RV-Archive.digest.vol-dt
December 03, 1997 - December 08, 1997
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Wow, here we go. While I am both a fan of alternative engines (read -
anything non-Lyc) and an engineer, I can see and understand the passion on
both sides of this issue. There is an advantage to purpose designed
engines for aircraft, but how big an advantage and clear cut the benefits
are versus the potential gains is the real essense of the debate in my
mind. None of these devices are fool proof since they are designed,
manufactured, installed, and maintained by humans. Having said that, it
is essential to understand relative risks and what is "acceptable" to the
builder/pilot. The desire to minimize these risks is why we have a
certification process for aircraft engines. The process is intended to
weed out design and manufacturing defects before failures occur, if
possible, or at a minimum provide tracability for corrective action. The
automotive engine or other non-certified engine does not have this
pedigree of testing and qualification beyond SAE, ASME, or other industry
standards. The testing and trials of these power plants become the
responsibility of the experimenter, who, for that reason and not
surprizingly, has a great degree of freedom in what he does. This is the
technical trade off. The important question is, does the increased
"risk", real or imagined, translate into a dangerous aircraft? In my
mind, no, because all of these issues are RELATIVE and the current,
practical experience with alternative engines is rather favorable, based
upon what I've read and heard.
Here's the rub - the extensive requirements for certification also stifle
design advancement. Want proof? Look under the hood of a Lexus, Buick,
Mercury, whatever, and then glance under the cowl of a Cessna. What do I
see? 90 years or so of internal combustion engine advancement in
materials, efficiency, reliability and performance versus a time proven
design which quit evolving much after the 1960's. The certified aircraft
engine is not "bad", it is just old technology. I expect a more modern
engine to put out more power per cubic inch than a Lycoming. Thats an
increase in volumetric efficiency! Viola, viva le difference! Increased
output does not necessarily mean increased stress. Regarding failures?
Auto engines produced in mass quantities will result in a pile of rejects
for all the reasons that internal combustion engines fail, but it is the
failure rate which is important and my guess is it is pretty darn low.
Please prove me wrong if this is not true. The aircraft boneyard is full
of broken Lycs which are not worth fixing. Bearings spin, rods are thrown,
valves break, and crankshafts snap. Check the AD list for proof of design
and manufacturing flaws in certified engines.
The alternative engine is not for everyone and Van cannot afford, as a
businessman, to recommended anything that doesn't reflect the most
conservative judgement. He designs and sells airframes, not engines.
Certainly, you should chose a Lyc if you want a good, reliable power plant
which requires little or no engineering to install. For some, it is a bad
idea to do anything else, but we all need the tinkerers and experimenters.
I, for one, cheer them on. They only IMPROVE available options, and I see
little objective evidence that their effort is unsafe or foolish.
Chris Browne
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.com
-6A emp for Xmas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Someone who doesn't sign his email wrote:
> I don't recommend to anyone that the Chevy is the way to go or better or
> yadda, yadda, yadda. But for me it IS the way I want to go and I don't need
> someone that has NEVER even tried it to telll me it won't work. ALL of the
> posts on the negative side, and I mean every single one, has been written by
> someone who THINKS it won't fly, and a lot of the positive ones were written
> by someone who is actually doing it !!!
Good comment! Even the Smithsonian Institution wrote a very negative article.
They made the outrageous claim that "auto engines can't fly" which flys in the
face of reality. Of course these are the same guys who maintained for over
forty years that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane!
If "youse guys" want to put a Lycoming in your RV, go ahead. I couldn't care
less. I just want to encourage the EAA/homebuilder concept - EXPERIMENTATION
and I want to hear all the cons to my own thoughts. I learn from others, even
from their negative comments. One of the things I have learned is that weight
is a real concern.
I am still waiting to hear other REAL CONCERNS.
Hal Kempthorne I really don't care to know what you won't fly!
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ShowCtrGuy(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV MODELS/WEATHER VANE |
Snip--
| Date: | Dec 03, 1997 |
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | empennage tips--->Dick Martin |
Dick,
I would like this information. I tried to E-mail you privately but it bounced.
Please contact me at ---> prober(at)iwaynet.net <---I would like to discuss
this with you further. Thanks. Al
Compaq"
>
>my name is dick martin. I am new to computers but am experienced in
>building airplanes. I am building an rv8 and have completed the empennage,
>wings, and am now well along on construction of the fuselage.
> I had spare time while
>waitning for my wing kit, so i built formed aluminum tips for the
>empennage. Persons interested in this technique,please contact me
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
<< Alright one more and I'm through !
I don't recommend to anyone that the Chevy is the way to go or better or
yadda, yadda, yadda. But for me it IS the way I want to go and I don't need
someone that has NEVER even tried it to telll me it won't work. ALL of the
posts on the negative side, and I mean every single one, has been written by
someone who THINKS it won't fly, and a lot of the positive ones were written
by someone who is actually doing it !!!
Unless and until I hear about someone that actually DID it and it didn't
work
or whatever, I will remain convinced that it is viable. So all you guys
trying to talk us out of it can stop wasting our time.
BTW if you aren't 100% sure you want to do it, that means you are 100% sure
you don't
My $.02 worth >>
$.02?!?!?! more like a nickel.
You make a valid point re. negative theorists vs. positive practitioners but
gee, golly, gosh, tone it down a bit. This is supposed to be enjoyable and
besides, flaming chases off alternate opinion. And some are really pretty
weird/funny/amusing/astonishing. Except for mine, of course; they're
well-thought-out elucidations:-)
Of course when some yahoo claims some really outrageous performance numbers
he deserves to challanged, but not shot on sight. After all, this is
experimentation, maybe he's a better A&P than a writer.
Bob
Tail's done, rest on hold
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
The question is not can it be done but rather is an automotive engine
the right place to start?
Marine engines more closely match the load curve of an aero engine and
automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in normal
operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders. The
key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive power
plants are designed to deliver 30HP maximum continuous from a motor
with maximum rating of 300HP. This is done to reduce oil consumption.
If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
common, they use oil like a two stroke. If you increase the load on the
bearings you need to increase the oil flow and pressure to compensate.
You also need to increase the oil flow to the cylinder liners and
pistons, this is usually done by fitting undersized rings, and fewer of
them. It isn't as simple as it looks.
----------
From: wstucklen1(at)juno.com[SMTP:wstucklen1(at)juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 2:34
Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Stucklen)
>Why would someone try to modify a great aircraft against the designers
>recommendation?
ANSWER:
BECAUSE IT CAN BE DONE!!!!!! And it might be fun to LEARN first hand
HOW
to do it BETTER... I think that's what is called EXPERIMENTATION and
why we have the FREEDOM to experiment...... Yes, there are RISKS, but
they are taken on by CHOICE.
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:More First Flight |
More thoughts on the First Flight: (all these posts are my way of doing
things only, subject to raging debate and doing things your own way, of course)
*Taxi tests...Several points: if you have a new or recently overhauled
engine you aren't going to want to be driving your airplane all over the
airport. But you do need to know if the airplane can GO straight at near
takeoff speed and if you can KEEP it going straight. I did three taxi
tests, one after the airplane was all in one place for the first time and
two just prior to my first flight. First one: the airplane and I can both
go straight down the runway; brakes make the airplane slow down (more on
that later); airspeed indicator does indeed indicate; no engine compartment
leaks. Second one: MAN does this airplane accelerate down the runway; toe
brakes at higher speeds can make the airplane head where you may not want it
to go (this will improve as my skill improves). Third one: brakes work
better when the airplane is slower (glad to find this out before landing the
first time); and, I am ready to go flying.
For taxi tests you SHOULD be ready to go flying,(i.e., signed off, full
fuel, plans for flight even if you don't plan to fly this time) as you just
might find yourself in the air. High speed taxi tests have been discussed
and the consensus is not to and I agree. I am very familiar with my J-3 Cub
and high speed taxi tests in it (as a test) got pretty interesting.
Moderate speeds (40 indicated or so) seemed to be adequate.
*Takeoff: SLOW application of throttle avoids finding out how much P-factor
you can take. This is not a high-performance takeoff test. You should
already have noted where the stick is for neutral elevator (you HAVE been
flying in the garage, haven't you?) so you can hold near neutral stick as
you accelerate. I chose to leave the tail down (tail draggers, here) as I
wasn't sure when the rudder would take over from the tail wheel for
directional control. Worked fine. Flaps: 0 degrees; I haven't flight
tested flaps down yet. Liftoff actually came as a suprise: the airplane
just floated (nay, leaped!) into the air. Which helped me avoid PIO (pilot
induced oscillation:
toomuchaftsticktoomuchforwardyikes!toomuchafttoomuchforward). As soon as I
left the ground I mentally cycled through all axis of control to assess if I
did indeed have three axis control, making small movements of the controls
to confirm. Yes!!! Confirm full throttle and estimated climb speed
(90-100mph).
Note my emergency landing sites.
*FLYING (!!!yeehaw!!!): shallow left turn in the pattern using my flight
attitude markings on the canopy: 30 degrees. Climb into a high pattern
(announcing intentions, of course), in case the noise stops. Flew two
patterns at altitude, noting oil pressure/temp, CHT/EGT, fuel pressure, fuel
pump on and off, control inputs, initial stability, my face sore from the
smile. Then off to fly the Flight Card.
OK: I had the advantage of being able to "fly my first flight" several
times in my Cub. I think this helped. I got familiar with what I wanted to
do in an aircraft that I was already familiar with. When I did the test
flight, I was flying a familiar test sequence in a now unfamiliar airplane.
Anything to lessen the load. I stuck to the flight plan, more or less (more
on this later). I HAD a plan. I did not go up to find out how fast it would
go on the first flight, or how well it slow rolled. That is for later.
First flight stayed simple. (You may WANT to, but don't french kiss on the
first date.)
Also, the time I spent in a friends RV-4 was invaluable as it (among other
things) gave me an idea of how sensitive this airplane is to control inputs
(VERY). This also helped me avoid takeoff PIO.
You are going to LOVE this airplane.
To be continued......
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
mikel(at)dimensional.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
The question is not can it be done but rather is an automotive engine
the right place to start?
Marine engines more closely match the load curve of an aero engine and
automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in normal
operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders. The
key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive power
plants are designed to deliver 30HP maximum continuous from a motor
with maximum rating of 300HP. This is done to reduce oil consumption.
If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
common, they use oil like a two stroke. If you increase the load on the
bearings you need to increase the oil flow and pressure to compensate.
You also need to increase the oil flow to the cylinder liners and
pistons, this is usually done by fitting undersized rings, and fewer of
them. It isn't as simple as it looks.
----------
From: wstucklen1(at)juno.com[SMTP:wstucklen1(at)juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 2:34
Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Stucklen)
>Why would someone try to modify a great aircraft against the designers
>recommendation?
ANSWER:
BECAUSE IT CAN BE DONE!!!!!! And it might be fun to LEARN first hand
HOW
to do it BETTER... I think that's what is called EXPERIMENTATION and
why we have the FREEDOM to experiment...... Yes, there are RISKS, but
they are taken on by CHOICE.
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Actually the Continental was required by its certification tests to
deliver its maximum continuous power for its entire TBO. Ditto for the
Lycoming.
----------
From: halk(at)sybase.com[SMTP:halk(at)sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 4:18
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
at the end of the journey but it went on to 120,000 miles. This was
the stock
engine, not one with 4340 steel rods and crank or even forged pistons.
I don't
know if a Lyc could do that but I'm ready to bet anyone that a
Continental can't
do 100% power for more than 24 hours!
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- WANTED TO BUY - a used Chevy V-6 setup.
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au wrote:
> The question is not can it be done but rather is an automotive engine
> the right place to start?
> Marine engines more closely match the load curve of an aero engine and
> automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in normal
> operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders.
Here in NZ it's reasonably common to use auto engines to power boats.
They seem to work OK with few, if any, mods. No, I'm not saying that an
auto engine is suitable for an aircraft or boat unmodified. I believe
that marine engines are not a good place to start -- marine engines are
a small niche market like aero engines, and if boaties are putting car
engines into boats, then they're obviously not satisfied with marine
engines either.
> The
> key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive power
> plants are designed to deliver 30HP maximum continuous from a motor
> with maximum rating of 300HP.
Two points:
1. Auto engines are *not* designed to only deliver 30hp continuous.
Certainly that's what cars (even those with 80hp engines) are called on
to do most of the time. However, an engine is also required to survive
driving up a long hill, towing a trailer, and carrying a load.
2. Q: What is the design spec for a *modified* auto engine?
A: It's whatever the *modifier* has made it. Clearly, it is important
that the modifier knows what's required of various engine components and
systems so that he can set appropriate specs for them, and ensure that
they can meet his specs.
> This is done to reduce oil consumption.
It seems to me that the biggest problem is cooling... in an internal
combustion engine, about 2/3 of the fuel's energy becomes waste heat.
When a car is loaded up and driven up a long hill, requiring twice the
power, then twice the heat is generated. Radiator effectiveness also
decreases, since it is proportional to the square of the airspeed
through it. The most noticeable effect is that the coolant temperature
rises. Perhaps even to the extent that you need to stop and let the
engine cool down. And, before someone leaps in with "But you can't stop
in a plane", you also aren't forced to do long slow climbs either.
> If you increase the load on the
> bearings you need to increase the oil flow and pressure to compensate.
Which coincidentally is exactly what happens when the oil pump is driven
from the engine crankshaft. A friend who has done some work with Mazda
rotaries says that the oil pump needs to be slowed down to prevent
*excessive* oil pressure at high revs.
> It isn't as simple as it looks.
But it isn't overpoweringly impossible either.
Frank
(Not an automotive engineer, and still considering what engine to put
into my RV-6).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Muff-Cowl interference |
<< Do the Robbins heat muffs fit
better? >>
Yes.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rudy.albachten(at)amd.com (Rudy Albachten) |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Free RV photos to good home] |
Charlie - I could give these photos a home. I haven't put much
time into my personal web pages, but I am very web literate and
my site should be around for a long time to come. If someone with
a more prominent site has already volunteered, my feelings won't
be hurt. I can download the data them with any internet protocol
you can up with, and I can read any disk/tape/etc format known to
man. (I am an engineer at AMD where I design microprocessors and
help manage our design group's nearly 2000 computers.)
- Rudy Albachten, RV-6A - wings: I hate pro-seal
Austin Texas
800-538-8450 x55118 (work)
512-323-9489 (home)
rudy.albachten(at)amd.com
http://www.io.com/~rudy
>
>
>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:36:12 -0500
>From: Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com>
>Subject: Free RV photos to good home
>
>Hi all!
>Ed Anderson was kind enough to mail me his very nice engine bay photos.
>He has built an RV-6A with a Mazda 13B. It appears to be a first rate
>installation. I have scanned the photos (15 in all) and sent his photos
>back. Is anyone with an RV related web site willing to put these photos
>on their site? They come with 3 typewritten pages explaining the photos.
>They have all their shots and come with a free flea collar. :-)
>
>Charlie Kuss
>RV-8 making elevator stiffeners on Thanksgiving. I'm thankful I have an
>understanding girlfriend.
>Boca Raton, Florida
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: F>I. alternate air |
Dave,
I built a Christen Eagle (IO360 engine) and the alternate air door is inside
the cowl next to the air intake. It is a spring loaded door and I check it at
the annual and any time the cowl is off. No problems. Because it is inside
the colw, the engine will not develop full power, but it is a back up for an
blocked or iced normal air intake.
My RV6 will be injected and hopefully have the same set up.
david faile
CFII/A&P RV6Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV 4 Pat A <RV4PatA(at)aol.com> |
Does anyone have an opinion on which is the better Vetterman exhaust, the
4
pipe, or the crossover? I will be installing it on a -4 , and thinking about
clearances, performance, ease of installing heat muff (vans), or anything else
you can think of.
Thanks in advance,
Pat Allender
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
I'm reminded of the axiom, "Never ask a Cop about Human Nature." (Or an
Emergency Room Doctor about Gun Control) because what they see is self-
selecting. Now if you could tell us what percentage of the cars sold by your
dealership ended up with dead engines, that would give us a real insight into
any QC problems Chevy's engine plant has.
This, by the way, is not to discount you as having valuable advice. Knowing
which parts tend to wear out first, what tends to break when something fails,
and how to fix it are certainly valuable to anyone who does run a V-6.
My decision to buy a Subaru was helped by a friend of mine who worked the
parts counter at the dealership (Having him help me get a great discount
helped too), and he told me that WRT things that wear out or need frequent
fixing, that in about five years I'd be needing brakes. That's what he was
seeing come in a lot at the time. And here it is, five years later, I'm about
to need a full brake job, and virtually nothing else is wrong with the car.
So, what's the most common problem with Chevy V-6 engines?
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grass runways??? |
Most likely the electric company will be happy to bury the line for a fee. I paid
them $1500 to bury my power
600 feet. That was 11 years ago though. Given what you've posted, I wouldn't
let the power lines stop me,
but I know that 1000 feet isn't enough for my landing's standard deviation.
Brian Eckstein
Unless, I can get the electric company to come out and bury all the lines (fat
chance of
>
> that)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
The problem relates to the bearing structure. Most automotive engines
use hydrostatic bearings which when overloaded revert to plain journal
bearings. Hydrostatic bearings don't wear, journal bearings ( which
operate with a much thinner film of oil between the mating surfaces)
do. Most aero engines have comparatively large gaps in the bearings to
accommodate the thicker films and higher flow rates. Most automotive
engines (and aircraft engines as well) include relief valves to reduce
the pressure since if it exceeds 700kPa (100PSI) the oil cooler and /
or the oil filter could self destruct.
In one of the other postings it was indicated that after a long drive
under high load his truck's oil pressure dropped permanently, this is
an indicator of wear to the main bearings as wear reduces back
pressure.
Having a local mechanic who races boats, the mean time to failure is
around 50Hrs and in car and bike racing the figure is similar with
engines typically lasting between five and six race meetings.
In a planing hulls the loads are actually quite low if you are not
changing direction.
A little note from the a 1985 Audi drivers manual indicate that when
driven at above 150KPH it be consuming 5 litres of oil per
1000km.
The key to engine longevity is to keep the bearing surfaces apart and
separated by a sacrificial layer of lubricant, or make the bearings
from a material like ceramic that no amount of contact at normal
temperatures will damage. If you are doing a conversion the trick is to
undo the careful design for lower oil consumption by enlarging the oil
ways and reshaping the bearings to distribute the oil over the bearing
surface and to provide a path to the wrist pins. This will also require
the use of a higher capacity oil pump. Before you jump into this I
would suggest you have a look at a Lycoming's bearings as this is a
problem they have already solved.
I am not saying its impossible but it is not something to take lightly
either and if you buy a modified engine you are assuming the modifier
knew what he was doing in this respect.
By the way an average car needs less than 10HP to exceed 100KPH
(60MPH). This includes aerodynamic and road friction losses. The
Citroen 2CV (cc1938) could get to 90KPH on 2HP (that's what the 2CV
stands for).
----------
From: Frank van der Hulst[SMTP:frankv(at)pec.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:38
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au wrote:
> The question is not can it be done but rather is an automotive engine
> the right place to start?
> Marine engines more closely match the load curve of an aero engine
and
> automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in
normal
> operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders.
Here in NZ it's reasonably common to use auto engines to power boats.
They seem to work OK with few, if any, mods. No, I'm not saying that an
auto engine is suitable for an aircraft or boat unmodified. I believe
that marine engines are not a good place to start -- marine engines are
a small niche market like aero engines, and if boaties are putting car
engines into boats, then they're obviously not satisfied with marine
engines either.
> The
> key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive power
> plants are designed to deliver 30HP maximum continuous from a motor
> with maximum rating of 300HP.
Two points:
1. Auto engines are *not* designed to only deliver 30hp continuous.
Certainly that's what cars (even those with 80hp engines) are called on
to do most of the time. However, an engine is also required to survive
driving up a long hill, towing a trailer, and carrying a load.
2. Q: What is the design spec for a *modified* auto engine?
A: It's whatever the *modifier* has made it. Clearly, it is important
that the modifier knows what's required of various engine components
and
systems so that he can set appropriate specs for them, and ensure that
they can meet his specs.
> This is done to reduce oil consumption.
It seems to me that the biggest problem is cooling... in an internal
combustion engine, about 2/3 of the fuel's energy becomes waste heat.
When a car is loaded up and driven up a long hill, requiring twice the
power, then twice the heat is generated. Radiator effectiveness also
decreases, since it is proportional to the square of the airspeed
through it. The most noticeable effect is that the coolant temperature
rises. Perhaps even to the extent that you need to stop and let the
engine cool down. And, before someone leaps in with "But you can't stop
in a plane", you also aren't forced to do long slow climbs either.
> If you increase the load on the
> bearings you need to increase the oil flow and pressure to
compensate.
Which coincidentally is exactly what happens when the oil pump is
driven
from the engine crankshaft. A friend who has done some work with Mazda
rotaries says that the oil pump needs to be slowed down to prevent
*excessive* oil pressure at high revs.
> It isn't as simple as it looks.
But it isn't overpoweringly impossible either.
Frank
(Not an automotive engineer, and still considering what engine to put
into my RV-6).
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Allen says:
>
> Actually the Continental was required by its certification tests to
> deliver its maximum continuous power for its entire TBO. Ditto for the
> Lycoming.
You must have dreamed this! Some Continental models *never* make TBO at much
less than 100% for the entire time.
Where did you get this stuff? My understanding is that the certification
requirement if for forty hours, mostly at 75% and below.
Someone just sent me a note about how a new Lycoming threw a rod in less than a
hundred hours from new!
Hal Kempthorne Just the facts, ma'm!
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ginny & Ian Dadd <gidadd(at)tpgi.com.au> |
| Subject: | Filling unwanted holes! |
Hi,
I was shown a neat way of filling those unwanted holes so they are almost
impossible to see after the paint has gone on and thought someone on the
list might find it useful. I have used it on a couple of occasions in the
HS skin (so far).
