the
Midwest
> RVator. It really isn't a local newsletter, and is dedicated to helping
you
> build your RV better and easier while avoiding the mistakes that others
have
> made who are ahead of you in construction. Many people, including Tony
> Bengelis, have told me that it is one of the best newsletters around. If
you
> are interested, subscriptions are $5.00 per year, which just covers my
costs.
> It is published quarterly. Subscribers get all issues for the years that
> they subscribe to. I have the back issues for 1995 and 1996 which cover
the
> building of an RV from the beginning. They are also available for $5.00
per
> year. I offer a money back guarantee and have never had any takers.
Send me
> an E-mail if you want to subscribe and I will send you the first two
issues
> of 1997 and they can cross your check in the snail mail. I wish that
some of
> the subscirbers who have written me about my newsletter would have send a
> copy of their praise to the RV list. I work very hard to produce a
> newsletter that is helpful and entertaining. Thanks for the opportunity
to
> toot my own horn.
>
> Jim Cone, Editor
> Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
> 422 Savannah Ridge Drive
> St. Charles, MO 63303
> jamescone(at)aol.com
>
Dear Jim,
I would like a subscription to your newsletter and would also be
interested in the 2 years of back issues you talked about. Let me know how
much and to whom to make the check to and I will put it in the mail.
Thanks,
Dave Bergh.
RV6 -working on rudder
Dave Bergh
RT 1 Box 814
Mountain Home, ID 83647
(208)587-8203
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pondering the essential bus concept |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@iceland-c.it.earthlink.net>
On 28 Feb 97 Bob Nuckolls posted an article entitled "Aircraft
Electrical Systems: a Philosophy for Reliability" to the RV-list. A
circuit diagram of this system is shown in the Aero Electric
connection. The basic idea is that the builder puts his/her
"essential" electrical equipment on one bus, and the "non-essential"
electrical equipment on the non-essential bus. The essential bus is
fed from the non-essential bus via a diode. If the non-essential
bus goes off line (battery contactor fails, or pilot shuts it down to
conserve power in the event of alternator failure) then the pilot
flies with the essential bus. The essential bus can get power from
the battery directly (avoiding the failed battery contactor) via an
alternate feed path which is switched on when needed. (I hope I've
summarized this concept accurately).
The feature of this system I really like is it rescues the pilot from
the single point of failure represented by the battery contactor. In
attempting to adopt this design, however, I'm finding that nearly my
entire electrical system ends up on the "essential" side of the
essential/non-essential sheet. I'm considering using a single bus,
but providing an alternate feed path (switched and fused, of course)
to the bus that avoids the battery contactor. In the event of
battery contactor failure I would switch on the alternate feed path.
In the event of alternator failure (as annunciated by my electronic
engine monitor which also monitors bus voltage) I'd simply shut off
all non-essential loads (as dictated by my needs at the time) and
land as soon as practical.
Any comments on this idea?
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exp-Bus . . . |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@iceland-c.it.earthlink.net>
I don't question Bob's assessment of the experimental bus, but I do
have an experience to share here.
> If the job is done right, the probability of a fuse opening
> is very close to zero . . . when it does, there's something
> broke . . . and there's no value in fiddling with it it flight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's ALMOST always true. I once had an intermittent short in my
panel wiring ground out my panel lights while I was IMC at night
shortly after departure from San Diego (in a Grumman Yankee). The
momentary grounding blew the fuse. I flew the airplane thru the
overcast using a flashlight in my teeth to see the panel (that's why
I always keep the flashlight on a string hanging from my neck... easy
to find).
After I was thru the overcast I replaced the fuse, and found that
the panel lights worked OK for the approach back into Los Angeles.
It was a lot easier with working panel lights than with just a
flashlight.
The next day I found the abraded wiring and made sure it was properly
insulated.
Given that experience I'll likely opt to keep my fuses/breakers
within reach. In general, however, if a fuse blows it'll probably
blow again if replaced, 'cause it blew for a reason.
Tim
---------------------
Tim Lewis
RV-6AQ #60023
San Antonio TX
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
-----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leo Davies <leo(at)icn.su.OZ.AU> |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Leo Davies
Tim,
I suspect that you are not the first person to notice this. I am at the
stage of contemplating the area behind the panel and wondering what it is
save to remove. Several of the IFR 6As that I have seen have swiss cheese
like arrangements of both these ribs and the bulkhead immediately forward of
the panel. I have not seen much comment on this from any source and would be
delighted to hear from the completed builders how they coped with these
restraints........Jim, you still putting out the newsletter now you're flying?
Leo Davies
leo(at)icn.su.oz
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a@norway-c.it.earthlink.net>
>
>In the RV-6A slider configuration there are 3 ribs that support the
>glareshield and to which the instrument panel attaches. The three
>pieces are 2 ea F-6107 and 1 ea F6108.
>
>Wouldn't you know it, these pieces interfere with my ideal location
>of my flight instruments. These pieces are 1.5 - 2" high at the
>instrument panel, but they get longer (more vertical extent) forward
>of the instrument panel, so they sit right where the back end of
>some of my instruments and radios should go.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Martin <fairlea(at)execulink.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tom Martin
I am close to purchasing a used engine for my new project and the bendix
fuel control needs to be rebuilt. Does anyone have any opinions on getting
the bendix rebuilt vs. buying a new airflow performance unit? It would seem
that the cost is about the same. Would I be able to use the same flow
divider and injectors? Thanks in advance
Tom Martin
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leo Davies <leo(at)icn.su.OZ.AU> |
| Subject: | Re: MP gauge on fixed pitch prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Leo Davies
Glenn,
Lovely article by Bill Benedict in the last RVator will answer your question
in a way that will make you buy one.
Leo
>--> RV-List message posted by: Glenn & Judi <flyers@anet-chi.com>
>
>Hi,
>
>I have recently heard of a normally aspirated, fixed pitch RV that was
>equipped with a manifold pressure gauge.
>
>Until now, a MP gauge is something I have only seen on aircraft equipped
>with a constant speed or variable pitch prop.
>
>Has anyone else seen this who might be able to explain how it is used on
>a normally aspirated fixed pitch engine?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Glenn Gordon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chester razer <crazer(at)egyptian.net> |
| Subject: | RMI Micro Monitor |
--> RV-List message posted by: chester razer
Just finished wiring up Micro Monitor, Initially monitor showed only
zero's. Trouble shot system and isolated wiring to Manifold Pressure
Transducer Finally got system to display and calibrate by eliminating
signal ground conductor on Manifold pressure transducer. Wiring diagram
definitely shows using this third conductor. . Currenly only have 5.12
volt supply conductor and signal conductor hooked up. Anybody else have
this problem
--
Chet Razer
crazer(at)egyptian.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lothar Klingmuller <lothark(at)worldnet.att.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Lothar Klingmuller
>--> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
>I was pleased to see my plane and instrument panel in the Rvator SNIP
Having seen Jim's plane in the building stage, I am pleased he now wears the
RV smile and has joined the lucky flying force!
Jim, what about a CLEAR photo ( one where EVERY instrument can be
deciphered) of your instrument panel in your next edition of VAN'S AIR
FORCE, TRI-STATE WING?
> It is Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter, incorporating the Midwest
>RVator. It really isn't a local newsletter, and is dedicated to helping you
>build your RV better and easier while avoiding the mistakes that others have
>made who are ahead of you in construction. Many people, including Tony
>Bengelis, have told me that it is one of the best newsletters around. If you
>are interested, subscriptions are $5.00 per year, which just covers my costs.
>
>Jim Cone, Editor
>Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
>jamescone(at)aol.com
All RV-List:
If you don't subscribe to Jim's newsletter, you are missing out! Jim has the
knack of good, clear writing And writes about mistakes made so hopefully we
will learn from these. All of my issues are marked up for future reference.
Lothar* Klingmuller | lothark(at)worldnet.att.net | Denver (303) 922-2329 h &
FAX ||6A: continueing w/ fuse'ge when garage is build || *(pron'd: "low-TARR")
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitch Faatz <mfaatz(at)sagenttech.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mitch Faatz
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>>
>Well Jim I don't want to get into a pissing match with you on the list..
><..followed by a pissing match, of course>
>>you say that the -6A is is easier by a long shot you are just plain
>>wrong, it may be easier for you to land and take off a tri-gear but that
>>does not mean that that is so for the rest of us. The -6 is one of the
>>easiest taildraggers there is to land and take off.
Please separate these two issues.
1) Tricycle gear aircraft were invented because, and remain to be,
a little bit more foregiving on the landing because of the CG.