This will work for some slightly elongated holes, but suggest drilling out
to the next bigger size rivet. It needs a little practice on scrap before
plunging in on your project. I haven't had to fill figure eight holes
though I think it would probably work with care. It will not work in really
thin control surface skins.
Firstly, deburr the hole both sides, a little more than you would normally
- so that you form a mini countersink both sides. (This is why it won't
work in thin skins). Take it easy, it doesn't have to be too big - just a
definite chamfered edge.
Next find a rivet that is a close fit to the hole and using your rivet
cutter - cut the end off the rivet. I have been able to use just 1/16inch
lengths. Discard the rivet part with the head! You can use several bits
from one rivet if it is long enough. (and you have to fill a couple of
holes)
Next use a pair of pliers to hold the rivet and file smooth the cut surface
as flat and square as possible.
Place the skin exterior surface down on your back-rivetting plate or some
other polished steel surface. Hold firmly down. Place the rivet in the
hole, flat surface down on the plate and then using a light hammer, tap the
rivet. It will swell and fill the hole and the mini countersink
beautifully. Don't overdo it as you may swell the hole.
It takes a little practice but it looks wonderful on the exterior surface
and won't budge. The other side can be filed or machined down if you wish,
but if it is not in the way, I have left it. I have asked friends to find
my repairs and most have some trouble locating them. If I can do it with my
'passion' fingers you can too.
This tip was passed on to me by a wonderful friend, Arthur Winstanley, a
former flight engineer on Concorde and the only person I know who has 700+
hours at Mach 2! He has also built a lovely 5/8 scale Hurricane and is a
real gentleman to boot.
Hope this helps,
Cheers
Ian Dadd
RV6 wings things.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
(Much info about bearing/oil film deleted.)
All this theoretical discussion about bearing surfaces, oil films, etc. is
all well and good. However this seems to present the typical message about
auto engines in aircraft; that they cant possibly work in an aircraft
application because they werent designed for it. I dont want to discredit
what you wrote here, but it doesnt jive with real world experience. There
are aircraft flying successfully behind auto engines, some with as much as
500 hours, a few over 1000 hours that I am aware of. As more of these
airplanes rack up more hours, some of the types of failures you describe may
come to pass, but to my knowledge that is not the case now. Do you know of
examples of auto engine failures of the type you describe in aircraft
applications?
As far as comparisons to race boats, race cars, etc... I wouldnt use them
as an example to determine reliability. Most race engines are far more
highly stressed than an aircraft engine is. Saying that a Chevy V6 based
race engine isnt reliable because it was only capable of providing 600 HP @
7000 rpm for 50 hours before requiring overhaul isnt a particularly fair
basis for comparison, is it? On the other hand, some racers run for multiple
seasons without ever having to open up an engine.
And the comment about auto engines being designed to provide 30 HP so
grandma can cruise down the freeway? If this were truly the case, the auto
makers would spend an awful lot of time doing warranty overhauls. All the
manufacturers durability test their vehicles and those tests are far more
demanding than a 30 HP drone down the freeway.
I started this thread by asking Hal Kempthorne why he was looking for a
used Chevy FWF package. I never doubted that an auto conversion could be
made to work as there are too many out there that are already working. To me
the real question is , why pay someone who is trying to recoup their
development costs at your expense, a ridiculous amount of money for a FWF
package? If you can build an airframe from the crude assemblage of
sheetmetal that Van's provides (no insult intended), and you truly want an
auto conversion, why not do it yourself and save a lot of bucks? Others have
and its working for them.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done!; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Grass runways??? |
FWIW: I got an informal estimate of $10 grand to have the power co. bury the
2kv line that runs across the end of my pasture that I hope will one day be a
1700 ft strip for the 6A. That was for burying a segment just between two
poles (about 250 feet spacing). Put it on my dream list, I suppose. Til
then, I suppose I'll have a 50 ft obstacle to clear in that direction.
Should be do-able, even at my skill level. The other end terminates in a 60
foot escarpment (read: shale cliff) over the river- no obstacles in that
direction, but it hurts BAD to come in under the glideslope on that
approach...
Bill Boyd
wiring & plumbing the FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 160 hp LYCOMING FOR SALE |
Lycoming O-320-B2B 1000hrs since new, Zero since major. 4 new cermicrome
cylinders, hollow crank, carb and mags. $11,850. oughtright.
Bill Mahoney
Sherman, CT
860-354-6933
RV6ator(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
Sounds like fun. Please keep us posted.
Wiring the wings,
Carey Mills
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
Here's another way to do it. I couldn't find any balloons so I improvised...
Seal up the inspaction ports with Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket or other
suitable goo on both sides of rubberized cork gasket. Use a squirt under the
screw heads for extra security- those threads extend into the tank and form a
possible leak path.
Flare short lengths of 1/4 and 3/8 in. aluminum tube and fit them with AN-818
& -819 nuts and sleeves (you DO save scrap pcs of tubing, don't you?) Plug
the 3/8 stub with an AN-4 bolt and some permatex. This attaches to the fuel
fitting on the tank.
Attach the 1/4 tube stub to the vent fitting on the tank and attach to it a
length of 1/4" ID plastic tubing about six ft long. If you once built a RANS
(not Van's) homebuilt, as I did, you will have saved this blue polyurethane
tubing from the so-called fuel system and now you can put it to a safe
aviation use at last. Otherwise a trip to the corner hardware will net a
similar, clear tubing (polyethylene). Lash the plastic tubing onto the
aluminum stub with safety wire or a clamp. Stand the tank on its end (remove
from wing first). Arrange the clear tubing into a U-shape and carefully fill
the lower half with water. This is going to seal the air in the tank and
give an indication of the pressure applied and act as a blow-off if you try
to over-do it.
Using shop air and your blow-gun, add air through the sump drain until you
are showing about 30 inches of water pressure (difference in the column
heights in the U-tube.) Then proceed with the soap solution on all the
rivets. Do this in the shower if you prefer, with the wife taking
compromising pictures. Expect a leak at the fuel cap stem, as mentioned
elsewhere. Turn on side to check the far end; set the tank on sawhorses or
bench and let the tubing dangle- just don't let the water spill. Works like
a charm and won't over-stress the "hull."
If a leak is present, you will see a stream of small bubbles around the
offending rivet. Ask me how I know this. Thankfully., it was a pop rivet
and in an outside seam (why, I have no idea; I did the tanks so long ago I
can't recall why I placed a pop rivet in a line of AN-426's, but I did) A
little Permatex under the head and a squeeze with the hand squeezer and no
more leak. YES!!!
This is a job I dreaded for years but it was quite painless once I got around
to it. Be sure you tightened all the fittings inside the tank before closing
up the inspection plates.
Bill Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Coston <cozmos9(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks landing lights I have one friend that |
microwaved the lenses until they were soft enough to press to fit ..
turned out great, but be careful not to burn youself.
>
>Joe,
>I used the Duckworks lights and as the instructions mentioned, I ground down
>the backs of the two plastic retainer strips that hold the lens in the
>original lights, to hold the lights in their brackets. I think they look
>better than the washers. The washers that are used to attach the brackets to
>the ribs worked out fine. The only complaint I have is that the plexi lens
>don't conform very well to the shape of the leading edge. I used the
>strapping tape to pull the lens into the the opening but there were still
>some gaps. Does anyone have an idea on how to improve the fit?
>
>
>>Has anyone installed these lights in the wings?Following the instructions I
>>
>used the template to cut out the holes in the wing. After this point
>>
>things became hazy. Oversized flat washers with counter sunk bolts just
>>
>dont make sense.
>
>
>
>Joel Harding RV-8 ab320flyer(at)aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennae for RV6A???? |
Gary A. Sobek wrote:
>
>
> The NAV antennae that go in the wing tip made by Bob Archer and sold
> under the name Sport Craft (I think?) are probably one of the best NAV
> antennae on the market.
> Gary? Is this antenae also good for LOC/GS
>
Gary A. Sobek
> AeroSPACE Electrical Systems Engineer
> FAA A&P
> N157GS RV-6 O-320 Hartzell w/Archer nav antennae.
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> >Have you thought about the Com/Nav antennas you can put in the
> >wingtips?
> >Does anyone have experience with these?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sybase.com!halk(at)matronics.com
> >[SMTP:sybase.com!halk(at)matronics.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 5:52 PM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RV-List: Antennae for RV6A????
> >
> >Kempthorne)
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have some questions about antennas.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
> Does anyone have an opinion on which is the better Vetterman exhaust,
the 4
>pipe, or the crossover? I will be installing it on a -4 , and thinking about
>clearances, performance, ease of installing heat muff (vans), or anything else
>you can think of.
> Pat Allender
Pat,
I've had both on my RV-6. I prefer the crossover to the four pipe. I
think Larry would tell you that he found no difference in performance
between the two. I think the crossover is a cleaner installation and the
installation of heat muffs a little better. BTW, I used Robbins heat muffs,
installed in series. The Robbins fit a little better, IMO than Van's. The
crossover gives you an ideal place to put a muff for carb heat. It's just
inches above so requires just a short piece of SCAT tubing.
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heater in 6A |
<>
Scott: Thanks for your repley. On that supject, My old Bonanza has a
exit vent system in the belly to move the air out. The V35B system has a
intake inlet on the left side and I understand is much better than the
old system.
I am on my 6 wings so haven't looked at the RV system. Do we have any
exhaust vent system to install? or would that improve the heater youall
were discussing?
I have removed the prosealed parts from the old fuel tank. It wasn't much
trouble
Took proseal off with my pocket knife & MEK cleaned it right up.
Don Jordan (RV6A) Arlington, Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
> Does anyone have an opinion on which is the better Vetterman exhaust,
the 4
> pipe, or the crossover? I will be installing it on a -4 , and thinking about
> clearances, performance, ease of installing heat muff (vans), or anything else
> you can think of.
> Thanks in advance,
> Pat Allender
Pat
I talked to Larry Vetterman before I purchased mine, he recommended
the 4 pipe.
It bolts up, no problem. I also used Rick Robbins carb heat muff,
it also fit, no problems. I have not installed the heat muff, but it
looks like it has plenty of room.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Allen wrote:
>>
In one of the other postings it was indicated that after a long drive
under high load his truck's oil pressure dropped permanently, this is
an indicator of wear to the main bearings as wear reduces back
pressure.
<<
This was my truck and it went on for another 100,000 miles with me flogging hell
out of it in the Cascades of Oregon!
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- WANTED TO BUY - a used Chevy V-6 setup.
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
know.
Thanks
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Coston <cozmos9(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks landing lights test |
>
>Joe,
>I used the Duckworks lights and as the instructions mentioned, I ground down
>the backs of the two plastic retainer strips that hold the lens in the
>original lights, to hold the lights in their brackets. I think they look
>better than the washers. The washers that are used to attach the brackets to
>the ribs worked out fine. The only complaint I have is that the plexi lens
>don't conform very well to the shape of the leading edge. I used the
>strapping tape to pull the lens into the the opening but there were still
>some gaps. Does anyone have an idea on how to improve the fit?
>
>
>>Has anyone installed these lights in the wings?Following the instructions I
>>
>used the template to cut out the holes in the wing. After this point
>>
>things became hazy. Oversized flat washers with counter sunk bolts just
>>
>dont make sense.
>
>
>
>Joel Harding RV-8 ab320flyer(at)aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Coston <cozmos9(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
>
>I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
>It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
>to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
>brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
>Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
>a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
>If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
>know.
>
>Thanks
>Craig Hiers
>
sorry craig, just a posting test
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Filling unwanted holes! |
I hope your not doing this anywhere structural.
Next find a rivet that is a close fit to the hole and using your rivet
cutter - cut the end off the rivet. I have been able to use just 1/16inch
lengths. Discard the rivet part with the head! You can use several bits
from one rivet if it is long enough. (and you have to fill a couple of
holes)
Next use a pair of pliers to hold the rivet and file smooth the cut surface
as flat and square as possible
Ian Dadd
RV6 wings things.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
The worst thing you can do to an engine is put it in a new experimental
aircraft, as the flight test regime is completely incompatible with
running in a new engine. Ideally a new engine needs to be run at full
power for the first 10 hours of operation to bed the rings in but very
few pilots want to find their planes maximum level flight speed on the
first flight.
At 40 hours the engine is just starting to run in and is still not
settled.
This information is care of a pilot with far more hours than I and 200+
Pacific ferry flights in light aircraft ( and one ditching in a new
Cessna 182 out of Hawaii ). He has not had a single failure to reach
TBO when the engines are run in according to the Continental manual. If
you want your engine to last push it hard for the first 100 hours then
back off, never baby a new engine and never attempt to run it in on the
ground ( pan fried engine anyone? :-)) .
His suggestion is to borrow an engine for the first few flights and let
a friend run yours in on a proven airframe.
----------
From: halk(at)sybase.com[SMTP:halk(at)sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 10:25
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
You must have dreamed this! Some Continental models *never* make TBO
at much
less than 100% for the entire time.
Where did you get this stuff? My understanding is that the
certification
requirement if for forty hours, mostly at 75% and below.
Someone just sent me a note about how a new Lycoming threw a rod in
less than a
hundred hours from new!
Hal Kempthorne Just the facts, ma'm!
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net |
I got home tonight to read all the negative comments about V-6's. Give me
a second to explain some honest answers.
Contact Belted Air for exact costs as they probably change often. I paid
$10,000 for the FWF package, which included everything down to screws,
nuts, bolts, cables, etc. You would be better off buying many things
individually and save significantly. The engine is stock and needs no
modifications. In fact, mods can be dangerous to the projected outcome.
The engine of choice is the 87-92 V-6, 4.3, 262CI with stock cam. A friend
of mine on the list picked one up in apparent excellent shape this week for
$175. After a decent rebuild shop is complete with it, I don't think he
will have too much invested. This took us about an hour to locate. They
can be found easily. GM sells these remanufactured to OEM for about
$1,850. That includes new cam and roller lifters. If you need part
numbers for GM engines, write me a note and I will give you suppliers and
part numbers. I researched this quite well prior to decisions. Other
costs if you go the solo route are: PSRU $3000, Exhaust $650, Radiator
$725, Engine mount $650, bottom cowl addition $200. Other items can be
bought seperately and are basically stock and can be shopped for. These
prices are the prices I paid Jess Meyers so you should contact him to
discuss any new pricing he might have. Don't let me know if he is cheaper
for you.
Only the people flying these chevy's can fill us in on exact costs
associated, performance, etc. I posted some numbers from the latest
startup a couple weeks ago from a gentleman I visited in San Antonio. He
had a 1997 V-6 in his RV-6 (not 6A) and only had 4-5 hours on it. The
speeds he recorded during my visit were 185 and 190 GS. These were not
calibrated and were not for an effort of trying to acheive speed. He was
doing other testing during my visit. In fact, he was only flying 3800 rpm
of an expected 4000 for the furure. One notable item was that he did not
have wheel pants, gap seals, etc. He was ready to fly before the plane was
ready. If anyone is extremely interested in the V-6, contact me and I will
give his number individually. He does not want arguments or fights, he
only wants to fly. And I don't want any interruptions to him so he can get
his hours flown off so I can go with him.
Certainly, Chevy engines fail as do all engines. One friend of mine bought
a new engine from Van's and had to comply with an AD while it was still in
the crate. Some of us are going to have to step out and find out what
potential improvements can be made in powerplants for all of us in the
future.
You know, when I hear all the negative responses about alternative engines,
it reminds me of the uneducated general public when experimental aircraft
fail. Because they are not fully aware of what general aviation and
particularly experimental aviation is all about, they instantly are experts
and tell all the horror stories about how we are all going to die.
One last comment and I will return to mounting my Chevy. Let me try and
define, as I understand it, a SPAM can. I always thought that was an all
aluminum airplane, mass manufactured, thousands of rivets, short hershey
bar wings, and usually powered by a lycoming engine. Sound familiar to
anyone?
Charles Golden
6A N609CG
mounting Chevy V-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Mumert" <sdm(at)softoptions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
charset="US-ASCII"
>
>I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
>It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
>to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
>brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
>Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
>a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
>If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
>know.
>
>Thanks
>Craig Hiers
These are made by Eaton and are called LeverLock. They are available as
SPDT, DPDT, 3PDT, or
4PDT. Prices range from $7.56Can to $23.08
Miniature units are also available from Augat/Alcoswitch and C&K
Honeywell/Microswitch also has a Push to unlock unit. It is MIL Spec cost
$95-400.00
All the above are listed in the Newark Electronics catalog. Most of these
suppliers will also have web sites.
Dave Mumert
SDM(at)softoptions.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
>
>I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
>It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
>to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
>brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
>Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
>a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
>If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
>know.
They're made by Microswitch as optional feature of thier
TL series toggle switches. A two-pole, two-position switch
for handling battery and alternator together with the locking
action you describe is a 2TL1-3D. Given that there are a
bizillion combinations of switching and lockout functions,
this will be hard to find in stock. A Microswitch distributor
can order it for you. Be prepared to spend something on the order
of $35 for it.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< Yes, there are RISKS, but they are taken on by CHOICE. >>
Will your widow understand that?
Regards
WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie Amadio" <e_amadio(at)vaxxine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: chevy V6 installation (for sale??) |
----------
>I don't understand all this talk about used Vortec engines when you can
go to your local GM dealer and order a brand new complete drop in engine
for around $3000.00. These are complete as delivered to the assembly lines
ready to connect to the harnesses and fuel lines turn the key and go. As
far as engine controls are concerned why not use the original GM computers
and harnesses for around $1500.00 ? this would give you a truly drop in
power plant with no bastard parts and the ability to tailor your engine
output as you go along by simply changing or reprograming the PROM chips.
I work for the GM engine plant in ST. Catharines Canada where we machine
these blocks ,cranks , and cams on the latest state of the art NC machining
centers. They are currently available and will be for many years to come.
The prices listed above were current in August /97 at our local dealer.
Considering when most of us first commited to building an RV this package
was not available and we were all looking at a big buck Lycoming
instalation, $4500.00 for the engine seems like an absolute gimme to me
compared to a Lyc core at anywhere from 5 to 10 grand IMHO
Ernie Amadio
e_amadio(at)vaxxine.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Gap Fairings |
<< But if it came loose and jammed your aileron, it could really ruin your
day.
IMO not worth the risk. >>
Thanks for saying that. I was thinking it, but I couldn't seem to get my
sayer working right. Very well put.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Build safe, then fly safe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | morristec(at)icdc.com |
| Subject: | Re: F>I. alternate air |
RV>I agree! I was just thinking that with the type of induction box we
RV>have that a separate (alternate) air door aside from the heat door wasn't
RV>needed. I haven't worked on many certified aircraft that have F.I. but
RV>don't they usually have a remote mounted air filter with some ducting and
RV>such to get the induction air from the cowl inlet to the servo? I
RV>thought that was a lot of the reason for alt air on these installations.
RV> Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
For certified aircraft the FAR basis for the alternate air is due to
inlet/filter icing or obstruction. Carb heat on certificated airplanes
performs both functions- deicing the carb, and bypassing the inlet.
Dan Morris
Morristec(at)icdc.com
RV-6 Almost ready to paint
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Ok for the yadda yadda yadda. You're right. Flying a Chevy V6 might not be my
cup of tea. Neither would be flying a 350, 300 horse V8. I drive one, but I
wouldn't want to fly it.
There have been many experimentors, who have experimented themselves right
into mother Earth--Speaking of choices of course!! The first man to fly a hot
air baloon, was also the first man to die, in a hot air baloon crash. Go
figure.
You wanna bet? You build and fly a Chevy V whatever, and when it gives up the
ghost, if you are able, you let me know, and I will tell you how many hours
are remaining in my Lycoming TBO.
Why does a new Lyc cost $17,500.00 Versus $6,000.00 for a Chevy Vortec????
The new Lyc has more (air) miles behind it, than the Vortec will ever see.
There could be a reason for that. It's called research and development.
Regards
Wendell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
<< >If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me know.
>>
Boeing?
lons per hour at top speed!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
>
><< I don't think there's anything
> you could say to convince me that leaving terra-firma in an aircraft powered
> by a Chevrolet 4.3 liter V6 is a good idea. >>
>Ther are a few people who have been doing just that for quite a few years now
>and they are still alive.
These people have more "Experimental" in them than me. More power to
them... We need innovators, and I am not one of them.
><shafts and the like >>
>Only the new ones have the balance shafts
Correct about the balance shafts. Since, I believe, 93 or 94.
><main bearing is a pain in the neck and a week without your vehicle.>>
>
>I've got 184,000 miles out of my Vortec and it hasn't missed a beat, and I
>think that an oil pump failure is just as likely in a Lycosaurus as it is in
>a Chevy
>
You've got 184,000 as do several we service, owing to the good longevity
that is possible out of these things. I've seen brand new S-10's not even
clear the lot without a trip through the shop for an engine, too. I
personally am not willing to take the risk. Personal opinion only. I have
seen more failed oil pumps on low mile rigs than I am comfortable with.
Poor machining internally. Low oil pressure, no oil pressure or godawful
noises coming from within.....
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
>
>
><< You'd better have your asbestos suit on! Where the heck would we be if a
> fella named Van hadn't modified one of Ray Stits designs? How about that
> other fella named Harmon? I certainly didn't have the designer's blessing
> when I developed the slider for the Rocket. I could go on, but I'll bet
> you're getting the point....The status quo can usually be improved upon.
>
> Let the experimenters experiment! >>
>
>Alright one more and I'm through !
>I don't recommend to anyone that the Chevy is the way to go or better or
>yadda, yadda, yadda. But for me it IS the way I want to go and I don't need
>someone that has NEVER even tried it to telll me it won't work. ALL of the
>posts on the negative side, and I mean every single one, has been written by
>someone who THINKS it won't fly, and a lot of the positive ones were written
>by someone who is actually doing it !!!
>Unless and until I hear about someone that actually DID it and it didn't work
>or whatever, I will remain convinced that it is viable. So all you guys
>trying to talk us out of it can stop wasting our time.
>BTW if you aren't 100% sure you want to do it, that means you are 100% sure
>you don't
>
>My $.02 worth
>
I don't ever remember saying it wouldn't work. I think a Vortec V6
RV-4,6,6A or whatever would really rip. Possibly outperforming a Lycoming,
who knows. I was just inputing 9 years of experience with these things as
they perform their intended duty - powering light trucks and vans. For the
most part they work well, very well. I've just seen enough adverse things
to keep one out of my cowling. I certainly intended no offense to anyone -
for Chevy's or against. I just have less "Experimental" in me than others I
guess.
My $.02 change..... :-)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
>
>
><< the new Chevy Vortec block are
> set at 90 degrees instead of 60 degrees (or maybe vice-versa) >>
>There is a 60 degree V-6 available from Chevy but that is an entirely
>different engine design. The Vortec is still available and is a 90 degree
>block, bsaed on the sucessful "small block" V-8
The 60 degree V6 is the old 2.8 liter that the 4.3 replaced. Not a very
desirable unit (don't tell anyone, but I've got one out in my driveway as we
speak in my S-10 Blazer.) They had chronic intake sealing problems. Often
terminal.... Intake leaks coolant internally into crankcase. Trouble
insues....
BTW, a 4.3 V6 is a 5.7 (350) V8 with 2 cylinders cut off the back end. Same
rods, pistons, bore and stroke - everything.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Hartmann <hartmann(at)sound.net> |
| Subject: | Yeller Pages Update |
The latest, and so far greatest update to Gary VanRemortel's RV Builders'
Yeller Pages is available at http://www.sound.net/~hartmann/yelrpage.htm.
Enjoy, and be sure to tell Gary thanks.
- Mike
hartmann(at)sound.net
http://www.sound.net/~hartmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert. S. McAnally" <mcarob(at)melbpc.org.au> |
| Subject: | Frank Justices Instructions |
Listers,
Can anyone supply the current address for F.J's instructions.
Thanks,
Rob McAnally
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Hal:
Finishing an aircraft that you build is a MAJOR undertaking. If you want
to fly, I recommend the proven route. If you LOVE to experiment and have
the technical savy to do so, experiment away. The most important thing
is: 1. FLY SAFELY. The 2nd most important thing (IMHO) is: Have FUN.
Life is too short for your dreams and wishes not to come true. I have
been disappointed and have friends that have been disappointed when a
long hard task did not materialize as expected. My REAL concern is that
a builder will get discouraged and not finish the aircraft project.
>From 10,000 MSL, an RV-6 will do 235 mph in a 500-800 fpm decent with
the prop pulled back and throttle pushed forward. Upon reaching 2,500
feet, the prop is pushed forward and the throttle pulled back. It will
slow to 75 mph for pattern entry. I find it hard to believe that it did
not need to be going straight down.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>I am still waiting to hear other REAL CONCERNS.
>
>Hal Kempthorne I really don't care to know what you won't fly!
>halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Hal:
I have a 4.3L V-6 in my Chevy S-10. The Chevy dealer had to pull the
heads at 35,000 miles. It was burning oil and making a cloud of blue
smoke. At 70,000 miles the oil burning is back again but only about 10%
of what it was.
My 1992 4.3L V6 in my S-10 vibrates more than my O-320. I only bought
the Chevy because I am a GM employee and get a discount. I also get 10%
off parts at the local dealer. This includes new engines.
When I was in A & P school, I looked up the requirements for engine
certification. If my memory serves me correctly, 250 hours of operation
is required including a run at 110% rated RPM. I think that FAR 125 will
list the time at the different power settings.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>Allen says:
>>
>> Actually the Continental was required by its certification tests to
>> deliver its maximum continuous power for its entire TBO. Ditto for
>the
>Where did you get this stuff? My understanding is that the
>certification requirement if for forty hours, mostly at 75% and below.
>
>Hal Kempthorne Just the facts, ma'm!
>halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
>Hi all,
>
>Thanks to Jon and Brian for some valuable input on the engine topic. Of
course,
>I have some reply comments to Jon's remarks.
>
>First let me tell you something that we in the software business have
>discovered. Our products look terrible **to us** as we see all the flaws. No
>one calls us up to tell us they think our product is great. So a Chevy mech
>sees all the troubles with his stuff but not with aircraft engines. I've been
>nearly fifty years driving Chevy trucks - three of them and only one was
new. I
>drive fast nearly all the time. I brought everything we owned from Kansas to
>Oregon with the new one pulling a 14 foot U-Haul and the truck box stuffed.
The
>engine was running at full power nearly all the way. The oil pressure was
lower
>at the end of the journey but it went on to 120,000 miles. This was the stock
>engine, not one with 4340 steel rods and crank or even forged pistons. I
don't
>know if a Lyc could do that but I'm ready to bet anyone that a Continental
can't
>do 100% power for more than 24 hours!
>
>Used Lycomings break too, Jon. Either way, get a new engine with new rods and
>crank. They all break. When I got my pilot's license over 20 years ago,
engine
>failure was a major topic in the training. I've dealt with several engine
>problems since including a spun rod bearing. The only failures I've
experienced
>with auto engines were either expected or "won't start". I've never even
>experienced a failure racing british cars!
>
>Either option is, I suspect, acceptable for use and quite safe. The Lycoming
>option is quite a bit more expensive in terms of purchase and maintenance.
The
>Chevy (a new 4.3 of course) is quite adequate and, in my *VERY* carefully
>considered opinion, safer than a tired or poorly maintained Lycoming.
>
>Do us a favor, Jon, tell us what parts you have seen fail in the Chevy
engine.
>I am quite interested in failures in the 4.3 post '87 Vortec.
>
>And try not to scold.
>
>
>Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- WANTED TO BUY - a used Chevy V-6 setup.
>halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
My apologies for my aparrent scolding. I can assure everyone that no
offense was intended. I am glad we have experimenters amongst the ranks. I
just am not much of one. I am personally building an RV as an alternative
to the high cost of buying and especially maitaining a production aircraft.
The beautiful looks and outstanding performance don't hurt either.
I live 5 miles from Van's and fly out of Twin Oaks Airpark, home of EAA
Chapter 105 of which Richard VanGrunsven is a member - as am I. All this to
say that with all the Home Wing activity around I have seen a lot of RV's.
I have talked to many builders and pilots as well as Van himself and grew
more convinced that this was indeed a viable alternative. I took the
plunge, bought a kit and am building it with the utmost regard for the
"letter of the law" as far as the plans go. Van has been building aircraft
longer than I have been alive and seems to know what does and doesn't work.
This type of building is for me personally. I'm sure things will change as
I get the deal flying. As a mechanic I have never been able to leave
anything in an unmodified condition for very long.
The majority of the "day to day" things we see out of the 4.3's are things
such as: intake leaks (mostly oil at the junctions with the block), valve
guide seal failures (puff of blue smoke on startup), rear main seal leaks,
etc. Things I have seen include: failed oil pumps (ranging from low oil
pressure to no oil pressure to horrifying noises due to "sloppy" machining
at the factory), failed engine bearings due to oil starvation, broken timing
chains, pulled rocker studs and even a brand new rig with the balance shaft
severely out of time. Talk about vibration!!!
One note on the 4.3, as well as the small block V8's. The rear main bearing
receives unfiltered oil straight out of the pump. It's only protection is
the screen at the bottom of the pickup tube....
BTW, you are correct in that all I tend to see are the "problem children".
Being immersed in the down side of any product day in and day out tends to
taint your view somewhat. Kind of like all the general aviation crashes we
see on the news. They never cover the flights that take off, have a
beautiful flight and arrive safely at their destination with a perfect
grease job for a landing. Although you'll never get me to say that a
Chevrolet is a bad product. I believe in them 100%...
>
>>
>> >I have been following the debate on the Chevy V6 installations, and
>> must
>> >offer my piece. I have worked for a prominent Chevrolet dealer as a
>> >journeyman technician for the last 9 yrs. I don't think there's
>> anything
>> >you could say to convince me that leaving terra-firma in an aircraft
>> powered
>> >by a Chevrolet 4.3 liter V6 is a good idea.
>> >used good used Lycoming aircraft engine." By the way, a Chevy truck IS
>> an
>> >outstanding product with an unparalleled warranty....
>> >
>> >Jon Elford
>> >RV-6A #25201
>> >Finally a finished horizontal stab!!!!
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Jon. I've been going over the pros and cons of the auto
>> conversion situation for months. What I really needed to hear was not
>> arm chair guesstimation..but experience over the long term service of
>> the Chevy engine. I drive a GMC 350 V-8...and LOVE that truck...but if
>> it fails on a mountain road..I'll just lay out the sleeping bag in the
>> bed, and sleep on it...won't have to find a stretch of runway in the
>> middle of the forrest!
>>
>> Brian Denk
>> RV-8 #379
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
Pat,
I know Larry Vetterman quite well and even test one of his gizmos from time
to time. He is one of those guys who cant sit still for very long, always
tinkering or trying to build a better mouse trap. The performance difference
between the 4 pipe and the crossover is not really noticeable. The crossover
is a little smoother and quieter. The 4 pipe is slightly louder but offers
more room under the cowl. You cant go wrong either way. I have the 4 pipe on
mine and am quite happy with it as is. I believe his crossovers are
outselling the 4 pipe systems now though.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
I am not saying it cant be done, just you are going to spend a lot of
time developing a good solid solution and you will be extracting power
levels that the engine's designer never envisaged and as such stepping
into a potential snake pit.
You may get a good engine out of it but you could also be getting a
potential turkey as the quality control become your problem. Would you
buy your main spar for your wing from a scrap metal merchant?
You also need to look at your labour costs to see if you might be
better off putting a used Lycoming in instead if you are at all unsure
of your machining and engineering capabilities.
It may also be worth asking what the mean time between overhauls is for
the aircraft conversions is.
When a number of these engines have reached 1500 hrs, been stripped and
been examined for distress it would be useful if someone would write it
up.
----------
From: Mike Wills[SMTP:willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:22
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done!; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Yes, it probably would but it does indicate some bearing damage, not
fatal, h_ll, not even serious.
However I would bet you didn't drive it that way all the time. If you
were to you would need to give that engine some serious attention and,
if you knew you were I feel sure the lube system and cooling system
would be high on your agenda for rework.
----------
From: halk(at)sybase.com[SMTP:halk(at)sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:22
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Allen wrote:
>>
In one of the other postings it was indicated that after a long drive
under high load his truck's oil pressure dropped permanently, this is
an indicator of wear to the main bearings as wear reduces back
pressure.
<<
This was my truck and it went on for another 100,000 miles with me
flogging hell
out of it in the Cascades of Oregon!
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- WANTED TO BUY - a used Chevy V-6 setup.
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I'll take a chance on the box.
I don't need to defend Van's positions on auto engine installations so I
hope know one takes this that way. He does just fine on his own. But
working for the company and knowing that we that work there are all
pretty much unanimous in our feelings about it, it sometimes is
bothersome that the position is miss understood.
Experimenting is what the experimental/amateur built category is about.
If that is what you want to do (and fortunately their are those that do).
But we can't very well recommend something that is more experimental
(in the developement sense at least) than a Lycoming.
Most RV builders are building as a means to an end.
To have a great flying airplane that they built themselves (hopefully
they also enjoy the building part of it also or they are less likely to
succeed).
From our viewpoint this is not the type of person to be
installing an auto engine which regardless of who is selling what is
still VERY experimental in comparison to a Lycoming. Remember;
regardless of what your feelings are about them versus auto engines they
have 40 + years of operational history on thousands and thousands of
engines. I'm the first to admit they have their own shortcomings but the
reliability statistics speak for themselves.
It's hard to fairly compare that to a company that shows up at a fly in
with an airplane with less than 100 hours on it, and starts handing out
sales literature claiming all sorts of performance #'s and by the way
there happens to be price list and order form attached.
Anybody can guess what the reliability of an installation will be, what
the engine TBO will be, what the airplanes performance will be; but
until you have (lets be real conservative) say, 10 similar airplane
models with very similar installations run for even just 500 hrs. each,
every body involved is just guessing at answers to all the questions that
we could raise on this list. I am hopeful that we are not too far away
from seeing this in the homebuilt or even RV circles. What I am tired of
is seeing new startup companies making lots of unproven claims, trying to
get to this point with unsuspecting customers money. It seems the
reason someone usually shows interest in most of these installations is
the seemingly much lower cost. In the long run it doesn't seem to always
turn out that way. Not long ago a company closed its doors that was
trying to sell subaru conversions to RV builders. If I remember
correctly I think the whole kit was almost as much as a new Lyc. (I
realize the Lyc still needs Exhaust, baffling, etc, but it doesn't widen
the margin by all that much) but it was quite a bit down in performance
from an RV with a Lyc. It seems that most of the people I talk to that
show an interest in an auto engine for an RV don't really know what the
are in for. If you do know; and think you would enjoy the challenge of
being on the front lines of the "experimental" category then go for it.
But, if you really just want a fun airplane to fly without possibly
dealing with all the things you may have to deal with when you first
start flying your VERY experimental airplane, then convert your $8000
into a used serviceable Lycoming and know that you are doing what 1700 +
other RV builders have reliably done.
Here is my personal checklist for evaluating a possible candidate as an
alternative to a Lycoming engine in an airplane
1. Does the airplane have nearly the same performance
as one equipped with a Lycoming engine.
2. Does the "Installation" have any statistical data that
shows it to be as reliable as the Lycoming.
3. Does the real cost (in dollars and time) compare to
what you could do with a Lycoming.
For myself, I wouldn't be willing to compromise any of these
points. Someone else may be willing to compromise one or another. I
hope someday we have an installation the meets or exceeds all of them.
BTW with Van's being the most successful kit plane mfg. in the world.
What do you think would happen if there was an equal performance
installation that had proven it's reliability enough that we could
recommend it, and it could be bought for half of what a Lycoming costs.
There would be that many more people that would buy RV kits. But, until
I have seen evidence of such an installation I, and probably everyone
else at Van's will recommend that you "convert your $8000 dollars into a
Lycoming"
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Martin <fairlea(at)execulink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
>
>I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
>It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
>to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
>brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
>Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
>a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
>If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
>know.
Try John Deere, on their combines, of which I am familiar, they use a switch
like that to engage the thresher drive.
Tom Martin (doesn,t want to think about combines for another year!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
MOST CERTAINLY! In fact, she SUPPORTS my decision. We both agree that
the CHOICES we make are OUR responsibility, not the insurance company's,
not the government's, just our ouwn....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>
><< Yes, there are RISKS, but they are taken on by CHOICE. >>
>
>Will your widow understand that?
>
>Regards
>
>WBWard(at)AOL.COM
>
>
>
>
>
and
>
>automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in
>normal
>operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders. The
>
>key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive power
>plants are designed to deliver 30HP maximum continuous from a motor
>with maximum rating of 300HP. This is done to reduce oil consumption.
>If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
>common, they use oil like a two stroke. If you increase the load on
>the
>bearings you need to increase the oil flow and pressure to compensate.
>
>You also need to increase the oil flow to the cylinder liners and
>pistons, this is usually done by fitting undersized rings, and fewer
>of
>them. It isn't as simple as it looks.
>
>----------
>From: wstucklen1(at)juno.com[SMTP:wstucklen1(at)juno.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 2:34
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
>
>Stucklen)
>
>>Why would someone try to modify a great aircraft against the
>designers
>>recommendation?
>
>ANSWER:
>
>BECAUSE IT CAN BE DONE!!!!!! And it might be fun to LEARN first hand
>HOW
>to do it BETTER... I think that's what is called EXPERIMENTATION and
>why we have the FREEDOM to experiment...... Yes, there are RISKS, but
>they are taken on by CHOICE.
>
>
>Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
> (Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
>wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary kozinski <KOZINSKI(at)symbol.com> |
| Subject: | Antennas in the Cowl |
Has anyone ever tried to put a VOR, GS and/or comm antenna in the base of the
cowling? It would seem that you could take a piece of the 1/4" alarm tape that
they put on a window and glue it either on the inside or outside of the cowling
base near the firewall. Attache a short piece of coax directly to the tape
with a BNC connector on the other end. Then, put another BNC on the firewall.
This seems too easy and I've can't say I've ever heard of anyone trying this.
Coax runs are shorter which would minimize losses and at least the VOR/GS
antennas would be correctly polarized. I don't know how much noise the engine
produces and if this is something to worry about. Any comments? Gary RV-6
20038 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
You asked:
> Does anyone have an opinion on which is the better Vetterman exhaust,
the 4
pipe, or the crossover? <
I installed the Vetterman four pipe mild steel system, after fighting the
continual cracking problems of the Stainless Tolle system for several years.
I did not use the exstensions.
Now have over 300 hours on four pipe with No cracking.
On the down side, it is heavier than a stainless and the cowl area is a
little more crowded. Although i had no problem installing my heat muff.
also I don't believe I get as much heat from my muff now. I know 1300
degrees is 1300 degrees (or whatever) but the increased volume of exhaust
from two cyls proabably keeps the pipe warmer farther down its length where
the muff is located.
You also have to keep the mild steel painted to look decent.
The four pipe also removes the crossover pipe from the vicinity of the oil
pan which may help keep summertime oil temps cooler. Conversly I suppose it
may also help keep winter temps up ! :)
Steve
Schmitz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott A. Jordan" <SAJ_SLJ(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Frank Justices Instructions |
Message text written by INTERNET:rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Can anyone supply the current address for F.J's instructions.
<
www.edt.com/homewing/justice
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shirley Hobenshield <shobenshield(at)cmsd.bc.ca> |
>>My wife doesn't like to fly.
>She sees no beauty or romance in airplanes.
>
Let her put a little "Pink" on it, You'll be O.K.
Ed H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shirley Hobenshield <shobenshield(at)cmsd.bc.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass runways??? |
>
>
>>
>>I have a piece of land that is 735 ft. by 735 ft. This will yield a grass
>>strip of anywhere from 700 ft. to over 1000 ft. on the diagonal.
>
I fly a RV-6 off a 1100 ft grass strip. One way in & one way out,
(landing up-hill) I find myself doing alot of power on landings when the
wind is from behind. ( comming in low on power ) Can be done but must pay
attention. It was alot easier with a 185 or the Champ but I have only 50+
hrs on type.
Good luck!!!!???
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
Pat,
I have the 4 pipe system on my RV-4 with the Lycoming 10-320 engine. Have not
flown it yet. Still installing the cowl and spinner. The construction is
excellent. The fit is perfect. The only problem might be with the clearance
on the front cylinders if you use a probe for the CHT. I do not know this to
be a fact just looks like it could be a problem later. Bruce Bell RV-4 2888
rv4bell(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edward Cole <emcole(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Gibson Allan wrote:
>
>
> The worst thing you can do to an engine is put it in a new experimental
> aircraft, as the flight test regime is completely incompatible with
> running in a new engine. Ideally a new engine needs to be run at full
> power for the first 10 hours of operation to bed the rings in but very
> few pilots want to find their planes maximum level flight speed on the
> first flight.
> At 40 hours the engine is just starting to run in and is still not
> settled.
>
> His suggestion is to borrow an engine for the first few flights and let
> a friend run yours in on a proven airframe.
>
>????????????????? Your comments about breaking in a new engine with an experimental
are true,
but what's the chance of the your last comment happening? Be realistic.
Ed Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | LYCOMING O-320 for sale |
Lycoming O-320-B2B, 1000 since new, O since major with 4 new cermichrome
cylinders. Hollow crank, includes carb and slick mags. This is a certified
yellow tagged engine. Asking $11,900 oughtright.
Bill Mahoney
Sherman, CT
RVator(at)aol.com
860-354-6933
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
((Message deleted)
>Charles Golden
>6A N609CG
>mounting Chevy V-6
Charles,
Thanks for posting an answer to my original question. Please keep us posted
on your progress, as well as the progress of the gentleman who is now flying
his Chevy powered RV-6.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (wings done!; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)hfsmobility.com |
| Subject: | Piper Pitot Installation |
Can someone that has sucessfully mounted a Piper Pitot Tube let me know how
they went about it? Did you mount it forward of the spar flange instead of
through the flange? Does the slope of the airfoil forward of the flange
degrade the accuracy? Thanks in advance.
Eric Henson
Sealing tanks, not wanting to be a test pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Wendell,
Congratulations on your apparent fiscal prosperity. Unfortunately, not all
of us can afford $20K to buy a new Lyc. R & D costs are not the only
contributor to that price tag. Lets not forget the fact that Lyc is a
company providing a heavily regulated product to an extremely small market
with a high potential for liability. Do you honestly believe that Lyc puts
more R & D bucks into their product than does GM, Toyota, etc...?
Lyc provides a good product with an admirable record that is the best
choice for most RV builders, but there is a small (but growing) group of
experimenters attempting other potentially better solutions. More power to 'em!
And while I'm at it thanks to Scott Mc Daniels for his comments on the
subject. The position he stated is what I had always assumed to be the case.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done!;saving for fuse kit)
>Why does a new Lyc cost $17,500.00 Versus $6,000.00 for a Chevy Vortec????
>The new Lyc has more (air) miles behind it, than the Vortec will ever see.
>There could be a reason for that. It's called research and development.
>
>Regards
>
>Wendell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
In a message dated 12/4/97 1:23:13 AM, you wrote:
>t is specific to my particular aircraft, but it should be easy to
>modify it to any other RV with little effort. It can be downloaded at:
>
>http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
I got the following: The requested object does not exist on this server. The
link you
followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been
instructed not to let you have it.
Anyone else?? Help
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
In a message dated 12/3/97 11:06:51 PM, you wrote:
> Use a squirt under the
>screw heads for extra security- those threads extend into the tank and form a
>possible leak path.
I would recommend being very careful in this area. I observed quite a
collection of stray pieces of goo like that when I cleaned my in line filter.