Visiblity
during taxi is just a nice side benefit. I think everyone should take
some
hours in a taildragger to really drive home all the forces in motion
during
a landing. Then choose the configuration which meets your mission.
2) You are a man among pilots, and should paint HUGE testicles on
your verticle stabilizer to show everyone. Just kidding Jerry, but you
need to relax a little. Do you sneer at F-16's because they aren't tail
draggers?
I have to laugh when I hear people say things like "everybody just
*knows* that taildraggers look sexier!". Yeah, and if you're wife isn't
a brunette, you shouldn't take her out in public!
____________________
Mitch Faatz, San Jose CA
RV-6AQME, finishing flaps and fuel tanks, ruffling people's feathers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-6 vs RV-6A Humour |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
Real pilots not only *fly* taildraggers, they do carrier landings in them ;-)
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Fitzgerald <theredbaron(at)earthlink.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Fitzgerald
You guys really should grow up.
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mitch Faatz
>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>>>
>>Well Jim I don't want to get into a pissing match with you on the list..
>
>><..followed by a pissing match, of course>
>
>>>you say that the -6A is is easier by a long shot you are just plain
>>>wrong, it may be easier for you to land and take off a tri-gear but that
>>>does not mean that that is so for the rest of us. The -6 is one of the
>>>easiest taildraggers there is to land and take off.
>
>Please separate these two issues.
>
>1) Tricycle gear aircraft were invented because, and remain to be,
>a little bit more foregiving on the landing because of the CG.
>Visiblity
>during taxi is just a nice side benefit. I think everyone should take
>some
>hours in a taildragger to really drive home all the forces in motion
>during
>a landing. Then choose the configuration which meets your mission.
>
>2) You are a man among pilots, and should paint HUGE testicles on
>your verticle stabilizer to show everyone. Just kidding Jerry, but you
>need to relax a little. Do you sneer at F-16's because they aren't tail
>draggers?
>
>I have to laugh when I hear people say things like "everybody just
>*knows* that taildraggers look sexier!". Yeah, and if you're wife isn't
>a brunette, you shouldn't take her out in public!
>
>____________________
>Mitch Faatz, San Jose CA
>RV-6AQME, finishing flaps and fuel tanks, ruffling people's feathers.
>
>
>
Talk Soon,
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RV-8 Builder Serial #80333
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Barnhart <barnhart(at)A.crl.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel injection |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
Tom:
>I am close to purchasing a used engine for my new project and the bendix
>fuel control needs to be rebuilt. Does anyone have any opinions on getting
>the bendix rebuilt vs. buying a new airflow performance unit? It would seem
>that the cost is about the same. Would I be able to use the same flow
>divider and injectors? Thanks in advance
The airflow performance folks quoted me $250-$400 to overhaul my Benix
servo. I can't imagine that you can actually buy a new airflow performance
unit for that.
Best Regards,
Dave Barnhart
rv-6 sn 23744 N601DB
installing electrical and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Louis E. Smith Jr." <lsmith(at)coastalnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel injection |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Louis E. Smith Jr."
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tom Martin
>
>I am close to purchasing a used engine for my new project and the bendix
>fuel control needs to be rebuilt. Does anyone have any opinions on getting
>the bendix rebuilt vs. buying a new airflow performance unit? It would seem
>that the cost is about the same. Would I be able to use the same flow
>divider and injectors? Thanks in advance
>
>Tom Martin
>RV-4
>
>
Tom,
Don at Airflow Performance overhauled my bendix fuel control for $250.00.
He also overhauled my flow divider for $60.00. This work was done in
January of 97.
Regards,
Louis Smith
lsmith(at)coastalnet.com
Rocky Mount, NC
RV-8 #80126 N801RV reserved
RV-4 #2844 N102LS sold
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4Brown(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nutplate Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV4Brown(at)aol.com
I am looking for alternatives in attaching k1000-08 nutplates to thin
material i.e. less than .032 where machine countersinking the base material
is impractical. Assuming you have to dimple the base material this poses the
question as to what to do with the dimple protruding out the backside ? This
situation is encountered numerous times in the floor and baggage area on the
RV4.
Does anyone manufacture a nutplate with countersunk attachment holes
with the same spacing as a normal K1000 nutplate? If so, what is the part
number and where on the big blue marble might one look to find.