If you don't have an in line filter, like most of you don't, this will wind up
in the fuel selector, or the electric fuel pump. I decided it was not a good
idea to use such a procedure. If I ever do it again, I will use pro seal.
Just make sure what ever you use will be insoluble and not come loose.
D Walsh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HAWKBUD <HAWKBUD(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antennas in the Cowl |
stry it and test it ... we all might like something that doen't make the frame
a porcupine. Also please report the results ... Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
> >http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
>
> I got the following: The requested object does not exist on this server.
The
> link you
> followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been
> instructed not to let you have it.
> Anyone else?? Help
The link is reachable from either of my ISP's. A problem on your end? And
Scott, thanks for the great contribution...this will be the basis for my
POH.
Rob (RV-6Q).
ey. However, in the horsepower range
RV's require, current economics simply favor the Lycoming.
A do-it-yourself V6 conversion will run about $6-7K minimum and add a few
hundred extra hours to construction time (engine $1K used - $3K new, new
cam and the like $1-2K, redrive $3K, custom engineering and fabrication
$1-2K, etc). This is great for those who love to tinker for the sake of
tinkering, and I am certain that eventually we will need Lycosaur
replacements, so this is all good!
For those that want to finish their projects and go FLYING...bolt-on auto
conversions run about $11k-15K (if those claiming to have FWF packages
ready now ever actually produce them, or don't go out of business after
taking customer deposits first).
The Lycoming is less expensive up front in all cases ($5-8K mid-time,
$11-13K freshly overhauled). Yes, down the road it will cost more to
overhaul. For that, you get a known historically reliable engine with a
known reachable TBO, and you get the bird into the air faster.
Unrelated and unconfirmed issue...usenet had several postings yesterday
regarding a 200-hp VELOCITY throwing an IVOPROP blade. Anyone have any
substantiated data on this?
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rudy.albachten(at)amd.com (Rudy Albachten) |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Trim Cover |
I won't add to the discussion on how to handle
countersinking/dimpling the screws, but this
reminded me of something from my elevetor trim.
A small suggestion: the cover plate is thicker
than the skin. If you want the cover to be flush,
you can use a thin shim between the skin and the
bracket the cover plate fits against. I realized
this after I was done. Oh well, it's very close
to flush, but with a little more work it could be
perfect.
- Rudy Albachten
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | FAA vs. B&C fiasco update . . . |
See an excellent piece by George Braley that touches
on the FAA vs. B&C fiasco and other FSDO issues at:
<http://www.avweb.com/articles/stcbroke.html>
If you don't currently belong to Avweb, jump to
this link will ask you to sign up. It's free and well
worth the time. They put out a weekly news bulletin
that I find quite useful.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barnes, Eric" <eric.barnes(at)tandem.com> |
| Subject: | rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
I actually downloaded the Word 97 document (T-1 line at work... and
color printers!). Looks great, although I haven't gone through it.
EB
PS - Ed, Mitch and Mike, I'll print you guys a color copy if you'd like.
----------
From: Bum flyer [SMTP:Bumflyer(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 08:41
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook
In a message dated 12/4/97 1:23:13 AM, you wrote:
>t is specific to my particular aircraft, but it should be easy
to
>modify it to any other RV with little effort. It can be
downloaded at:
>
>http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
I got the following: The requested object does not exist on
this server. The
link you
followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been
instructed not to let you have it.
Anyone else?? Help
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
I downloaded it this morning. It knocked my socks off. It's really
something. It did take a long time to come through, though. There are
a lot of graphics.
Steve Soule
-----Original Message-----
From: Bum flyer [SMTP:Bumflyer(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:41 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating
Handbook
In a message dated 12/4/97 1:23:13 AM, you wrote:
>t is specific to my particular aircraft, but it should be easy
to
>modify it to any other RV with little effort. It can be
downloaded at:
>
>http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
I got the following: The requested object does not exist on
this server. The
link you
followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been
instructed not to let you have it.
Anyone else?? Help
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au wrote:
>
>
> I am not saying it cant be done, just you are going to spend a lot of
> time developing a good solid solution and you will be extracting power
> levels that the engine's designer never envisaged and as such stepping
> into a potential snake pit.
Yup. Sure. Nevertheless, people have been improving engines ever since
there were engines. Certainly some fail, but also some succeed. You need
to go into it with your eyes wide open.
> You may get a good engine out of it but you could also be getting a
> potential turkey as the quality control become your problem. Would you
> buy your main spar for your wing from a scrap metal merchant?
Not without taking it apart and getting it professionally inspected, and
fixing any defects.
> You also need to look at your labour costs to see if you might be
> better off putting a used Lycoming in instead if you are at all unsure
> of your machining and engineering capabilities.
If I add in my labour costs, it's not worth building an RV-6. There was
a used one for sale, asking price NZ$89,000. Figure NZ$30K to get the
kit (including freight & GST), NZ$10K for instruments and radio, NZ$15K
for engine (a half-run-out Lyc), NZ$5K for prop, NZ$5K to paint it...
plus tools, primer, electricity, etc. So I need to do (say) 2,500 hours
for NZ$24K, or NZ$9.6 per hour after tax, or NZ$12.77 before tax. I earn
(or at least get paid :-) about twice that...
> It may also be worth asking what the mean time between overhauls is for
> the aircraft conversions is.
Yes indeed. There's some NZ builders who are doing a conversion based on
a Subaru Imprezza rally engine. They expect a TBO of 1000 hrs. I don't
know how realistic that is, and I'm not really interested. Pulling 200hp
out of a 2.2L engine (even an engine specially built for rallying)
doesn't sound suitable for an aircraft. And the asking price for the FWF
conversion is over NZ$20K.
> When a number of these engines have reached 1500 hrs, been stripped and
> been examined for distress it would be useful if someone would write it
> up.
Yes. Now, how are we going to get a number of these engines to 1500 hrs
if nobody installs and flies them? Chicken and egg.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Graham Jones <Gratech(at)acslink.aone.net.au> |
| Subject: | lex-aire HVLP guns |
Fellow listers
I am just starting a 6A empennage and am at the stage of Spray Equipment
purchasing....
Looking at the offerings on the WEB the Lex-Aire guns look impressive.
Does any body have any experience with them?
Graham Jones
RV6A - Beginning Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tip for smoothing UHMW edges |
Listers,
Just finished doing some work on the UHMW blocks that hold
the flap control rod in position on the F-605 bulkhead and
picked up a neat tip from one of our machinists:
You can quickly smooth the edges on a piece of UHMW by using
your swivel head deburring tool to scrape off a bit of
material. I have previously used a belt sander, but this
way did a better job and was much quicker besides.
In case your curious, my blocks came 2.25" long whereas the
plans specifiy 2.0". Frank Justice's instructions also
specify that the 1" dimension from the center of the hole
to the edge was important. I checked the fit in my plane
and it definitely appears that they should be 2".
Doug Medema, RV-6A, working on the cabin, finish kit ordered!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< Marine engines more closely match the load curve of an aero engine and
automotive engines in boats die rapidly due to oil starvation in normal
operation at the loads that are envisaged by aero engine builders. The
key is the continuous power rating of the engine, automotive pow >>
Guess What ???
Look under the cover of a Glastron, Rinker Sea Nymph, etc. and guess what the
engine is ?? Right a Chevy Vortec V-6, outfitted for marine use
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ShowCtrGuy(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV MODELS/WEATHER VANE |
Snip--
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
common, they use oil like a two stroke. >>
Where on earth did you get this gem ???
I drag raced Chevy's for 10 years and if they used oil it was time to rebuild
the darn things.
<>
No, You want to increase the oil flow to the BEARINGS, and you dont use
undersize rings because you want that seal to be as tight as possible to
maximize cylinder pressure i.e. HP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
You might at least want to consider doing your first flight on a proven
power plant, debugging your airframe and then installing the Chevy.
Your hands would be busy enough without watching your engine
performance figures.
Lets be a little scientific about this and develop a reasonable and
detailed examination of the options. If you are going to experiment
lets get the data in. Instrument your engine mount with strain gauges
to give thrust figures, ensure the airspeed and altimetry system are as
accurate as physically possible, fit your engine with oil and fuel flow
and pressure transmitters and then go out and record some serious data.
Do the same for some of your like minded friends and then write up a
paper.
The total cost of this hardware is around the A$5000 mark, programming
extra, if you want I can suggest some suppliers in both the US and on
my side of the pond.
----------
From: wstucklen1(at)juno.com[SMTP:wstucklen1(at)juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:39
Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Stucklen)
MOST CERTAINLY! In fact, she SUPPORTS my decision. We both agree that
the CHOICES we make are OUR responsibility, not the insurance
company's,
not the government's, just our ouwn....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>
><< Yes, there are RISKS, but they are taken on by CHOICE. >>
>
>Will your widow understand that?
>
>Regards
>
>WBWard(at)AOL.COM
>
>
>
>
>
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bjnash(at)connectnet.com (BJ Nash) |
| Subject: | Re: lex-aire HVLP guns |
>>
>>Fellow listers
>>
>>I am just starting a 6A empennage and am at the stage of Spray Equipment
>>purchasing....
>>
>>Looking at the offerings on the WEB the Lex-Aire guns look impressive.
>>Does any body have any experience with them?
>>
>>Graham Jones
>>RV6A - Beginning Empennage
>>
Yes indeedy! I can recommend them highly! Made a PAINTER otta me! I
was so bad, I'm sure anyone can do a great job with a Lexaire. While
not cheap, they have a big advantage in that they use regular air:
"Shop Air" so called. If your compressor does not have a water
filter, you can get away with adding a few drops of fisheye preventer
to your paint... The regular nozzle will spray most anything and if
you want to spray up-side-down, get the optional paint pot on top.
Send email to infobot(at)pdsig.n2.net for a directory of interesting stuff!
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Bill Nash
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Aircraft Remanufacturing Corp
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-' 1531 Avohill Dr
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Vista, Ca 92084 (760) 749 0239
(((),-'' (((),' (((.-' Email: bjnash(at)pdsig.n2.net Web Site:
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/aircraft-reman/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bibb <rbibb(at)fore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Had to add my two cents to the various opinions being flaunted on this subject.
I applaud anyone that wants to put anything in their RV. I ASSUME that they
are taking into accounts the risks they are taking just as I ASSUME we all
take into accounts the risks we take when we drive to the airport, let alone
fly anything.
Now I do not advocate reckless behavior and want everyone to be as safe as
possible - within limits. Remember, if prime safety was the objectives none
of you would be building or flying anything.
I choose to fly behind a Lycoming - because I didn't want any more hassle
than necessary to get my bird in the air. But if someone wants to fly
behind a Chevy - more power to them. That is what makes this movement so great.
Personally, I'm looking forward to flying behind a used Williams jet engine
in about 25 years in a brand new RV-21....
Richard Bibb
RV-4
N144KT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piper Pitot Installation |
Mounted mine aft of main spar about even with the inspection plate with
marvelous results. Stall speeds are per Van's numbers and cruise speeds are
only a couple MPH fast, which is better than anyone else I have checked with.
My logic was shaky-- It just looked like about where Piper mounts it.
There are too many variables to make precise judgements. I use Van's fuselage
side static system and the combo works so well haven't got around to trying
the static system from the Piper Blade. I suspect it matters which indicator
you use also. Mine is the one Van sells.
D Walsh RV -6A 109 HRS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McCall <mccall(at)cayman.ds.boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Bum flyer wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/4/97 1:23:13 AM, you wrote:
>
> >t is specific to my particular aircraft, but it should be easy to
> >modify it to any other RV with little effort. It can be downloaded at:
> >
> >http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
>
> I got the following: The requested object does not exist on this server. The
> link you
> followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been
> instructed not to let you have it.
>
> Anyone else?? Help
I got it (Windows 95 version with separate bitmap files) with no problem.
Good job, Scott, thanks for doing that!
Don McCall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark S. Malone" <mmalone(at)dialus.com> |
I have completed installation of the instrument panel and now I'm ready
to install the antennas. I could use some help from those lucky people
who have flown their planes and used their avionics. I have installed
the following avionics:
PS Engineering PS6000-MS stereo audio panel w/marker beacon and
intercom
King KX-165 Nav/Comm w/glideslope
King KX-155 Nav/Comm
King KLN 89B IFR GPS w/ AK-950 switching annunciator
King KT-76C transponder
Avionics Innovations AM/FM CD player
WX900 Stormscope
I want to install all the antennas on the belly of the aircraft except
for the GPS which will go on the top behind the sliding canopy. I would
appreciates anybody's experience with good and bad locations for the
antennas.
Thank you for the assistance.
Mark Malone N85MM
Ran engine for first time Wednesday
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Kitz <jkitz(at)greenapple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
RV 4 Pat A wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on which is the better Vetterman exhaust,
the 4
> pipe, or the crossover? I will be installing it on a -4 , and thinking about
> clearances, performance, ease of installing heat muff (vans), or anything else
> you can think of.
>
I have the 4 pipe system and Vetterman did tell me that he has tested
both and the 4 pipe system definitely had more power than the
crossover. I had no problem installing them and they have performed
flawlessy for 187 hours. My grandson says it sounds just like a P-51.
John Kitz ( did everyone see my picture in Sport Aviation this month?)
N721JK
187 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Gap Fairings |
<< thought about gluing the fairings to the top skin instead of rivets.
Pro Seal or silicon sealer could be used. >>
Be sure and put a rivet at each end of the gap seal to prevent peeling of the
glue line. The glue has enough bond strenght in tension but might have a
problem in peel.
Gene Francis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brietiga" <brietiga(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodney Coston <cozmos9(at)mindspring.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: master switch
>
>>
>>I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
>>It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
>>to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
>>brumfield switch. >Thanks
>>Craig Hiers
>>Craig, try OTTO Controls, 2 East Main Street, Carpentersville, IL, 60110,
(708-428-7171) and be sure to get a copy of their catalog--it's a great
reference. Chuck Brietigam, RV-3, Just about finished with
final stuff.
>
>sorry craig, just a posting test
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Angiulo <mikeang(at)MICROSOFT.com> |
| Subject: | lex-aire HVLP guns |
I recently bought a harbor freight HVLP gun and went to prime a whole batch
of parts.
Mistake #1 was to try an "assembly line" process in leu of my individual
piece process. I was trying to "save time." Oops. The job came out so
badly I had to repaint the whole batch. One thing I learned - Deft primer
can't be removed with scotchbrite. Wow that stuff is tough.
What I'm really trying to ask though is why couldn't I get the gun to spray
a good coat? It just made a splattery pattern. I tried tank pressures from
30 to say 60 psi and all possible adjustments of the fan & paint adjustment
screws.
Suggestions? Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
ANybody got a guess where red line would be for the leak test??
1,10,...100 PSI.
Don Jordan (RV6A wings) Arlington, Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dbergh(at)micron.net |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Trim Cover |
Rudy Albachten wrote:
>
>
> I won't add to the discussion on how to handle
> countersinking/dimpling the screws, but this
> reminded me of something from my elevetor trim.
>
> A small suggestion: the cover plate is thicker
> than the skin. If you want the cover to be flush,
> you can use a thin shim between the skin and the
> bracket the cover plate fits against. I realized
> this after I was done. Oh well, it's very close
> to flush, but with a little more work it could be
> perfect.
>
> - Rudy Albachten
>
Rudy,
I just finished my shim today and it makes the cover perfectly flush!
I think this is also covered in the F.J. notes too.
Dave Bergh
Mtn Home ID
RV6 elevators w/ wings unpacked and on the shelves( man those Phlogiston
spars are beautiful!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hugh Shields <hugh.shields(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
First post to list. Have been following for past 3 months. What a great
resource for builders. I am building an RV6-EH! (Canadian version eh).
Tail is finished, golf course maitenence/hanger just finished and quick
build kit is on the road. Looking forward to another great winter of
plane building and bad Maple Leafs hockey! Hope to be in the air in
spring of 1999. POH is interesting, keep up the good work.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Barnes <skytop(at)starnetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lex-aire HVLP guns |
Michael Angiulo wrote:
>
>
> I recently bought a harbor freight HVLP gun and went to prime a whole batch
> of parts.
>
> Mistake #1 was to try an "assembly line" process in leu of my individual
> piece process. I was trying to "save time." Oops. The job came out so
> badly I had to repaint the whole batch. One thing I learned - Deft primer
> can't be removed with scotchbrite. Wow that stuff is tough.
>
> What I'm really trying to ask though is why couldn't I get the gun to spray
> a good coat? It just made a splattery pattern. I tried tank pressures from
> 30 to say 60 psi and all possible adjustments of the fan & paint adjustment
> screws.
>
> Suggestions? Thoughts?
>
I had to relearn following the purchase of my Binks HVLP and after
mayabe five batches of material, I can paint as well as I have in the
past with my Binks Model 7. There are a number of variables. I will
share what I think are the primary elements.
Put a regulator at the gun input and set it to 40 psi to begin. Don't
set the pattern too tight. Plan on a lighter first coat even if it
means going on nearly dry. Put the second coat on in about two
minutes. Warm the paint if it has been stored in a cool place.
Keep practicing. Good luck. Tom Barnes -6 fuse.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: First Flight |
| From: | jepilot(at)juno.com (J E REHLER) |
Congratulations on the first flight of SusieQ. Wonderful experience.
J.E.Rehler RV6A flying, Corpus Christi, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman <RobHickman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust system |
Pat
I have an IO-360 180HP with the cross over system that I just installed, it
fit without any problems. Not knowing what to do I just copied what Bill B. of
Van's had just done to his RV-4. You should ask him what he thinks.
Rob Hickman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | lex-aire HVLP guns |
Had the same experience with the Harbor Freight gun that I tried. I solved
the problem by buying an Accuspray gun. Big bucks, but it sure works great.
Lots of listers have made the Harbor freight gun work but after repeated
tries I couldnt take the frustration any longer.
To the guy who asked about the Lex-Aire, consider the fact that you are
buying mail order and will get no local support as there is no dealer
network. It may be a great gun, but when I called to get info on it I left 3
messages and never got a call back. Didnt leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling
about customer support. I bought my Accuspray from a dealer 5 miles from my
house for about the same $ as the Lex Aire and they can provide advice and
support.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done!; saving for fuse kit)
>What I'm really trying to ask though is why couldn't I get the gun to spray
>a good coat? It just made a splattery pattern. I tried tank pressures from
>30 to say 60 psi and all possible adjustments of the fan & paint adjustment
>screws.
>
>Suggestions? Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
>ANybody got a guess where red line would be for the leak test??
>1,10,...100 PSI.
>Don Jordan (RV6A wings) Arlington, Tx
>
On certified birds its on the order of a few inches of water column. About
0.5 psi MAX. Let me restate that... 1/2 psi. Figure the entire surface
area of the wing tank and multiply that times the 0.5 psi and you'll
certainly think twice about using "pressure" to test your nice smooth
aluminum tanks.
RV-6 plans on the bench and Grummans in the air.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< To me
the real question is , why pay someone who is trying to recoup their
development costs at your expense, a ridiculous amount of money for a FWF
package? If you can build an airframe from the crude assemblage of
sheetmetal that Van's provides (no insult intended), and you truly want an
auto conversion, why not do it yourself and save a lot of bucks? Others have
and its working for them. >>
'Cuz drilling per instructions is a bunch easier than figuring out how much
offset you need on the prop shaft.
Me? I like the middle ground a la' Tracy Crook or buying the basic items from
BAP and the other widgets from Kragen's Auto.
Still, you make some good points. Let's keep this kind of dialog going.
Bob
The tail's done
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<<
One note on the 4.3, as well as the small block V8's. The rear main bearing
receives unfiltered oil straight out of the pump. It's only protection is
the screen at the bottom of the pickup tube.... >>
Correct me if I'm wrong but with an out of the box Lyc there is NO oil filter
other than the screen. Therefore the entire engine is subject to a lack of
filtration.
Again, I'm new to the details so educate me...don't flame me.
Cheers
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lex-aire HVLP guns |
Have you checked the archives?
Gotta be tons of info there
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<<
You might at least want to consider doing your first flight on a proven
power plant, debugging your airframe and then installing the Chevy.
Your hands would be busy enough without watching your engine
performance figures. >>
Now that is a sensible idea. There's a big market out there for your used Lyc
so you'll get a bunch of the money back to spend on the alternate.
And it sures make sense to test just one system at a time. Ever notice how
the big guys test engines? They bolt one experimental engine on a multi-
engine airframe.
Okay, that's what I'm gonna do......soon as I get to the other end.
Bob
Tail's done
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sport AV8R <SportAV8R(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
> I would recommend being very careful in this area. I observed quite a
> collection of stray pieces of goo like that when I cleaned my in line
filter.
>
> If you don't have an in line filter, like most of you don't, this will wind
> up
> in the fuel selector, or the electric fuel pump. I decided it was not a
> good
> idea to use such a procedure. If I ever do it again, I will use pro seal.
> Just make sure what ever you use will be insoluble and not come loose.
>
Granted, it is something to watch out for. However, gasket paste under the
screw heads is not going to make its way below the tank inspection plate,
gasket, etc into the tank. It simply squishes out from under the heads as the
screws are tightened down. You can wipe the excess off with a rag if desired.
What COULD get you is bits of proseal that were in the bore of the platenuts
around the inspection hole perimeter. The screws will expell these plugs into
the tank the first time they are tightened down, and this needs to be
anticipated. You make a good point about the filter; mine is downstream of
the selector and Facet pump and does not protect these items from blockage by
debris in the tank.
Bill Boyd
wondering how I'm going to crimp the terminal lugs onto the battery & starter
cables. I understand solder is a no-no (brittleness/fatigue failure)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
And in your drag racing engines 30 second time at full power how much
damage was done to the bore?
I suspect your engines had less than 50Hrs total time on them when
overhauled.
The engines I am talking about are racing engines that run at close to
full power for eight to nine hours.
It is a constant battle between reliability and power, if you want
power piston sealing is a priority, and if you could no oil at all in
the bearings as this produces viscous drag, reliability requires
excessive lubrication with oil film adhesion being very important.
The best book I have found on the subject is "The Fundamentals of
Machine Design, P. Orlov, Mir Publications" ( its a four volume set ),
but getting a copy could be hard as it is out of print.
----------
From: Rvbldr3170[SMTP:Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 7:10
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
<< If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
common, they use oil like a two stroke. >>
Where on earth did you get this gem ???
I drag raced Chevy's for 10 years and if they used oil it was time to
rebuild
the darn things.
<>
No, You want to increase the oil flow to the BEARINGS, and you dont use
undersize rings because you want that seal to be as tight as possible
to
maximize cylinder pressure i.e. HP
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Piper Pitot Installation |
________________________________________________________________________________
mounted at 1/3 chord at 3/2 wing span at a local stagnation point. You
will need to find a similar point on your aerofoil for the mounting. I
gather from the way the pitot is mounted on my Cherokee that the loads
are quite low as it attaches to a small reinforcing plate with zipnuts.
----------
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)hfsmobility.com[SMTP:Eric.Henson(at)hfsmobility.com] |
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 5:54
| Subject: | Piper Pitot Installation |
Can someone that has sucessfully mounted a Piper Pitot Tube let me know
how
they went about it? Did you mount it forward of the spar flange instead
of
through the flange? Does the slope of the airfoil forward of the flange
degrade the accuracy? Thanks in advance.
Eric Henson
Sealing tanks, not wanting to be a test pilot.
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
----------
> From: SCOTT R MCDANIELS <smcdaniels(at)juno.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea???
> Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 6:41 AM
>
>
> I'll take a chance on the box.
>
> I don't need to defend Van's positions on auto engine installations so I
> hope know one takes this that way. He does just fine on his own. But
> working for the company and knowing that we that work there are all
> pretty much unanimous in our feelings about it, it sometimes is
> bothersome that the position is miss understood.
> Experimenting is what the experimental/amateur built category is about.
> If that is what you want to do (and fortunately their are those that do).
I THOUGHT VAN WAS CONSIDERED IN THAT GROUP? GUESS NOT!
> But we can't very well recommend something that is more experimental
> (in the developement sense at least) than a Lycoming.
KNDA LIKE AN RV-8 COMPARED TO A BONANZA, RIGHT?
DID VAN RECOMMEND HIS AIRFRAME WHEN IT WAS LESS THAN PROVEN?
> Most RV builders are building as a means to an end.
> To have a great flying airplane that they built themselves (hopefully
> they also enjoy the building part of it also or they are less likely to
> succeed).
> From our viewpoint this is not the type of person to be
> installing an auto engine which regardless of who is selling what is
> still VERY experimental in comparison to a Lycoming. Remember;
> regardless of what your feelings are about them versus auto engines they
> have 40 + years of operational history on thousands and thousands of
> engines. I'm the first to admit they have their own shortcomings but the
> reliability statistics speak for themselves.
> It's hard to fairly compare that to a company that shows up at a fly in
> with an airplane with less than 100 hours on it, and starts handing out
> sales literature claiming all sorts of performance #'s and by the way
> there happens to be price list and order form attached.
> Anybody can guess what the reliability of an installation will be, what
> the engine TBO will be, what the airplanes performance will be; but
> until you have (lets be real conservative) say, 10 similar airplane
> models with very similar installations run for even just 500 hrs. each,
> every body involved is just guessing at answers to all the questions that
> we could raise on this list. I am hopeful that we are not too far away
> from seeing this in the homebuilt or even RV circles. What I am tired of
> is seeing new startup companies making lots of unproven claims, trying to
> get to this point with unsuspecting customers money. It seems the
> reason someone usually shows interest in most of these installations is
> the seemingly much lower cost.
AS IS THE REASON MOST LOOK FOR THE RV'S I BELIEVE
In the long run it doesn't seem to always
> turn out that way. Not long ago a company closed its doors that was
> trying to sell subaru conversions to RV builders. If I remember
> correctly I think the whole kit was almost as much as a new Lyc. (I
> realize the Lyc still needs Exhaust, baffling, etc, but it doesn't widen
> the margin by all that much) but it was quite a bit down in performance
> from an RV with a Lyc. It seems that most of the people I talk to that
> show an interest in an auto engine for an RV don't really know what the
> are in for.
I GUESS I COULD SAY THE SAME FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY RV'S. IS THAT WHY SO MANY
ARE SOLD BUT NOT COMPLETED?
If you do know; and think you would enjoy the challenge of
> being on the front lines of the "experimental" category then go for it.
> But, if you really just want a fun airplane to fly without possibly
> dealing with all the things you may have to deal with when you first
> start flying your VERY experimental airplane, then convert your $8000
> into a used serviceable Lycoming and know that you are doing what 1700 +
> other RV builders have reliably done.
>
> Here is my personal checklist for evaluating a possible candidate as an
> alternative to a Lycoming engine in an airplane
>
> 1. Does the airplane have nearly the same performance
> as one equipped with a Lycoming engine.
>
> 2. Does the "Installation" have any statistical data that
> shows it to be as reliable as the Lycoming.
>
> 3. Does the real cost (in dollars and time) compare to
> what you could do with a Lycoming.
>
> For myself, I wouldn't be willing to compromise any of these
> points. Someone else may be willing to compromise one or another. I
> hope someday we have an installation the meets or exceeds all of them.
>
> BTW with Van's being the most successful kit plane mfg. in the world.
> What do you think would happen if there was an equal performance
> installation that had proven it's reliability enough that we could
> recommend it, and it could be bought for half of what a Lycoming costs.
> There would be that many more people that would buy RV kits. But, until
> I have seen evidence of such an installation I, and probably everyone
> else at Van's will recommend that you "convert your $8000 dollars into a
> Lycoming"
WITH THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF LYCOMINGS, 100LL GAS AND HIGH EXPENSES
ENCOUNTERED WITH THE ENGINES, MAYBE VAN SHOULD OEN HIS EYES AND START
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE FEW ENGINE MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE STRIVING TO
REPLACE THE OLD WORK HORSE. RATHER THAN WORK AGAINST THESE FEW, AS I
BELIEVE VAN'S DOES, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO WORK IN HARMONY AND WORK TOWARDS
A SUCCESSFUL END. THAT WOULD LIKELY ENSURE VAN'S FUTURE AND POSSIBLY YOUR
JOB. IT LIKELY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT VAN WAS PASSING OUT BROCURES AND
PRICE LISTS THAT CLAIMED ALL SORTS OF SAVINGS, PERFORMANCE FIGURES, ETC. I
CLAIMS? AS I WALK THE ROWS OF RV'S AT OSH AND S&F AND LOOK AT THE STATED
PERFORMANCE FIGURES ON EACH PROP, I FEEL JUSTIFIED IN THIS STATEMENT.
PEOPLE BY NATURE, DON'T CLAIM PERFORMANCE FIGURES TO THE NEGATIVE SIDE
(PARTICULARLY PILOTS). I ASSUME, ONLY AIRCRAFT BUILT TO PERFECT STANDARDS
CAN ACHEIVE THESE FIGURES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? THE SAME APPLIES TO
ENGINES. THEY CAN ONLY PERFORM AS WELL AS THE AIRFRAME CAN PERFORM. I
DON'T BELIEVE AN AIRFRAME BUILT OUT OF RIGGING COULD ACHEIVE VAN'S CLAIMS
WITH 200 HP. WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE RESPONSES FROM THIS GROP AND
PARTICULARLY VAN'S, THE FUTURE OF AUTO ENGINES IS BLEAK. TO OBTAIN
STATISTICAL DATA, SOMEONE IS JUST GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND
SWING. IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL PEOPLE TO DO THIS BEFORE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IS
GAINED TO SAY GO OR NO GO ON AUTOS. BUT VANS AND OTHER GROUPS HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO AID IN THE SUCCESS AND ENSURE THEIR FUTURE. I ALWAYS WONDER
HOW VAN FEELS WHEN AN EXPERIMENTAL FAILS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC START
SCREAMING THAT WE ARE ALL BUILDING DEATHTRAPS. MANY JUST SAY THAT, "I
GUESS THIS IS OK FOR THOSE CRAZY EXPERIMENTERS THAT HAVE A DEATH WISH, BUT
NOT ME. BEACHCRAFT TELLS ME I SHOULD TAKE THAT $35000 AND CONVERT IT INTO
A GOOD USED BONANZA. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE PROVEN WORKHORSES". DOES THAT
SOUND FAMILIAR TO THE LIST.
BEST REGARDS,
CHARLES GOLDEN
>
>
> Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
>
> These ideas and opinions are my own and
> do not necessarily represent the opinions of
> my employer.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Gibson Allan wrote:
>
>
> And in your drag racing engines 30 second time at full power how much
> damage was done to the bore?
> I suspect your engines had less than 50Hrs total time on them when
> overhauled.
> The engines I am talking about are racing engines that run at close to
> full power for eight to nine hours.
> It is a constant battle between reliability and power, if you want
> power piston sealing is a priority, and if you could no oil at all in
> the bearings as this produces viscous drag, reliability requires
> excessive lubrication with oil film adhesion being very important.
> The best book I have found on the subject is "The Fundamentals of
> Machine Design, P. Orlov, Mir Publications" ( its a four volume set ),
> but getting a copy could be hard as it is out of print.
> ----------
> From: Rvbldr3170[SMTP:Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 7:10
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
>
>
>
> << If you look at high performance engines they all have one thing in
> common, they use oil like a two stroke. >>
> Where on earth did you get this gem ???
> I drag raced Chevy's for 10 years and if they used oil it was time to
> rebuild
> the darn things.
>
> < pistons, this is usually done by fitting undersized rings, and fewer of
>
> them.>>
> No, You want to increase the oil flow to the BEARINGS, and you dont use
> undersize rings because you want that seal to be as tight as possible
> to
> maximize cylinder pressure i.e. HP
>
> Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break and e-mail each other
so the rest of us can get on with other more pertinent rv
info. Besides you clutter up the list with all this feed back. We got the
message a long time ago. If you want a chevy then put one in I could care
less.But lets move on.
-
> -+
> -
> -+
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
IT LIKELY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT VAN WAS PASSING OUT BROCURES AND
> PRICE LISTS THAT CLAIMED ALL SORTS OF SAVINGS, PERFORMANCE FIGURES, ETC. I
> CLAIMS? AS I WALK THE ROWS OF RV'S AT OSH AND S&F AND LOOK AT THE STATED
> PERFORMANCE FIGURES ON EACH PROP, I FEEL JUSTIFIED IN THIS STATEMENT.
First off why don't you learn proper nettiquite and turn off your caps?
Second Vans does not and has never claimed performance for his designs
that have not been reached or exceeded by most builders. The numbers that
you see on props are usally the numbers that people choose to cruise
their aiplane at and this depends on a lot of different things such as
power settings, prop and engine combination. etc.
> PEOPLE BY NATURE, DON'T CLAIM PERFORMANCE FIGURES TO THE NEGATIVE SIDE
> (PARTICULARLY PILOTS). I ASSUME, ONLY AIRCRAFT BUILT TO PERFECT STANDARDS
> CAN ACHEIVE THESE FIGURES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? THE SAME APPLIES TO
> ENGINES. THEY CAN ONLY PERFORM AS WELL AS THE AIRFRAME CAN PERFORM. I
> DON'T BELIEVE AN AIRFRAME BUILT OUT OF RIGGING COULD ACHEIVE VAN'S CLAIMS
> WITH 200 HP.
The only RV that is recommened for the 200hp is the RV-8, yes there is
some installed in the -4s and -6s but not rows of them as you seem to
indicate from your walks at Osh and S&F. and the ones that have them
exceed Van's #s.
All the years I have been around Van's RV's I have not seen a RV that was
rigged so far out that it would not perform as advertised.
> BEACHCRAFT TELLS ME I SHOULD TAKE THAT $35000 AND CONVERT IT INTO
> A GOOD USED BONANZA. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE PROVEN WORKHORSES". DOES THAT
> SOUND FAMILIAR TO THE LIST.
Are you building a RV or are you just pissed off because my RV will go
faster than your Bonanza?
>
> BEST REGARDS,
>
> CHARLES GOLDEN
> >
> >
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
>
> I GUESS I COULD SAY THE SAME FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY RV'S. IS THAT WHY SO
MANY
> ARE SOLD BUT NOT COMPLETED?
Charles,
Please tone it down a bit.
First off, typing in ALL CAPS is considered SHOUTING or YELLING on the
'net. Second, YELLING at those who are firsthand sources of valuable
information and support on RV's is a bit crude, and alienates those
providing such valuable support from the RV-list (that does not help out
anyone here). Third, posting inaccurate, irrevalent, or unsubstantiated
information without disclaimer (one example of many in your post
cited above) doesn't help anyone out either.
Are you BUILDING anything? Or just trolling and "flyinghi"?
Regards,
Rob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I believe you are correct (in a sense). All New Lycomings have spin on
filters as delivered (unless maybe some mfg. requests them without).
If I remember correctly the oil path to the main portion of the engine
doesn't go through the filter from the oil pump, it is in a separate
circuit with the oil cooler.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Velocity w/ Ivo Prop crash |
Robert Acker wrote:
snipped
> Unrelated and unconfirmed issue...usenet had several postings yesterday
> regarding a 200-hp VELOCITY throwing an IVOPROP blade. Anyone have any
> substantiated data on this?
Rob,
The pilot was from the Palm Beach, Fl. area. There was a large article
about it in the local paper yesterday. I'll try to scan it and email it
to you this weekend. The basics are:
Pilot built the plane. His name was Mark Ewart
Flight was from Lantana Fl. to Maryland
Was flying with wife & 2 daughters- all died
Reported mechanical problems
1 blade of IvoProp 3 blade in flight adjustable prop was missing at the
scene. 2 motor mount tubes were cracked. Throttle was in idle position.
The plane crashed into a forested area 1 mile short of Florence S.C.
airport.
Witnesses saw pilot working on prop at about 2 pm, during unscheduled
stop at Savannah Ga. He had the prop disassembled on the tarmac. He
spent over an hour (closer to 2) working on the prop.
More info as I get it. This crash is news here as the pilot was a local.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 #80372 elevators
Boca Raton, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piper Pitot Installation |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I don't know the exact aerodynamic explanations for it but it seems that
it needs to be mounted farther aft than the main spar. Apparently with
this type of pitot probe it needs to be installed at a location that
keeps it in airflow that is being forced to follow the airfoil contour
regardless of the angle of attack. If it is too far fwd, at high angles
of attack it starts to fall outside of the airflow following the contour
of the wing bottom and starts to see some of the relative wind that is
hitting the pitot hole at angle and causes an error. From what I have
seen with RV's having this style probe mounted at the spar the airspeed
is accurate at anything above about 100 mph indicated, but with errors
developing below that to finally show somewhere around 40 mph indicated
at stall. I believe if you mount it farther aft you reduce this error.
Take a look at a piper location. I think it is mounted about 1/2 way
back on the wing chord.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Piper Pitot Installation |
Eric:
I have the Piper Pitot tube on my -6. I have around 40 hours of flight
time since its first flight on September 20, 1997. So far, its accuracy
has agreed with the GPS in calm air. I will look at the installation
this weekend but believe that I mounted it just aft of the location that
Van calls for. (Aft of the main spar.) I used a 0.040 doubler and (I
believe #6) nutplates and screws. All tubing runs are NyloSeal. It has
been reported to me that the Piper Pitot Tube reads low on the low end
and high on the high end. All of my testing to date has shown it to be
accurate. My definition of accurate is within 2 knots TAS of the GPS.
If anything, I read 2 knots low all the time. My indicated stall speed
is 41 knots. Have not looked at the GPS speed when doing a stall. BTW,
my pitot static system (less the tube) was calibrated and certificated
before the first flight. I believe that all of my errors are from the
pitot/static tube.
Gary A. Sobek
FAA A&P
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
>From: Eric.Henson(at)hfsmobility.com[SMTP:Eric.Henson(at)hfsmobility.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 5:54
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Piper Pitot Installation
>
>
>Can someone that has sucessfully mounted a Piper Pitot Tube let me know
how
>they went about it? Did you mount it forward of the spar flange instead
of
>through the flange? Does the slope of the airfoil forward of the flange
degrade the accuracy? Thanks in advance.
>
>Eric Henson
>Sealing tanks, not wanting to be a test pilot.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV performance. was: Re:...- bad idea??? |
<348787D0.D27BB596(at)ix.netcom.com>
Jerry is correct. I did not believe that I would get the performance
that Van advertises. I was WRONG. I have been able to verify or better
all of the publish numbers that Van uses in his advertisements. He did
demonstrate a 2,000 FPM rate of climb that I have NOT been able to
duplicate. I have only made 4 timed climbs and the slowest was at 65
knots.
My Lycoming cost $2,600 and I overhauled it myself. I have heard claims
that it is not broken in till after it has 100 hours. I have verified
Vans numbers on a rebuilt engine during the first 40 hours.
"Are you building a RV or are you just pissed off because my RV will go
faster than your Bonanza?"
I do not know who posted the above line but: I LIKE IT! :-) Thanks!
;-)
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>
> IT LIKELY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT VAN WAS PASSING OUT BROCURES AND
>> PRICE LISTS THAT CLAIMED ALL SORTS OF SAVINGS, PERFORMANCE FIGURES,
>ETC. I
>VAN
>> CLAIMS?
>
>First off why don't you learn proper nettiquite and turn off your
>caps?
>Second Vans does not and has never claimed performance for his designs
>that have not been reached or exceeded by most builders. The numbers
that
>you see on props are usally the numbers that people choose to cruise
>their aiplane at and this depends on a lot of different things such as
>power settings, prop and engine combination. etc.
>
>
>> (PARTICULARLY PILOTS). I ASSUME, ONLY AIRCRAFT BUILT TO PERFECT
>STANDARDS
>> CAN ACHEIVE THESE FIGURES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
>
>The only RV that is recommened for the 200hp is the RV-8, yes there is
>some installed in the -4s and -6s but not rows of them as you seem to
>indicate from your walks at Osh and S&F. and the ones that have them
>exceed Van's #s.
>All the years I have been around Van's RV's I have not seen a RV that
>was
>rigged so far out that it would not perform as advertised.
>
>> BEACHCRAFT TELLS ME I SHOULD TAKE THAT $35000 AND CONVERT IT INTO
>> A GOOD USED BONANZA. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE PROVEN WORKHORSES". DOES
>THAT
>> SOUND FAMILIAR TO THE LIST.
>
>Are you building a RV or are you just pissed off because my RV will go
>faster than your Bonanza?
>>
>> BEST REGARDS,
>>
>> CHARLES GOLDEN
>> >
>> >
>
>--
>Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro,
>OR
>jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Installation- bad idea???
57,59,63-65,67-69,71-73,79-82,84,86-91,93,95-97,99-118,120,122,
124,126,128,130,132,134-136
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I GUESS I COULD SAY THE SAME FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY RV'S. IS THAT WHY SO
MANY
ARE SOLD BUT NOT COMPLETED?
First off its obvious to me that you probably are not an RV builder which
then makes me wonder why you are posting on the list since you seem to
have some bad feelings towards the airplanes and the performance that is
claimed for them.
I'm not going to attempt to answer all the questions you raise (I have a
feeling that a lot of the builders and flyers out there can do a better
job than I.
But I wonder where you get the data that says that so many RV projects
are sold and not completed?
With over 1700 now completed and flying, and more than 5000 under
construction world wide I think you would have to admit that the few that
you see advertised for sale are a VERY SMALL percentage of the total
under construction.
WITH THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF LYCOMINGS, 100LL GAS AND HIGH EXPENSES
Where do you get your info that says Lycomings will be eliminated,
or that there wont be a direct replacement for 100LL fuel?
ENCOUNTERED WITH THE ENGINES, MAYBE VAN SHOULD OEN HIS EYES AND START
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE FEW ENGINE MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE STRIVING TO
REPLACE THE OLD WORK HORSE. RATHER THAN WORK AGAINST THESE FEW, AS I
BELIEVE VAN'S DOES
You obviously don't know Van.
IT WOULD BE BETTER TO WORK IN HARMONY AND WORK TOWARDS
A SUCCESSFUL END. THAT WOULD LIKELY ENSURE VAN'S FUTURE AND POSSIBLY
YOUR
JOB. IT LIKELY WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT VAN WAS PASSING OUT BROCURES
AND
PRICE LISTS THAT CLAIMED ALL SORTS OF SAVINGS, PERFORMANCE FIGURES, ETC.
I
CLAIMS?
If you would take the time to ask a few I think you would find very few
that would say Van has ever made claims that weren't true.
AS I WALK THE ROWS OF RV'S AT OSH AND S&F AND LOOK AT THE STATED
PERFORMANCE FIGURES ON EACH PROP, I FEEL JUSTIFIED IN THIS STATEMENT.
But your not! I'm sure there are enough RV flyers on this list to make
your E-mail box runneth over while telling you that the meet or even beat
the performance claimed for there model.
Remember; each of these airplanes are built by a different person who
most often is learning everything they need to build it as they need to
know it.
Example: Do YOU know what manifold pressure and RPM is required for a
Lycoming O-320 160 HP engine to have 75% cruise power at 8500 ft? A lot
of RV builders don't, unfortunately. So, with out gaining some of the
knowledge required to install the Ideal fixed pitch prop, or set proper
power settings with a constant speed prop.
the performance #'s claimed by a builder don't mean much unless we have
the total picture. And then there is instrumentation errors,
construction/finish quality, variations in finished weight (there are
RV's flying with empty weights more than 150 lbs. more than Van's orig
prototypes, does that make him dishonest if there own performance comes
up short of what is listed as possible) etc., etc.,
PEOPLE BY NATURE, DON'T CLAIM PERFORMANCE FIGURES TO THE NEGATIVE SIDE
(PARTICULARLY PILOTS). I ASSUME, ONLY AIRCRAFT BUILT TO PERFECT
STANDARDS
CAN ACHEIVE THESE FIGURES. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
No! Hopefully some of the flyers out there will tell you so.