Other alternatives I have considered: Adding a thick doubler plate under
the nutplate. The doubler would be machine countersunk to accept the dimple
from above. This works but adds mass and is time consuming.
Attempting to use brute force and dimple the steel ends of the
nutplate. This is hard on the dies and the results are not of the quality I
would like.
Any other alternatives? What did the oldbies do?
Tom Brown RV4
fuselage in jig, fitting floors
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ab6a(at)juno.com (ALLAN E POMEROY) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ab6a(at)juno.com (ALLAN E POMEROY)
writes:
>--> RV-List message posted by: JamesCone(at)aol.com
snip> I wish that
>some of
>the subscribers who have written me about my newsletter would have
>send a
>copy of their praise to the RV list. I work very hard to produce a
>newsletter that is helpful and entertaining. Thanks for the
>opportunity to
>toot my own horn.
>
>Jim Cone, Editor
>Van's Air Force, Tri-State Wing Newsletter
>422 Savannah Ridge Drive
>St. Charles, MO 63303
>jamescone(at)aol.com
>
Jim Cone produces a fine newsletter with lots of good information
for us RV builders. At $5 for a year, it is a hard value to beat. Jim is
also VERY prompt in his replies to customers. A lot of businesses could
take lessons from him on how to keep customers happy. Just read his
newsletter and gain more information about the aircraft we are building
to help make it a bit easier.
Allan Pomeroy CNY
AB6A(at)juno.com
HS, beginning skinning
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine acquisition |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
--> RV-List message posted by: ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy)
>Another new guy question: Since conventional wisdom has it that
>inactivity is not good for an engine, how do you who know feel about the
idea of
>buying a freshly overhauled (or new) engine for a project that won't be
>completed for a few years? What is involved in storing an engine long
term? What
>needs to be done to "un-store" it when the airplane is ready for it?
Would this
>all be worth the trouble or would it be better to just buy the engine
when
>it's needed (at the new, higher price)?
I know people do this, but I would avoid it at all costs. There is
excellent material on this subject in Tony Bingelis' book "Firewall
Forward". I would strongly recommend you buy this (and ALL of his other)
book(s). He generally frowns on the practice, and states also "A well
used aircraft engine will survive storage or inactivity better than a
newly majored engine... newly honed cylinder walls can show signs of rust
in JUST A FEW DAYS (emphasis mine) if precautions aren't taken.
If the engine is PROPERLY preserved, it might be okay. However, the
Lycoming approved process is lengthy and uses ingredients that are hard
to find locally. Even with that, Lycoming only guarantees it for 6
months. There must be a reason... I tend to be very cautious about
things relating to the most important and expensive piece of the
airplane.
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Benedict <billb(at)europa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Tilt Canopy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Benedict
>--> RV-List message posted by: MAlexan533(at)aol.com
>
>I own an RV-4 and am contemplating building an RV-8, mostly because I need a
>project! My question is, is the RV-8 available with the standard RV-4 type
>tilting canopy? I sat in the RV-8 at Sun n Fun, and I love everything about
>the plane except the big roll bar going across my field of vision. This bugs
>the heck out of me, as I'm used to having unrestricted visibility in the
>RV-4, and I feel it is very important for safety reasons. Also it is simpler
>to build, and lighter to go with the tilt canopy. Another question; Has
>anyone finished their RV-8 tail kit yet? If so, how long did it take you? If
>you built an RV-4 before, what time-savings would you estimate is attained
>due to pre-punched parts? Thanks!
>
MAlexan533, When Van started on the RV-8, he planned on both a sliding and
a tip-over canopy. To date, we have only developed the slider. I don't
know if we will follow through with the other canopy, but even if we do, I
think the roll bar and fixed windscreen will remain. In the event of the
loss of a canopy, he wants the windscreen to be there to keep from filling
your cheeks with air. So, don't base your decision on a tip-over canopy
like the -4, because I don't think it will appear.
I haven't built an -8 emp, but I have heard of 2 people working 7 days to
complete one (maybe 1.5 people, 8 hours/day, 7 days), another took 68
hours, less fiberglass. It is quite a bit less that the previous kits. Bill
Bill
RV-4-180 soon. N894RV with over 400 hours behind a O-320, Over 1000 RV
flying hours.
These opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent the opinions or
position of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 vs RV-6A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
<< I have to laugh when I hear people say things like "everybody just
*knows* that taildraggers look sexier!". Yeah, and if you're wife isn't
a brunette, you shouldn't take her out in public! >>
Nicely said, Mitch. Would you like to buy some pictures of your wife? Just
kidding.
After looking at both the 6 and the 6A at dozens of airshows, I just had to
admit that they both looked great, either way. That is, unless they were
painted with a mop. Then they both looked like crap.
I have far more hours in taildraggers than in trigear but I am building a 6A
because I like it. I know I run the risk of my flyboy buddies not thinking
me the godly stud I am, but who cares, really?
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
<< I suspect that you are not the first person to notice this. I am at the
stage of contemplating the area behind the panel and wondering what it is
save to remove. Several of the IFR 6As that I have seen have swiss cheese
like arrangements of both these ribs and the bulkhead immediately forward of
the panel. I have not seen much comment on this from any source and would be
delighted to hear from the completed builders how they coped with these
restraints. >>
Leo-
I used CAD to optimize the position of everything on the panel with the
bracing just as the plans show. With clever manipulation and placing the
shorter instruments in certain places, you can make a nice balanced appearing
panel. I have full gyros and all the goodies except Stormscope. They can
fit but you have to define well the "keep out areas". If you wish the .DWG
file I can send it to you.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pondering the essential bus concept |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
<< In
attempting to adopt this design, however, I'm finding that nearly my
entire electrical system ends up on the "essential" side of the
essential/non-essential sheet. I'm considering using a single bus,
but providing an alternate feed path (switched and fused, of course)
to the bus that avoids the battery contactor. In the event of
battery contactor failure I would switch on the alternate feed path.
In the event of alternator failure (as annunciated by my electronic
engine monitor which also monitors bus voltage) I'd simply shut off
all non-essential loads (as dictated by my needs at the time) and
land as soon as practical.
Any comments on this idea? >>
Tim-
I too liked the theory of separating out the essentials from the
non-essentials, however I felt that depending on the circumstances of an
incident/accident/failure/whatever the definition of essential might change.
For example:
1) At night in crowded complex airspace your strobe/position lights might be
essential to making you visible, if only for the few seconds you need to
switch them on. How about using landing lights for the last 30 seconds of
the approach? Would they be essential or not?
2) If you had to go thru a cloud layer at night to land you might need your
wing leveler/autopilot to help you for a minute or so. At that moment is it
essential or not?
3) I have the VM1000 telling me the electrical system usage and engine
status. Is it essential or not?
4) In icing conditions you might need the heated pitot/static in a pinch.
Would you consider it essential or not?
5) A transponder might help ATC find you at night in unfamiliar territory and
help steer you to the nearest pea patch. Is it essential to succesful
completion of the flight or not?
6) I have a KLX-135A and you can't separate the power to the GPS from the
power to the comm, so if the comm is essential to declare an emergency, the
GPS goes along for the ride, or they both are non-essential if you know where
you are and don't need to talk to anyone.
7) What about your boost pump on a hot day in Gila Bend and you have to go
around? Is it essential or not. What about power to the fuel gauges? E or
NE? ad nauseum, but you get the idea.
I once read a Marketing Engineer for Bell Helmets saying "Show us the
accident and we will design an effective helmet for it". He was commenting
on the difficulty of making all the necessary tradeoffs in design
requirements based on a wide array of possible causal factors without knowing
the specific details of a given accident. Make it too thick and the head
might be crushed because transmissibility is too high, make it too thin in
the wrong area and it might not protect against point pressures and the head
might be crushed, make it too heavy weight and the neck might be broken.
It occurs to me that we have the same situation here. I consider Bob
Nuckoll's non-essential/essential bus split with diode isolation to be a
great concept, and I do believe that a two battery system is necessary for
redundancy for ships with electronic ignition, however, I am not yet ready to
commit to what IS and what IS NOT essential in an aircraft with conventional
magneto ignitions, without knowing under what the circumstances a given
failure occurs. I can turn off the non-essentials myself within 5 seconds of
seeing the low volts light come on and with a 25Ah RG battery I will not have
a problem maximizing the use of the remaining energy to the sucessful
completion of my flight. I do not need an essential bus. What I have is a
managable main bus. The greater the degree of systems integration, the more
difficult it becomes to realize the clear divide between "essential" and
"non-essential" functions.