THE SAME APPLIES TO ENGINES. THEY CAN ONLY PERFORM AS WELL AS THE
AIRFRAME CAN PERFORM. I
DON'T BELIEVE AN AIRFRAME BUILT OUT OF RIGGING COULD ACHEIVE VAN'S CLAIMS
WITH 200 HP.
Next time you are at one of the bigger fly-ins, check with a few of the
builders that have 200 hp and find out. As for out of rigging I'm not
sure exactly what you are talking about because if you build one of the
higher performance kit planes your self you learn that there is a lot
more to gaining maximum performance than just basic rigging and alignment
of the airframe
WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE RESPONSES FROM THIS GROP AND
PARTICULARLY VAN'S, THE FUTURE OF AUTO ENGINES IS BLEAK.
I disagree! As we have seen some are stepping up to the plate.
The only thing I don't like is seeing them get one hit and start
advertising there product for sale.
TO OBTAIN STATISTICAL DATA, SOMEONE IS JUST GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP TO
THE PLATE AND
SWING. IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL PEOPLE TO DO THIS BEFORE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IS
GAINED TO SAY GO OR NO GO ON AUTOS. BUT VANS AND OTHER GROUPS HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO AID IN THE SUCCESS AND ENSURE THEIR FUTURE. I ALWAYS WONDER
HOW VAN FEELS WHEN AN EXPERIMENTAL FAILS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC START
SCREAMING THAT WE ARE ALL BUILDING DEATHTRAPS. MANY JUST SAY THAT, "I
GUESS THIS IS OK FOR THOSE CRAZY EXPERIMENTERS THAT HAVE A DEATH WISH,
BUT
NOT ME. BEACHCRAFT TELLS ME I SHOULD TAKE THAT $35000 AND CONVERT IT
INTO
A GOOD USED BONANZA. AFTER ALL, THEY ARE PROVEN WORKHORSES". DOES THAT
SOUND FAMILIAR TO THE LIST.
And If you would feel more comfortable flying around in that Bonanza then
that's what you should do.
BEST REGARDS,
CHARLES GOLDEN
>
>
> Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
>
> These ideas and opinions are my own and
> do not necessarily represent the opinions of
> my employer.
>
>
>
--------- End forwarded message ----------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<19971129.161359.4823.2.SMCDANIELS(at)juno.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I meant to add an apology in the last post for it being so long; and I am
sorry the thread went so far off the original subject, but I felt
compelled to respond on the list instead of directly.
Sorry,
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | F Mark40 <FMark40(at)aol.com> |
My first wife didn't like to fly either.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
The 4.3 L (262 CID) V-6 is available (and has been for about 8-10 years) in
the full size trucks, the earlier design Monte Carlos, Caprices, Astro Vans,
and lately in the S-10 and Blazer. The Vortec designation refers to the
version with the balance shaft and that only started about 3-4 yrs. ago, if my
memory serves me correctly. There is a book available from Chevy that lists
all engines available as "crate engines" and it describes the different
versions and tells what they came in. The only real diffeerence between the
diferent versions is pretty much cosmetic, i.e. oil pan shape etc. for
clearance on a given body style. Also the earlier ones (I think 1988 and
earlier) did not have roller lifters so you definitely want to make sure that
the one you buy has those. Also this engine design had some earlier 229 CID
versions in the Malibus etc. so make sure the one you buy has the 4" bore.
Regards,
Merle Miller
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
Lord Kelvin c.late 1800's
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | rv-list: Problems downloading POH |
Listers,
If anyone is having problems downloading the POH on my web site, send me a
private e-mail, with the version that you need, and I'll e-mail a zipped
version to you as an attachment. This will only work if your ISP doesn't
block attachments.
If you e-mail me the request after 5:30 pm eastern on Friday, it will
probably be Tuesday until I can get it to you (I'm a network engineer with
multiple T-1's to my desk at work, at home I'm using a 486-33 with a 14.4
modem) Yep, another case of the plumber's house is the one with the leaky pipes.
Take care.
Scott Gesele N506RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
I disagree. I like this discussion about the Chevy alternative even
though I'm probably going to buy a Lycoming.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
Fuselage in jig
> ... Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break
and e-mail each other so the rest of us can get on with other more
pertinent rv
info. Besides you clutter up the list ....>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Oil path in Lycomings |
>If I remember correctly the oil path to the main portion of the engine
>doesn't go through the filter from the oil pump, it is in a separate
>circuit with the oil cooler.
> Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
The Lycoming direct drive OH manual shows the "Lubrication Diagram" for 4
cylinder engines with all the oil going through the pressure screen (or
filter) before going into the oil galleys to feed the engine. The only
exception is for engines with a prop governor. These engines feed the
front main bearing with unfiltered oil.
RV-6 plans on the bench and Grummans in the air.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Steve, I'll second that motion. There is always the trash button
if it is an issue that you do not care reading about. I often
delete messages based upon a subject line that doesn't apply to
or interest me, I'm sure we all do. I may not do a Chevy or a
Lyc., but there is no such thing as "to much" debate.
Chris Browne
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.com
-6a emp next week!
I disagree. I like this discussion about the Chevy alternative even
though I'm probably going to buy a Lycoming.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
Fuselage in jig
> ... Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break
and e-mail each other so the rest of us can get on with other more
pertinent rv
info. Besides you clutter up the list ....>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bjnash(at)connectnet.com (BJ Nash) |
| Subject: | Aviation Web Site - different! |
For something different try the new web site listed below!
Send email to infobot(at)pdsig.n2.net for a directory of interesting stuff!
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Bill Nash
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Aircraft Remanufacturing Corp
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-' 1531 Avohill Dr
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Vista, Ca 92084 (760) 749 0239
(((),-'' (((),' (((.-' Email: bjnash(at)pdsig.n2.net Web Site:
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/aircraft-reman/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Velocity w/ Ivo Prop crash |
> 1 blade of IvoProp 3 blade in flight adjustable prop was missing at the
> scene.
Charlie,
Thanks for the update. What a tragedy.
Please provide details when available so we can all learn from this.
Rob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loren D. Jones" <Loren(at)LorenJones.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>Why would someone try to modify a great aircraft against the designers
>recommendation?
Perhaps for some of the same reasons that caused Van to first tinker with
him Stits Playboy! To quote from Van's Web site: "Within a year of
returning to civilian life, now employed as a mechanical engineer, he had
designed, built and installed a set of cantilever aluminum wings to replace
the strut-braced wood and fabric originals. Renamed the RV-1, the Playboy
flew like a new airplane."
Exploring creative ways to expand on the excellent work of others is at the
heart of sport aviation!
Loren D. Jones
One toe in the RV waters
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moore, Robert" <RMoore(at)aus.etn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>> Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break and e-mail each
>>other so the rest of us can get on with other more pertinent rv
>info. Besides you clutter up the list with all this feed back. We got the
>message a long time ago. If you want a chevy then put one in I could care
>less.But lets move on.
Why is an alternative engine installation any less pertinent than an
alternative antenna installation or an alternative pitot tube
installation? Each e-mail has a header that identifies the thread. You
may delete the ones you don't want to read.
Bob Moore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< Correct me if I'm wrong but with an out of the box Lyc there is NO oil
filter
other than the screen. >>
All OEM Lyc engines from Van's have the spin on oil filter option.
No problem to retrofit though. B&C has a kit, Chief has a kit. All are less
than $300.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil path in Lycomings |
<< The Lycoming direct drive OH manual shows the "Lubrication Diagram" for 4
cylinder engines with all the oil going through the pressure screen (or
filter) before going into the oil galleys to feed the engine. The only
exception is for engines with a prop governor. These engines feed the
front main bearing with unfiltered oil.
>>
AHA! That's why some of the gaskets I've seen for the Ol' governor have a
screen in 'em. I've seen the gaskets without the screen, but it sounds like
the screened model is the one to have.
BTW: this screen looks like it will only stop 6 digit part numbers, as opposed
to the main oil screen, which will stop the 3 digit numbers. ;-)
Check six!
Mark
t the sound of a gauntlet being thrown
down...?) ;-)
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: how I'm going to crimp the terminal lugs |
Bill:
I had an aviation supply house crimp the ends on the cable I bought free.
Don Jordan~~RV6A wings~~ Arlington, Tx~~donspawn(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Luker, Michael G." <luker.michael(at)mayo.edu> |
I recently read where a fellow by the name of Sobek in his 0-320
powered -6 has a top speed of 235 mph. I want to hear more, or he
should share his weed with all of us RV flyers. Fly your airplane at
8,000 feet in four different directions that being N, S, E, and W.
Miantain your altitude add them up and divide by 4. This will give you
your top airspeed. 235 no way.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
| Subject: | FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
You asked:
> ----------
> From: donspawn(at)juno.com[SMTP:donspawn(at)juno.com]
>
>
> ANybody got a guess where red line would be for the leak test??
> 1,10,...100 PSI.
>
> Don Jordan (RV6A wings) Arlington, Tx
>
>
Remember that air is much, much less viscous than liquids (at
least, most of the liquids you or I will ever see, since they don't sell
liquid helium-3 down at Coast Hardware). I have seen piping systems
which will leak a constant stream of helium (used for leak detection
because of its small atomic radius - smaller even than diatomic
hydrogen), yet which won't leak water at 100 psig. All I'm trying to
indicate is that for a gaseous leak test, if it doesn't leak at 0.5 psi
(about 14 inches water column), you don't need to raise the pressure
until rivets start popping - gasoline is viscous enough relative to air
that it isn't going to leak. Of course, a poorly sealed joint exposed
to a hard landing or lots of vibration may open up, but excessive
pressure won't reveal that anyway.
Incidentally, there's a reason people hydrotest stuff instead of
using compressed gases - if something splits under high pressure in a
hydrotest, you just get a little wet (water being essentially
noncompressible), not blown to pieces. [And no, I'm not suggesting
water in the fuel tank - just don't pump it up much past a couple psi.]
Keith Jensen
-6A emp kit coming down the chimney in 2 weeks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <rver(at)caljet.com> |
Installation- bad idea???
>First off its obvious to me that you probably are not an RV builder which
>then makes me wonder why you are posting on the list since you seem to
>have some bad feelings towards the airplanes and the performance that is
>claimed for them.
Charles is building a 6a per his previous posts and has bought a FWF kit
from Belted Air Power and is in the process of mounting it.
"Charles Golden
"6A N609CG
"mounting Chevy V-6
As someone who is about a year away from installing his engine and is
looking at all alternatives, I hope that everyone's "bad feelings" will go
away and that Charles will continue to post to the list and let us know his
progress in mounting the v-6 and how it flies once installed and his
performance specs.
Regards,
Tom Velvick
rver(at)caljet.com
rv-6a wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avoiding mistakes - just started |
I have just received my tail kit and was wondering if there are any
opinions on common mistakes I can avoid, unclear instructions or
drawings, and etc.
Mike Henney
mikeh(at)geraldhphipps.com
RV-6A, just started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HAWKBUD <HAWKBUD(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
I have a similar panel of radio's... put all my antenna's on top behind the
canopy (clamshell) and they work fine. the VOR ant is under the fuselage at
the rear with poth antenna pointing rearward... works fine
hawkbud - faa inspection completed waiting for FAA paper to make first flight
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
> ----------
> From:
> Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net[SMTP:Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net]
>
>
You said:
> WITH THE EVENTUAL ELIMINATION OF LYCOMINGS, 100LL GAS AND HIGH
> EXPENSES
> ENCOUNTERED WITH THE ENGINES, MAYBE VAN SHOULD OEN HIS EYES AND START
> WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE FEW ENGINE MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE STRIVING TO
> REPLACE THE OLD WORK HORSE. RATHER THAN WORK AGAINST . . .
>
> BEST REGARDS,
>
> CHARLES GOLDEN
>
>
For cryin' out loud! Stop SHOUTING SO MUCH!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
| Subject: | Avoiding mistakes - just started |
boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BD0192.31B3EC90"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------ =_NextPart_001_01BD0192.31B3EC90
First get Frank Justice's instructions.
This will seem like the obvious, but take a look at the plans very
closely. There are some detail drawings for example, for the rudder
that are not included on the main rudder drawing. Also, take a look at
Drawing 34 (in the preview plans) and of course don't take any shortcuts
on your jig. My jig was a little off but I shimmed it to produce good
results. If you have not built your jig yet I recommend you consider
using wires and turnbuckles for some of the cross-member support. I
used this very successfully in my jig. This is not shown in the preview
plans.
I started using the edge deburring tool from Cleveland late in my tail
construction and I like it a lot. Something I did not do from the
git-go is to have a spare set of dimple die's around. Mine broke on a
Friday and I was not able to dimple all weekend.
Other than that I would be happy to help you with any other questions
you have. I am just getting ready to close the tail up this weekend. I
just completed my EAA inspection.
Cheers,
Gary Fesenbek
RV-6A tail, quickbuild coming in next week?
-----Original Message-----
From: mikeh(at)ghpd.com [SMTP:mikeh(at)ghpd.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 7:54 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Avoiding mistakes - just started
I have just received my tail kit and was wondering if there are
any
opinions on common mistakes I can avoid, unclear instructions
or
drawings, and etc.
Mike Henney
mikeh(at)geraldhphipps.com
RV-6A, just started
------ =_NextPart_001_01BD0192.31B3EC90
First get Frank Justice's instructions.
This will seem like the obvious, but take a look at the plans very =
closely. There are some detail drawings for example, for the =
rudder that are not included on the main rudder drawing. Also, =
take a look at Drawing 34 (in the preview plans) and of course don't =
take any shortcuts on your jig. My jig was a little off but I =
shimmed it to produce good results. If you have not built your =
jig yet I recommend you consider using wires and turnbuckles for some =
of the cross-member support. I used this very successfully in my =
jig. This is not shown in the preview plans.
I started using the edge deburring tool from Cleveland late in my =
tail construction and I like it a lot. Something I did not do =
from the git-go is to have a spare set of dimple die's around. =
Mine broke on a Friday and I was not able to dimple all weekend.
Other than that I would be happy to help you with any other =
questions you have. I am just getting ready to close the tail up =
this weekend. I just completed my EAA inspection.
Cheers,
Gary Fesenbek
RV-6A tail, quickbuild coming in next week?
-----Original Message-----
From: mikeh(at)ghpd.com [SMTP:mikeh(at)ghpd.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 7:54 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: =
Avoiding mistakes - just started
--> RV-List =
message posted by: mikeh(at)ghpd.com
I have just =
received my tail kit and was wondering if there are any
opinions on =
common mistakes I can avoid, unclear instructions or
drawings, and =
etc.
Mike Henney
mikeh(at)geraldhphipps.com
RV-6A, just =
started
| Visit the Matronics & =
RV-List Web Sites at http://www.matronics.com> =
|
| &n=
bsp; &n=
bsp; &n=
bsp; =
--- &nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; =
|
| To =
"rv-list-request(at)matronics.com" |
| & =
put the word "[un]subscribe" in the *body*. No other =
| &n=
bsp; &n=
bsp; &n=
bsp; =
--- &nb=
sp; &nb=
sp; =
|
| =
posting! |
------ =_NextPart_001_01BD0192.31B3EC90--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
Listers,
The POH that I made available a few days ago appears to be very popular. I
have just added zipped versions of this, with the embedded graphics to my
web page. The following formats are available in *.zip format:
Word 97
Word 95
Word Perfect 5.X for windows
These conversions were done with Word 97. I don't have access to Word 95 or
WP 5.X for windows, so there is no way for me to verify that these versions
work. I did verify that the Word 97 version can be downloaded, unzipped and
opened with Word 97.
They can be download at http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com |
| Subject: | RV bookstore webpage |
The RV-ation Bookstore web page is now up!
Find it at WWW.RVBOOKSTORE.COM
Everything is in stock and ready to ship to you in time for Christmas.
Have a look.
Andy Gold
Winterland Publications
RV-6A N-5060 (flying)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- bad idea??? |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
To Mr. Charles Golden
The rudeness of your reply to Scott McDaniels intelligently thought out
comments is surpassed only by your ability to ignore the facts. To cast
aspersions on Van's honesty in making performance claims is totally
ludicrous. How do you think there got to be over 1700 RV's flying and
over 5000 kits out there? By making exaggerated performance claims?. Not
on your life! They are out there because of happy customers. It's the
best buy in Aviation. It's the sweetest flying airplane I have ever
flown, it does what the man says it will do, and it looks "right". If
the rest of the industry ( including those companies building
certificated airplanes) was as honest, the entire flying community would
be much better off.
I have never met an RV'er who was unhappy with his airplanes performance.
If you can show me one, I would bet that he is not recording cruise
speed at 75% power at 8000'. This is the industry standard and as Van has
pointed out several times in the RVator,not everyone uses this criteria
when hanging performance numbers on their propeller. He( the builder) may
not even realize how to determine 75% power.
Have you built an RV?, flown one?, building one?, I think not.
By the way, this forum is supposed to be about builders helping other
builders with their problems. Your comments are about the most negative I
have ever seen.
Bill Davis
3 RV's N17WD, N19WD, N66WD all of which easily exceeded Van's
performance claims
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Nippondenso combination alternator/vacuum pump |
I spoke to a friend who runs an auto shop. He has experience with diesel
Isuzu Troopers. He says the alternator/vacuum pump lasta about 100,000
miles on the Trooper. Not to shabby. Two of these might be OK for an IFR
setup.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: TANK LEAK CHECKING |
>> ANybody got a guess where red line would be for the leak test??
>Remember that air is much, much less viscous than liquids
> I'm not suggesting water in the fuel tank
> Keith Jensen
> -6A emp kit coming down the chimney in 2 weeks
Thanks Keith & others:
I have 1G tested the RH tank with gasoline. But with my wild flying of
60 degree turns , I will impose 2G's on the fuel. Will it leak if some
one puts 6G's on it?
If I have 120# of fuel devided by 799 (17x47) sq inches of area on the
lower surface @ 1G, Thats .15 psi x 6G's= 0.9 psi.
I think water is a good idea, but how would you impose more than 1G on
the tank.
When you get that kit in>
Be very careful of the thin (.016) skin, even with dimpleing.
Make sure you got the room the hang the tips.
Frank Justise has a way to drive the 2 rivets per elevator so not to have
to use pop rivets
Don Jordan~~RV6A wings~~ Arlington, Tx~~donspawn(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks landing lights |
> The only complaint I have is that the plexi lens
> don't conform very well to the shape of the leading edge. I used the
> strapping tape to pull the lens into the the opening but there were still
> some gaps. Does anyone have an idea on how to improve the fit?
The lenses that came with my Duckworks kite were too thick, and
wouldn't conform to the L.E. shape well.. Duckworks replaced them
with thinner lenses, that worked great.
------------------------------------
Tim Lewis
N47TD (reserved) RV-6AQ #60023
Springfield VA
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
Fellow RVers,
I'm in the process of designing a metal fuselage jig that can be used on
any of the RV series. I'll probably use mild steel but maybe aluminum and
will design the cross pieces so they can be placed where they are needed for
the various designs. It will probably be along the lines of a Frey jig (no
longer in production) and I intend to make it so it is easily taken apart in
the middle so that it can be transported more easily.
I would appreciate any ideas along this line of thought. If anyone has
pictures of the Frey jig, I would appreciate it if they would send me some
copies.
I built my first fuselage on the wood jig in the manual and it worked
fine. But, by the time I got it back from the fourth builder, it was ready
for the fireplace. As most builders are aware, finding straight, dry lumber
is impossible, hence the metal.
We now have several RV-6s being built in the area and it doesn't make
sense for everyone to build a jig. After I'm done with my second six, I may
want to try an 8:)
Thanks,
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert D. Gibbons" <planenuts(at)theonramp.net> |
Bob Skinner wrote : "As most builders are aware, finding straight, dry
lumber is impossible, hence the metal."
Difficult, but not impossible. I was having problems find good wood
as well. I just completed my fuselage jig and I used "manufactured
floor joists" for the 15 1/2 foot side rails. I bought them from a
building contractor here in Tucson. They look like a wooden I-beam with
a plywood web and laminated top and bottom caps. They come in lengths
up to 40 feet and are straight as an arrow and extremely strong.
Something to think about. In six months or so someone please come get
it.
RB Gibbons #80067
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Bishop <wemkbish(at)nponline.net> |
| Subject: | Alum. Plenum RV-6 |
For those interested, Gene Gottschalk has received the pictures I sent
of how I did the aluminum plenum for RV-6, O-360 A4M. I believe it
would work for an O-320 also. I used the baffling kit from Van's and
just trimmed it down so that sides, front and rear were in straight
sections, to make fitting the plenum as easy as possible.
You can see the pics at www.kis.net/eaa524/
If you have questions you'd like to ask off list, e-mail me at
wemkbish(at)nponline.net
Hope this helps.
Warren Bishop
Installing contols, instruments, vacuum system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVHI <RVHI(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage jig |
( partial text deleted)
<< I built my first fuselage on the wood jig in the manual and it worked
fine. But, by the time I got it back from the fourth builder, it was ready
for the fireplace. As most builders are aware, finding straight, dry lumber
is impossible, hence the metal.
>>
I,m using 12" deep wood I beams for my jig.. very straight & strong. These
are
used to replace the 2*10, 2*12 floor joists in new home construction.
L. Adamson -- starting fusalage RV6A (haven't checked tanks for leaks yet)
s.net
Blacksburg VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shipping an airframe |
----------
> From: Paul Besing <rv(at)tppal.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: shipping an airframe
> the finish kit stages. He found a trucking company that would tie it
down
> in it's own truck and ship it here (Arizona) from NY for about $2800.
Seems
> outragous to me...any suggestions? I don't have the time to pick it up!
> Paul Besing
Paul,
Inquire at trucking companies that run between NY & AZ and ask if
any are deadheading back to AZ. They hate to drive empty and you can save a
bundle this way.........Speaking from experience.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Devlin" <jdevlin(at)americus.net> |
Scott,
I downloaded your nopix file and you have easily saved me 12 hours
to compose a basic manual. But your graphics make it a work of art.
Please accept my sincerest thank you for sharing your labor and talent.
Best regards,
John Devlin, RV6A, skinning fuselage, building a V6
----------
> From: Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: POH update
> Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 4:00 PM
>
>
> Listers,
>
> The POH that I made available a few days ago appears to be very popular.
I
> have just added zipped versions of this, with the embedded graphics to my
> web page. The following formats are available in *.zip format:
>
> Word 97
> Word 95
> Word Perfect 5.X for windows
>
> These conversions were done with Word 97. I don't have access to Word 95
or
> WP 5.X for windows, so there is no way for me to verify that these
versions
> work. I did verify that the Word 97 version can be downloaded, unzipped
and
> opened with Word 97.
>
> They can be download at http://villagenet.com/~scottg/poh.html
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Scott Gesele N506RV
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <rver(at)caljet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for Jigs |
>They come in lengths
>up to 40 feet and are straight as an arrow and extremely strong.
>Something to think about. In six months or so someone please come get
>it.
>
>RB Gibbons #80067
>
If it can be used for an rv-6, I will take you up on that offer.
Regards,
Tom Velvick
rver(at)caljet.com
Phoenix, AZ
RV-6a skinning wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oil path in Lycomings |
<3.0.1.32.19971205090833.00bb30f0(at)pop.mindspring.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Sorry bought that. A project I was doing at work today resulted in me
also looking in the Lyc manual and saw that I was wrong. I meant to
send a correction but then saw your reply.
I think what I was thinking of was some of the splitting that happens for
the oil cooler if you also have a spin on filter adapter installed.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Will Cretsinger <cretsinger(at)startext.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage jig |
> I built my first fuselage on the wood jig in the manual and it worked
> fine. But, by the time I got it back from the fourth builder, it was ready
> for the fireplace. As most builders are aware, finding straight, dry lumber
> is impossible, hence the metal.
Straight, dry lumber in the form of 3/4" plywood is always available...I
used three sheets for my jig...it's now with its second owner...after
four owners, it has earned the right to be good firewood. Inexpensive
and easily crafted plywood versus expensive and difficult to fabricate
metal would seem to me to make it economically impossible to market a
metal jig. It helps if you have a good friend with a big table saw and
a cut-off saw to cut the jig pieces to width and length.
If anyone would like my notes for a plywood fuselage jig for -6/6A,
contact me off list and I'll attempt to transmit them.
Will (Not a computer whiz) Cretsinger
Arlington TX
RV-6A Canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Mack" <donmack(at)allways.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage jig |
charset="US-ASCII"
There are pictures of the Frey jig on my home page:
http://www.flash.net/~donmack
Don Mack RV-6A Skinning the fuse
donmack(at)flash.net or donmack(at)allways.net
-----Original Message-----
>
>Fellow RVers,
> I'm in the process of designing a metal fuselage jig that can be used on
>any of the RV series. I'll probably use mild steel but maybe aluminum and
>will design the cross pieces so they can be placed where they are needed
for
>the various designs. It will probably be along the lines of a Frey jig (no
>longer in production) and I intend to make it so it is easily taken apart
in
>the middle so that it can be transported more easily.
> I would appreciate any ideas along this line of thought. If anyone has
>pictures of the Frey jig, I would appreciate it if they would send me some
>copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Winter Oil Temps |
I have a question for those of you that KNOW the inner working of our TRUSTY
old Lycomings.
I am trying to get my oil temperature up above (or to) 180 when it gets below
50 degrees. I have been told to put a plate over my oil cooler. My question
is, isn't there a thermostat (I think that it's called a thermostatic bypass
valve) in the oil system that keeps the oil from flowing to the oil cooler
below a set temperature (180?)? If so, am I correct in assuming that covering
the oil cooler will have nil effect.
When the temperature drops below 30, I can't get the oil above 130 degrees.
It would seem that there is no thermostat.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: Problems downloading POH |
Scott,
I can't get the file to download past 3833 bytes. It just hangs there. I
tried all of the files without success. I would like the Word 97 version.
Thanks.
Jim Cone
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<>
This debate has been entertaining and educational. I'm having second thoughts
now about the
idea of installing a Lycoming IO-360 in a Chevy truck :-)
Tim - Pittsburgh - not installing anything in anything (yet!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | How to do 235 MPH in a 160 HP RV-6. |
85-88,90,92,94-101
Mark:
I already listed how it is done at the end of a post. If you want more
detail here goes again. From level flight at 9,000 feet, start a decent
at 500 - 800 feet per minute. Do not reduce power. Once the aircraft is
trimmed, pull the prop back and push the throttle full forward (if it was
not already). Next thing I know, I had 205 Knots. I was surprised how
a gentle decent would pick up speed. I was talking to a CFI, (he was
flying the plane) and the speed picked up. My "TOPGUN" tape was playing
over the intercom. (There is an AM/FM cassette installed in my-6 wired
into the intercom.) We were both surprised. Maybe my CFI friend Dave
was not since he was flying the airplane. This was not done on purpose.
Since we were going to land, I slowly pushed the prop full forward and
then the throttle slowly full aft. Altitude was ~4,000 MSL when the
slowdown was started. By the time we reached 2,250 , we had slowed to
65 Kts for landing. I had to increase manifold pressure to fly the
pattern. The pattern appears to feel best if once slowed down and the
prop is full forward, increase manifold pressure to get 2,200 RPM and
maintain 65 Kts in my plane. Mike Seagar flys his at 90 mph and the
controls feel the same. His plane is reported to read 10 high. He also
has the fixed pitch metal prop. A friend with an RV-4 (160 C.S.) flies
the pattern at 70 Knots but he also read 10 Knots faster in cruise /
formation than I do. My GPS (Apollo 360) agrees with my True Air Speed.
His Loran agrees with his True Air Speed. I believe my GPS speeds. It
is possible that there are errors. When I find a CHEAP, FAST, EASY way
to test my GPS accuracy, I will do so. When a new analog TAS indicator
from Van, a RMI microEncoder, and a GPS all agree on speed, I tend to
believe them. Both Airspeed instruments were checked during my pitot
static certification and were within 1 knot of each other and the
calibrated ASI.
Level fight at 11,500 feet, RPM 2150, full throttle (20.5 " Hg) will give
160 KTAS and the same GPS speed if there is no winds. Fuel flow reads
5.7-6.0 GPH depending on mixture setting. If you check the last RVAtor,
this compares favorably to Dave Ander's economy performance. I am lower,
slower and during more fuel but close. By the way, my fuel flow is still
being calibrated. At the last correction adjustment, it was saying I
used 8% more fuel than actual. This adjustment was entered after I
quoted the above fuel flows.
The moral of the story is that you do not have to go straight down to
pick up speed. A constant speed prop is also a GREAT brake when the RPM
control (blue knob) is in the full forward position. A constant speed
prop (at least on my plane) feels like it is in feather (or not there)
when the RPM control (blue knob) is in the full aft position and the
engine is making power. The higher you go, the better fuel economy you
will get if there is no HEADWind.
One friend of mine has an RV-3. He has demonstrated 222 mph in level
fight. When he flies with one of our friends that has a Bonanza, they
kept calling him on the radio to see if he could keep up with them. The
Bonanza always takes off first when they fly together. He always take
off several minutes behind them. Once 20 minutes after takeoff, he BLEW
past them rolling and climbing at the same time. This is why I liked one
of the comments about RV being faster than Bonanza's.
I had an RV-4 builder fly chase in his 210 HP Swift on my first flight.
He kept asking me to reduce my climb rate and slow down. The camera man
in his plane is an RV-6AQ builder and said that he had full power in the
whole time. The 2nd chase plane was an RV-4 with 160 fixed pitch wood
prop. His comments about my first take off were: "It must sure be nice
to have a transmission on the front of your engine."
IMHO, nothing I have ever flown flies like an RV. The only thing that I
have ridden in that comes close to a ride in an RV is a Lear 25.
(Unfortunately, I was a passenger in back of the Lear.)
I think my RV is ok. The best thing that I did when I built it was
install the Constant Speed propeller. I do like my RV but I LOVE my NEW
from Van constant speed Hartzell propeller.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
>
>
><< Jerry is correct. I did not believe that I would get the performance
> that Van advertises. I was WRONG. I have been able to verify or
better
> all of the publish numbers that Van uses in his advertisements. He did
> demonstrate a 2,000 FPM rate of climb that I have NOT been able to
> duplicate. I have only made 4 timed climbs and the slowest was at 65
knots. >>
>
>Gary:
>
>Try your climb tests on a v cold day from the lowest airport you can
find-
>you'll be amazed! Even my Champ will climb on such a day (usually I have
to
>look for a thermal). BTW- We're still waiting for you to tell us how you
get
>that 235 MPH top speed....
>
>Inquiring minds want to know! (Was that the sound of a gauntlet being
>thrown down...?) ;-)
>
>Check six!
>Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage jig |
>Straight, dry lumber in the form of 3/4" plywood is always available
>used three sheets for my jig...it's now with its second owner Inexpensive
>and easily crafted plywood versus expensive and difficult to fabricate
>metal would seem to me to make it economically impossible to market a
>metal jig.
Yep, that's what I thought. Since I was such a nice guy, I left my old,
dry & fairly straight wing jig posts with my friend, Capt. Bill, the Glastar
guy, back in Nebraska. I used these 4x4 for my first RV-6. We had the
Glastar wing jig fixtures bolted on and to save Bill one heck of a lot of
time re-jigging, I left everything intact. (By the way, if RV builders
think jigging the wings is a problem, you ought to see how it's done on the
Glastar. It's a real time consuming, pain in the rear as you have to make
four angles with very precise measurements. Van's method is simple,
elegant, accurate and fast.)
Anyway, I did rip and glue and screw, 3/4" plywood for my double wing
jigs. $25.00/sheet plus a lot of time building, and----the plywood is still
shrinking. How do I know? I glued 4 blocks to the floor, butted up to the
plywood 4x4 to capture each upright. After a month or so, the "composite"
uprights had shrunk enough that I had to insert .063" shims to keep them
from wiggling around. I finally broke the 4 blocks away and re-glued and
some "slack" still developed. I was really surprised that the plywood
shrank so much.
As for a metal jig, it's for my own use (and a few friends) so I don't
intend to market. With mild steel, a chop saw and a small welder and you're
in business.
As for the other "exotic" materials that were mentioned for a jig, trust
me, if you live in Buffalo, WY, you can't just go down the street and buy
some of this stuff.
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Setting 75% Power |
Scott brings up a good point and I thought I would revisit the subject without
adding to the V6 stuff (yawn).
The basic rule of thumb for setting 75% power is to set the manifold pressure
and 10% of your rpm so they equal 48.
Example: 8000' D.Alt 22.0 MP + 26.0 RPM = 48.0
Example: 1000' D.Alt 25.0 MP + 23.0 RPM = 48.0
As a rule, every value of 3 change represents a 10% change in power. So a
total of 45 would be 65% power and a total of 51 is 85% power.
The nice thing about a constant speed prop is that you can fine tune these
numbers at any altitute to achieve a better fuel burn (not to mention better
climb performance). With a fixed pitch prop you must settle with what you
have at a given altitude to achieve the magic 48.
Having a Manifold Pressure gauge is very important whether you have a fixed
pitch prop or constant speed.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
Gary S.
I noticed that you mentioned that your RV-6 wasn't climbing to Van's (not
your) expectations. Then I noticed that you mentioned that you have tried to
climb as slow as 65 Knots.
You will obtain the best ANGLE of climb at this speed but you will find that
the best RATE of climb will be about 110 Kts in an RV-6. It seems strange but
sometimes lowering the nose gives a better climb. Try it.
With your engine/prop combo I'm sure that you are getting at least 1800 fpm.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
>7. Carry the whole contraption outside, or if the weather is cold to the
> shower. By the way, the wife loved this one and got a picture of her
> husband showering with his plane for the log book. I hope it wasn't for the
> judge.
Mix some dish washing soap and a little water in a dish, whip it up good
with a paint brush, then "paint" it on every seam, rivet, etc. If you have
any leaks, you will see the bubbles growing. This method may not be as much
fun as the shower, but in my opinion, it is a whole lot easier.
Mark Nielsen
RV-6; flying.
ke this so I formed a small bubble in the cowl to give
adequate clearance. I faired it so that the bubble in the cowl is barely
visible from the outside. I am pleased with how it turned out.
I have two selector boxes, one connected to each heat muff. This gives the
pilot and the passenger individual heat controls. I haven't flown in below
zero weather yet, but with the OAT at 20 deg, and the heat box only 2/3
open, it is still too hot for my toes.
Mark Nielsen
RV-6; flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jpl(at)showpg.mn.org (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Re: 235 mph -6. Wow |
> I recently read where a fellow by the name of Sobek in his 0-320
> powered -6 has a top speed of 235 mph. I want to hear more, or he
> should share his weed with all of us RV flyers. Fly your airplane at
> 8,000 feet in four different directions that being N, S, E, and W.
> Miantain your altitude add them up and divide by 4. This will give you
> your top airspeed. 235 no way.
It's all about drag vs. power, isn't it? Van gets 190 MPH in his -6.
Now, do this:
1. Reengineer the gear legs and wheel pants.
2. Hide the strobes and position lights from the slipstream.
3. Come up with something clever for the cooling air intakes.
4. Tune the exhaust system.
5. Put rounded fairing at all square junctions (like the wing roots).
6. Rework the tailwheel so it's cleaner.
et cetera.
Each of these items is going to make your airplane faster. Some of them
can add as much as 5 or 10 knots, some less than a half knot. But they
all add up, and I bet if I guy spent enough time and money tweaking his
airplane he could see speeds well over 210 MPH, perhaps even as high as
the 235 mentioned above.
Personally, I just want to get the plane in the air, now tweak it forever.
But that's just me.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TANK LEAK CHECKING |
> ----------
> From: donspawn(at)juno.com[SMTP:donspawn(at)juno.com]
>
> >> ANybody got a guess where red line would be for the leak test??
>
> >Remember that air is much, much less viscous than liquids
>
>I have 1G tested the RH tank with gasoline. But with my wild
flying of
>60 degree turns , I will impose 2G's on the fuel. Will it leak
if some
>one puts 6G's on it?
>If I have 120# of fuel devided by 799 (17x47) sq inches of area
on the
>lower surface @ 1G, Thats .15 psi x 6G's= 0.9 psi.
> I think water is a good idea, but how would you impose more than 1G on
> the tank.
>
> Don Jordan~~RV6A wings~~ Arlington, Tx~~donspawn(at)juno.com
>
>
>
>
Don:
I guess it might help to give you some numbers to perhaps give
you a better feel for the magnitude of viscosity differences. (Sorry to
the rest of you on the list who perhaps couldn't care less, but if it
will help one other person besides Don . . .)
For reference (and forgive me if this is already known to you),
water has a viscosity of 1 centipoise. n-Octane (fairly close to avgas)
has a viscosity of 0.706 centipoise, so it is a little less viscous than
water. Normal vegetable oil typically runs somewhere between 150-300
centipoise. On the other end, air at room temperature has a viscosity
of 0.000187 centipoise. [All data from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics, 62nd Ed. 1981, pp F-47 & F-49]
In real terms, I suspect that 0.5psig (about 14 inches water
column) really is adequate for an air test. A solid stream of bubbles
would indicate a leak that I would pay attention to. A bubble every
minute or so - I'd really wonder how significant it is. No bubbles at
all? Well, you be the judge (you will be and should be anyway, with no
consideration to my opinion - that's proper).
Good luck with what sounds like a real showplane!
Keith Jensen
-6a emp via St.Nick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation- |
bad ide
<< Charles is building a 6a per his previous posts and has bought a FWF kit
from Belted Air Power and is in the process of mounting it.
"Charles Golden
"6A N609CG
"mounting Chevy V-6 >>
So, why did he have such a burr in his shorts? Did somebody run over his dog?
Hormone replacement therapy? What?
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anthony Self" <CHEVY_TRUCK(at)classic.msn.com> |
>Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break and e-mail each other
so the rest of us can get on >with other more pertinent rv info. Besides you
clutter up the list with all this feed back. We got the
>message a long time ago. If you want a chevy then put one in I could care
less.But lets move on.
To the author of this statement:
First, I would like to apologize to everyone else for not responding to this
guy off-list, but I just changed E-mail providers and I lost the original
post. This is meant only for the person who posted the original.
Would you please define "pertinent rv. info"? It's only "pertinent" if it's
something that YOU are interested in, right? I guess I just happen to be one
of the those "Chevy guy's" so maybe I'm not too smart. Funny, but I kind of
thought engines were adequate to meet the "pertinent" criteria, especially in
an "experimental" aircraft. So here are some more suggestions to limit the
"clutter", to use your words. Would all people painting their planes Red
please E-mail each other. Would all the people flying 4's please E-mail each
other. Would all less experienced pilots please mail each other. Would all
experienced pilots please mail each other.....so on and so on. Would all the
closed minded people please E-mail each other! We all have things on the list
that we individually do not find interesting. For example, sometimes I start
thinking about unsubscribing when someone starts a primer debate. Me
personally, I'm sick of hearing about primer, BUT, there are obviously people
who need help or info. on the subject or it wouldn't come up. To those people,
I say keep on bringing it up if you need to know, I just probably won't read
the post. I'm not interested in the RV8 stuff either, but obviously someone
is, so let them openly discuss it. Judging by the number of posts in the past
few days about Chevy installations, I think it's a very popular idea! People
like you criticize us for wanting an alternative to the Lycoming expense. Why?
We are not all rich, we all can't afford to spend twice as much for the engine
as we did for the airframe. I only make $25000 per year. I've been saving for
this plane for about 5 years. I'm single and I CAN afford the plane WITH the
alternative engine. I CAN'T afford to spend a year's salary on just the
engine. Now, do you want to rag on me for not making enough money too? Am I
financially qualified to have an opinion? If everyone had an extra 25 grand
that they could just toss out for a Lycoming, maybe there wouldn't be an
interest in alternate engines. But, you know what, a bunch of us don't. If
money was no object, most of us wouldn't build a plane, we'd just go out and
buy a brand new Lear jet or pay someone else to build it. Know what else? We
are still going to list about alternate engines. We still think all knowledge
is valuable and should be posted. If I ever get to the point of installing the
Chevy V-6 and make it fly, I think I'll paint CHEVROLET in huge letters on the
side of my 6A. I am having to restrain myself and my language in response to
you, but if you want me to really speak my mind (Rated R) here's my E-mail
address: CHEVY_TRUCK(at)MSN.COM (I am a Chevy fanatic, BTW). Remember, you do
have a DEL key on your keyboard and no-one wants you involved in the Chevy
posts anyway if you only have negative closed minded statements, so just don't
read them. Simple enough?
Anthony K. Self
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
>
>The 4.3 L (262 CID) V-6 is available (and has been for about 8-10 years) in
>the full size trucks, the earlier design Monte Carlos, Caprices, Astro Vans,
>and lately in the S-10 and Blazer. The Vortec designation refers to the
>version with the balance shaft and that only started about 3-4 yrs. ago, if my
>memory serves me correctly. There is a book available from Chevy that lists
>all engines available as "crate engines" and it describes the different
>versions and tells what they came in. The only real diffeerence between the
>diferent versions is pretty much cosmetic, i.e. oil pan shape etc. for
>clearance on a given body style. Also the earlier ones (I think 1988 and
>earlier) did not have roller lifters so you definitely want to make sure that
>the one you buy has those. Also this engine design had some earlier 229 CID
>versions in the Malibus etc. so make sure the one you buy has the 4" bore.
>
>Regards,
>Merle Miller
>"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
>Lord Kelvin c.late 1800's
>
Merle,
You are correct in all you have said, but let me add a tid-bit if I may.
The Vortec also refers to an updated intake/fuel delivery system. The
non-Vortec engine (VIN code Z) is set up with a throttle body injection
system. The Vortec (VIN code W) has what's called a Central Port Injection
system. This CPI, as it is called, uses a single, centrally mounted
electronic injector with six nylon hoses extending from it, one to each
individual intake port. The nylon hoses have a poppet type nozzle at the
end to atomize the fuel and shut off flow when pressure falls below a
predetermined level. Yes, all six nozzles spray at the same time. This CPI
sits inside a completely different intake manifold/plenum assembly. GM
designers were able to engineer, within a very tight space, six equal
length and surprisingly long intake runners inside this intake plenum (If
you get a chance, look at the design inside these things, they're really
cool). These long, equal length runners are just what the doctor ordered
for strong mid-range punch (compare these to the very short runners inside
the Vette, Camaro and Impala SS LT1 350's, which are tuned for higher RPM's).
This system has proven quite good after some early revisions. The early
ones used a teflon ball and seat in the poppet valves on the hoses. These
balls had a tendency to lodge themselves in the seats as they were
relatively soft. This lead to a difficult if not impossible cold starting
situation. The balls needed an excessive amount of force (pressure) to
unseat them. The later ones were updated with stainless steel balls and
seats. Problem solved. The only other gremlins we're seeing are fuel pump
failures at an alarming rate. The fuel pump is mounted in the tank and
wouldn't be a concern for an aircraft application as another type of pump
could and IMHO, should be used.
One other footnote is that the later non-Vortec engines (95 and up, I
believe) also use a balance shaft, though the early non-Vortecs did not as
you have correctly stated.
As of yet, the only way we are getting "crate" engines as service
replacements for the 4.3's is as a remanufactured bare long block. No
complete engines are available like the V8's are. Something to consider.
You may have to order a "hot rod" version out of the GM Performance catalog.