Further, I like to use a pullable 50A circuit breaker left normally open and
tucked away just under the panel to be my Master Bypass in case the Master
contactor dies. This will support all loads except starter.
I consider what Bob Nuckolls is doing to be a great service to all builders
and he has been very supportive and generous with his time, CAD files and
expertise. The Aeroelectric Connection is must read material for anyone
contemplating building an aircraft. I also know that a little professional
disageement is healthy once you have an understanding of the circuits Bob has
presented and why they are designed as they are.
-Gary VanRemortel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nutplate Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dennis Persyk"
Tom,
I followed the Frank Justice method of dimpling the nutplates. I found
this satisfactory using either my Cleveland or my Avery dies. I also
always use the smaller NAS rivets for nutplates so that a couple of twists
of the deburring tool gives me the required countersink depth.
Dennis 6A fuselage in jig
----------
> From: aol.com!RV4Brown(at)matronics.com
> To: RVList(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Nutplate Question
> Date: Sunday, June 01, 1997 8:02 PM
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV4Brown(at)aol.com
>
> I am looking for alternatives in attaching k1000-08 nutplates to
thin
> material i.e. less than .032 where machine countersinking the base
material
> is impractical. Assuming you have to dimple the base material this poses
the
> question as to what to do with the dimple protruding out the backside ?
This
> situation is encountered numerous times in the floor and baggage area on
the
> RV4.
> Does anyone manufacture a nutplate with countersunk attachment holes
> with the same spacing as a normal K1000 nutplate? If so, what is the part
> number and where on the big blue marble might one look to find.
> Other alternatives I have considered: Adding a thick doubler plate
under
> the nutplate. The doubler would be machine countersunk to accept the
dimple
> from above. This works but adds mass and is time consuming.
> Attempting to use brute force and dimple the steel ends of the
> nutplate. This is hard on the dies and the results are not of the
quality I
> would like.
> Any other alternatives? What did the oldbies do?
>
> Tom Brown RV4
> fuselage in jig, fitting floors
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Accomodating Instrument Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ronald Vandervort
Regarding instrument interference behind panel; Lower the major six
instruments and put the switches and small stuff at the top. It seems to
be working for me on my mockup at least.
Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q on instrument panel and canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <tvelvick(at)caljet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-6 vs RV-6A Humour |
--> RV-List message posted by: Thomas Velvick
>--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Barnhart
>
>Real pilots not only *fly* taildraggers, they do carrier landings in them ;-)
Well, my tail is dragging from all the late hours I am spending in the
garage and I do plan to carry her. My question is, if I decide to go with
a 6a instead of a 6, will you still let me come over and drool over your
N601DB again?
Regards,
Tom Velvick
tvelvick#caljet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <BSkinner(at)navix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nutplate Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob Skinner
> I am looking for alternatives in attaching k1000-08 nutplates to thin
>material i.e. less than .032 where machine countersinking the base material
>is impractical. Assuming you have to dimple the base material this poses the
>question as to what to do with the dimple protruding out the backside ? This
>situation is encountered numerous times in the floor and baggage area on the
>RV4.
>Tom Brown RV4
Tom,
There are two different methods that I've used. One is to dimple the nut
plates. This is easily done with either the Avery "C" tool or a pnuematic
squezzer. You may have to "relieve" the female die a bit for clearance.
The other method is simply to set the nutplate on top of the dimples. This,
of course, leaves a little space between the nutplate and the sheet but
whether the nutplate sits high or flush, the shear force on the attach
rivets is the same, right? I'm bias towards dimpling the nut plate as the
nesting of the dimples helps keep the threaded part of the nutplate lined up
with the drilled hole.
Bob Skinner RV-6 BSkinner(at)navix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Colwell <colwell(at)innercite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine acquisition |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Colwell
Tim Bronson wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)CompuServe.COM>
>
> Hi Folks:
>
> Another new guy question: Since conventional wisdom has it that inactivity is
> not good for an engine, how do you who know feel about the idea of buying a
> freshly overhauled (or new) engine for a project that won't be completed for
a
> few years? What is involved in storing an engine long term? What needs to be
> done to "un-store" it when the airplane is ready for it? Would this all be
> worth the trouble or would it be better to just buy the engine when it's needed
> (at the new, higher price)?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim Bronson, planning in Pittsburgh
May 26, 1997 - June 01, 1997
RV-Archive.digest.vol-cx