I could be all washed up on this, but this is the only way we can get them
in the shop. For you deep pocketed, light weight enthusiasts out there, GM
does sell their Bow Tie aluminum block (bare except main caps). This is a
four bolt main configuration (angled outer bolts) with billet steel main
caps. The production engines have two bolt mains. This block accepts all
other engine components the same as the stock block. No modifications
necessary. GM part # is 10134371, I do not know the price on this unit.
BTW, the eighth digit of the VIN code is the engine code. Z is non-Vortec,
W is the Vortec.
Enough rambling. If anyone has any other questions, feel free to e-mail me.
Jon Elford
GM CCT/ASE Master Technician-Full Time
RV Builder-Part Time.....Unfortunately
Completed horiz stab/RV 6A #25201
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Drag racing is as different from flying, as taking a bath is, to driving to
work. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. Automotive engines were designed
for automobiles, trucks, and vans, and aircraft engines were designed for
aircraft. Wake up.
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
> Automotive engines were designed for automobiles, trucks, and vans,
> and aircraft engines were designed for aircraft. Wake up.
And these are mutually exclusive design goals?
I think many on the pro side are not convinced of this.
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Martin <fairlea(at)execulink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
>
>When the temperature drops below 30, I can't get the oil above 130 degrees.
>It would seem that there is no thermostat.
>
>Gary Corde
>RV-6 N211GC - NJ
>
On my RV4 360 I could not get oil temps up in the winter until I installed a
door on the air intake for the cooler. I started with a plate with a one
inch hole in it and then made a sliding door to cover it worked with a small
cable. In really cold weather under 0C (canadian for 32F) even if the cable
broke and left the cable in the closed position, reduced power would keep
the engine from getting too hot
Tom Martin
HR2 wings on!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave and/or Diane Irwin" <dirwin(at)IBM.Net> |
| Subject: | RV-4 jigs for sale |
A friend of mine has the following RV-4 jigs for sale:
1. Wing jig - made of steel. Will sell for $200.
2. Fuselage jig - made of wood. $20
Call him direct if you are interested. His name is Jack Bycraft and his
phone number is 519 666-1407. He lives near London, Ontario, Canada which
is roughly halfway between Detroit and Toronto.
Dave Irwin
RV-6A/22607/C-GCRV
fitting the vertical stabilizer...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Zeidman, Richard B" <Richard.Zeidman(at)PHL.Boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Avoiding mistakes - just started |
Mike
I made 2 mistakes in my tail kit that required replacing parts, both of
which were my own fault.
1. I damaged the HS410 when hacksawing the flange.
2. On the HS leading edge center rib, I did not have my centerline
clearly marked and drilled into the web radius. Oops! I then slowed
down.
> ----------Hope this helps
Rich Zeidman RV6A
Finishing up elevators-wing kit on order
> I have just received my tail kit and was wondering if there are any
> opinions on common mistakes I can avoid, unclear instructions or
> drawings, and etc.
>
>
> Mike Henney
> mikeh(at)geraldhphipps.com
> RV-6A, just started
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | Just getting ready to start |
Hello all,
I have decided to build an RV. But I'm having a problem...which one to
build?!! Actually it is down to either a -4 or -8. I was wondering if
there are any -4 builders out there who have just started or are about
to start? Any -4 builders out there that wished they had built a -8
instead? I know the -8 has some nice new features but just look at the
-4!
Anyway, I would appreciate some feedback.
PS. Anyone want to buy or know someone who wants to buy an Aeronca
Champ? I have to sell my Champ before I can buy the kit! See
http://www.jps.net/svanarts for pictures/details.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
| From: | whays(at)juno.com (Wes Hays) |
>I am trying to get my oil temperature up above (or to) 180 when it
>gets below
>50 degrees.
Gary,
How did you install your oil cooler, (location etc.) There have been
several listers who have had problems with too much temp, and I was
wondering if your installation might be contributing to the cooler temps.
If so, I want to know, because I think it easier to install a plate,
sliding cover, etc to increase the temps rather than try to cool it down
if it is too high. I live in West Texas and I think I may need all the
cooling I can get.
Thanks,
Wes Hays
RV6-A (Fuse in Jig)
N844WB (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | Top 10 Reasons not to build an RV (humor) |
After annoucing to the local hangar bums that I had made up my mind to
build an RV-4 I was treated to a whole ration of sh*t as to why I was
making the biggest mistake of my life.
Feeling down and dejected I happened to talk to one of the field's
"outcasts." (The hangar bums think he flys funny but he's a copilot on
DC-9's for American Airlines). He congratulated me on my decision to
build and on my choice of aircraft. We talked for a while and then he
went off to fly. I puttered around the field for a while and when I
returned to my hangar I found a note on the seat of my Champ. It really
brightened my day after talking to all the gloom and doomers. Here it
is:
Top 10 Reasons *NOT* to get an RV:
1. It'll never work.
2. *You* can't build an airplane!
3. It'll never work.
4. "I dunno!"
5. It'll never work.
6. RV's don't really exist - just a website.
7. It'll never work.
8. Naysayers are *always* right.
9. It'll never work.
10. Foget #10...Dang! I'm off to buy one!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvator97 <Rvator97(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: rv-list: RV-6A Pilot Operating Handbook |
I tried and also got the same negative response.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timbo" <htim(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | Re: F>I. alternate air |
Some production aircraft use a small magnet to hold the alt. air door
closed and it pops open when there is a blockage. Some open to the out side
air, and some to the engine compartment. Timbo
----------
> I put a door (hinged upwards) in the bottom of the FAB right inside the
filter. I then secured it
> closed with a spring. My idea was that if the filter became completely
blocked, vacuum would suck
> the door open enough for me to get home.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Muff-Cowl interference |
> cowl. I didn't like this so I formed a small bubble in the cowl to give
> adequate clearance. I faired it so that the bubble in the cowl is barely
> visible from the outside. I am pleased with how it turned out.
Mark,
Can you elaborate on how you put a "bubble" in the cowl. I am mounting an
H2AD engine, and need to make a small bubble for fuel pump clearance (about
1/2" high).
Thanks,
Rob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
> These conversions were done with Word 97. I don't have access to Word 95
or
> WP 5.X for windows, so there is no way for me to verify that these
versions
> work. I did verify that the Word 97 version can be downloaded, unzipped
and
> opened with Word 97.
> Hope this helps.
> Scott Gesele N506RV
Just FYI...when you tell Word 97 to save a file in '95 format, it *does
not* save it as a Word '95 file. Instead, it is saved as a *.rtf (rich
text format) file. I suspect this was a Mickeysoft ploy to get people to
upgrade, as the "converted" files become VERY large (as you noticed) and
you lose some important formatting capabilities.
So to those using Scott's '97 files, open them normally, then select "save
as" and save the file in '95 native format, before personalizing the poh.
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sport AV8R <SportAV8R(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
Bob Steward wrote:
> On certified birds its on the order of a few inches of water column. About
> 0.5 psi MAX. Let me restate that... 1/2 psi. Figure the entire surface
> area of the wing tank and multiply that times the 0.5 psi and you'll
> certainly think twice about using "pressure" to test your nice smooth
> aluminum tanks.
Lots of helpful (and mostly consenting) replies, but no one has run the math
yet, so I'll take a stab at it:
If, as my scuba-diving buddies tell me, water pressure increases one
atmosphere per 32 feet of depth, and if I recall correctly that standard
atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 p.s.i., it seems we have a situation
where 30 feet of water column gives about 15 lbs of pressure in nice round
numbers. Now follow me closely here because it gets complicated: 15 psi
divided by 30 ft gives 0.5 psi per foot of water column.
That's it. Persons building plastic airplanes or planning to install I*oprops
on their RV's may wish to re-read the above to be sure they followed it. Now
for the conclusion:
My (arbitrary and capricious) use of 2-1/2 feet of water column means I was
subjecting the tanks to (2.5x0.5=) 1.25 psi. There was a slight bulging of
the tank skins between the seams at this pressure level. Nothing ruptured;
the fuel cap didn't pop out (that was a surprise; there's something less than
solid about the way those Usher caps want to rotate in the hole unless you
tighten them so much that it takes a tool to close and open them) and
everything returned to normal when the pressure was released (no permanent
deformation.) IMO a very satisfactory test beyond the anticipated loads
imposed by fuel in an accelerated flight regime. I'm confident of my tanks
now, and not sorry I loaded them to this pressure level for testing.
Bill Boyd RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
You did good, Scott. You did good. None of the proponents of the Vortect V6
may have heard you, but you did good.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No 4239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
I posted this as alternative engines because so many are apparently tired
of hearing about the Chevy V-6. I will try and keep this short though as I
am long winded when speaking of something I am absorbed with.
My post was scolded because of several reasons. Let me reply to a few.
I wrote in all caps. Heck, I'm just happy I could figure out how to get on
this list. I certainly never heard the word "netiquette". I have been
informed now, though. It took me a long time to understand the smiley face
:-). So I do apologize for appearing to be yelling. This must effect a
lot of people since some responses included abusive language, something I
would hope I did not instill in a person and something I probably consider
bad "netiquette" also.
The remainder of my comments seem to be taken out of context, maybe cause
of the caps and secondly, because I am poor at writing. My comments were
not to abuse Van, accuse him of misrepresenting facts, or otherwise. I
don't believe anyone doubts the potential of this aircraft. It simply
means that most will never achieve these standards, including myself, with
any engine. The reason is exactly what you have stated. You cannot load
everything including the kitchen sink onto the airplane and expect it to
match prototype or production performance. Few of the builders I know can
come close to matching Van's aircraft weight. We simply want more and more
and so on. The same applies to the engine manufacturers. They cannot test
any engine and assume we will build it to their test parameters.
Therefore, I take their performance figures lightly and assume they are
speaking of a perfect situation that they may have tested under, including
the aircraft, temperature, weight, and even holding their tongue right.
Trying to judge speed in any aircraft correctly is a true scientific
effort. I wouldn't even begin to try and post exact speeds. If you
remember, when I posted the speeds of the last RV to start up with the
Vortec engine, I mentioned that these were not actual speeds but only
gained during an east to west run followed by the opposite, based on GPS GS
and were not made to try and get speed numbers. The speed was only
monitored for fun and information.
Another area was concerning Vans Aircraft aiding in the alternative power
area. I continue to believe that Lycomings will be gone in the years to
come if not redesigned. My information about 100LL being a lost cause is
obvious when we look at things objectively. How long will the government
being driven by outside causes continue to turn their heads and leave us
alone. Why is the government giving money to engine manufacturers to
develop alternative power plants. I do not assume that Lycomings will be
gone overnight, but I am looking for my children to be able to enjoy flight
in the future. Van's aircraft has the resources to get in bed with one of
the alternative power suppliers and say, "lets get busy". Vans could
install an alternative on one of their existing aircraft or a new one and
test it to 1000 hours in a short time rather than wait for builders
fumbling around, like myself. Van's would not be learning a new aircraft,
only working to improve a new powerplant. Testing and analyzing is
critical to new development, and we cannot assume that any information
provided by myself or other homebuilders will be factual instead of what we
believe. We simply do not have the resources to provide T&A for the
industry. Therefore, I believe helping to devise new, safe, reliable
methods of power will assure the future of any airframe manufacturer. I
believe the aircraft manufacturers in past history have been extremely
involved with powerplant manufacturers to develop the powerplant that they
required.
And finally, yes I am building an RV. Hopefully, it will be one of the
finest. At least to me it will be. I am very proud of it and selected it
because I believe in Van and his design. I am only frustrated when, rather
than look for better methods, negative statements are constantly dished
out. If something is not right, look for a better way, don't just sit back
and wait for someone else to solve your problems. I believe in the old
statement that, "If your not the lead dog, the view never changes". I
cannot accept the view or smell from behind.
And one last statement (I told you this would be short) is concerning the
list. I constantly watch for posts concerning better ways of doing things.
The most recent is this alternator/vacuum pump combination. This might be
my answer to a problem that has been driving me crazy. But I seldom post
anything because I'm to thin skinned to accept all the verbal abuse dished
out. So I fade into the background waiting on just the right question and
answer to come along. I believe many others do also. So I hope my
comments do not seem to abuse anyone else or be taken out of context. They
certainly are not meant to (I almost capitalized that). This then will be
my last post concerning this long discussion about alternative engines.
Charles Golden
SN24765
RV-6A
bolting on engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
<< have a DEL key on your keyboard and no-one wants you involved in the Chevy
posts anyway if you only have negative closed minded statements, so just
don't
read them. Simple enough? >>
As I said before I didn't want to get a "holy war" started, only talk to some
like minded individuals. You said exactly what I was thinking and said it well
Regards, Merle Miller
Installin' V-6 as we speak
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timbo" <htim(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | Re: master switch |
I saw some switches like you describe in the Wag-Aero catalog yesterday.
Timbo
----------
> From: Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Cc: craig-rv4(at)worldnet.att.net
> Subject: RV-List: master switch
> Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 11:31 PM
>
>
> I'm looking for a master switch I saw in a rv-4 at Sun-N-Fun.
> It was a toggle switch that you had to pull out and over a detent
> to move the toggle up or down, it was also larger than a standard Potter
> brumfield switch. I have talked to Pacific Coast Avionics and Chief
> Aircraft, both have no such thing. I also saw a switch like this in
> a Glassair, it was used for the gear up-down switch.
> If anyone knows where I can find a switch like this please let me
> know.
>
> Thanks
> Craig Hiers
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
<< For you deep pocketed, light weight enthusiasts out there, GM
does sell their Bow Tie aluminum block (bare except main caps). This is a
four bolt main configuration (angled outer bolts) with billet steel main
caps. The production engines have two bolt mains. This block accepts all
other engine components the same as the stock block. No modifications
necessary. GM part # is 10134371, I do not know the price on this unit. >>
A LOT approximately $4,000
And BTW thanks for the information on the Vortec. It is with this information
exchange in mind that I posted my original missive, not to get a "holy war"
started as to whether or not this (V-6 conversion) should be attempted.
Thanks for the input
Regards,
Merle (I KNOW what I want to put in MY airplane for motive power) Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
Gary,
The valve you are refering to is the vernatherm. They seem to work less than
perfect, because if you cover the air inlet to your to your cooler you will be
able to bring up your oil temp somewhat. I have considered taking my cooler
completely out of the system in the winter time, however the weather changes
so rapidly around here it wouldnt be practical. If I ever come up with some
spare time I may try this and find out how much this brings up the temperature
on a cool day.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
In a message dated 12/5/97 11:42:01 PM, you wrote:
>I am trying to get my oil temperature up above (or to) 180 when it gets below
>50 degrees.
Me too. All the RV flyers in the Denver area have a totally different story
on their oil temp situation! Some too hot some too cool. Even folks with the
same cooler, same installation, etc. have differing temps. Mine sound just
like yours.
The vernatherm is a puzzle to me also. The only thing I have discovered in my
100 hours of testing is that it takes 25 to thirty minutes of hard operation
for the oil temp to stabilize at its highest reading. Obviously even longer
on a cold day! I assume the vernatherm doesn't even open until at least that
length of time.
The only way I can get my temp over 150F on a below freezing day, even with
the cooler inlet blocked 80%, is to fly at slow (100MPH) speeds for at least
five minutes. Obviously this is only happening in the pattern when I am
dodging lesser airplanes.
I have a 6A with a new180HP. Horsepower and model airplane are only two
factors. Some others are: airspeed, horsepower being generated, air inlet
size for cylinders, (and for oil cooler), cowl outlet size (6A is smaller than
6, 4 is different from either), amount of oil in system, size of oil cooler
lines (are they insulated?). By the way are all vernatherms the same? If
they are different ,like thermostats, or deteriorate with age, this could
explain a lot. The list goes on and on.
My advisor, the leading RV guru in the western world, told me to install an
adjustable door on the rear face of my oil cooler in the first place but I
haven't yet. This may be the only way. He's been right on everything else.
D Walsh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)netins.net> |
>You will obtain the best ANGLE of climb at this speed but you will find
that
>the best RATE of climb will be about 110 Kts in an RV-6. It seems strange
but
>sometimes lowering the nose gives a better climb. Try it.
Best rate of climb will ALWAYS be a lower pitch and higher airspeed than
best angle of climb, until the become the same speed and then you are not
climbing. Then you are at absolute ceiling. (What is the highest anyone
has been a RV?)
Tailwinds, -4 N240
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)petroblend.com
www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sport AV8R <SportAV8R(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat Muff-Cowl interference |
> I formed a small bubble in the cowl to give
> adequate clearance. I faired it so that the bubble in the cowl is barely
> visible from the outside. I am pleased with how it turned out.
I did exactly the same thing. Almost invisible from the ground.
Unfortunately, I'm still looking at months before I'm near ready to give a
flight report on how it all works!
Bill RV-6A
ed readouts. There are no "analog"
chunks of hardware in the loop which might be subject to
drift/calibration concerns. When a reading in a purely
digital system is "jumpy" there's reason to suspect
a signal quality problem that's making a solid lock-on
difficult. Once you get relatively steady readings
(+/- a knot or so) then the numbers are quite believable.
A solidly locked GPS (or LORAN) recevier is to an IAS
indicator as a digital caliper is to a yardstick.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Shepardson <MJShep(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
> Drag racing is as different from flying.......apples to oranges. Automotive engines
were designed for automobiles... and aircraft engines were designed for
aircraft. Wake
up.
> Interesting thought comes to mind: What came first, powered flight or the aircraft
engine? And if there were no proven aircraft engines in 1903, then where did the
technology for the Wright Brother's engine come from? Boy, it's a good thing that
those
Wright Brothers didn't mix up their apples and oranges!!! Just think where we
would be
today. I guess it's also a good thing that Charles Lindbergh listened to everyone
who
said flying across the Atlantic was impossible. Anyone taken a ride across the
pond
recently?
And who ever would have thought:
That Rock-Ola, the juke box maker, was building .30 cal. M1 Carbines during WWII.
That Goodyear was building Corsairs--or that their best marketing device ever would
be a
blimp
Or how about the fact that several thousand B-24 Liberators were produced in Ypsilanti,
MI at the Willow Run Airport---oh, that's right, the factory was a FORD factory.
I personally like the information in my B-52G technical order concerning the J-57-P-43WB
Turbo Wasp engines "the letter F will be found on many engines, indicating the
FORD
Motor Co as the manufacturer." Those same engines powered me safely through 25
missions
in the Persian Gulf.
I'm sure that all these wonderful things had to go through some R & D somewhere!
I've
always liked the Lycoming engine--excellent product--and I will probably use one
when I
get to that point project--unless something better has come along by then. I do
know
that if it comes down to supporting either an idealist or pessimest, I'll wager
on the
idealist every time. May not use the technology, but I'll support someone's desire
to
try it.
I also like the other gentleman's idea about the Williams Turbojet powered RV-21.
But
then again, I've always loved the sound of the P-38's Allison engine--hmmmm, wonder
if
an RV-6A could be adapted......
Life's too short not to chase your dreams
Happy building, safe flying and Happy Holidays
Matt Shepardson
RV-6A preview plans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | chevy by the test pilot |
The following is posted with permission from the author.
it is a post that appeared in the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup
Just food for thought.
Jerry Springer
----begin forward-----
Subject: Re: OMABP??
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 04:07:56 GMT
From: billphil*nospam*@ix.netcom.com (Badwater Bill)
On 5 Dec 1997 19:23:16 GMT, higgins(at)spk.hp.com (Tom M. Higgins) wrote:
>I really used to enjoy reading about the OMABP RV6 with the Vortec engine.
>What's going on with it? Last thing I remember was BWB disassociating
>himself from the project in what sounded like legalese, and then he
>went out and bought his own. What gives?
>
>I'd like to put one of these in a Glastar! I was just looking at the
>latest Glastar catalog, with Lycoming engine options from 18K to 22K,
>and choking. Any news from OMABP??
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tom Higgins
>
*Bill Phillips reply who flew 100hrs test on the chevy RV-6*
I sent you a message by email too Tom, but here's what's happening.
I'm out of the project and on to another one with an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp engine. I should be test flying it within a couple
months. I was associated with the OMABP for fun only. I didn't ever
have any interest in promoting auto conversions or selling this idea
for Jess Meyers. I flew it for the first 100 hours and we had a lot
of problems I never exposed. I just sort of wrote a lot of fun things
about the positive portions of the test flying. It got to the point
where I wanted many things changed and I had asked many questions that
were not answered to my satisfaction. The Old Men had no intentions
of changing anything the test pilot wanted. So, in my own mind I felt
that the risk to fly it was excessive and my feelings were clear to
Jess Meyers. When the airplane changed ownership from Glen Smith to
Jess Meyers, I stepped out of the cockpit for good.
If you want my personal feelings about the design this is it. I think
the engine is great. I think GM builds nearly a million of them each
year and if there were any real problems, they would have fixed them
long ago. The engine is not MY problem. It's the rest of it. I
don't trust the PSRU and I don't trust some of the other external
components. I'm worried about the bearings, I'm worried about the
flywheel, I'm worried about the prop, I'm worried about the coolant
system and I'm worried about the electrical wiring since it burned up
once. There were many things I wanted done before I would fly it
anymore and those things simply were not done. I made a big list and
many of those items were ignored. I felt that my life was worth more
than the thrill I got from test flying it and I made it known that I
had serious questions about the safety of the flight-test program.
When Jess bought the airplane, there were no words spoken, that was
just the end. Jess had no intention of modifying anything I wanted
modified and I had no intention of ever flying it unless these things
were done.
I'm not categorically saying that the airplane is dangerous although I
personally feel that it is. In fact I feel that it is terribly
dangerous. What I am saying is that I have questions that have not
been answered concerning the loads and design limitations of various
things which I felt were critical. This thing needs a mechanical
engineer, a structural engineer, a CAD-CAM guy and an aeronautical
engineer to put it on a dyno, measure it, model it, figure out where
the harmonics are, the reverse torsional vibrations are (RPM) and so
on. The OMABP is a garage operation. In my opinion, to do it right
you'd need about 20 million dollars to run a few to destruction and
take millions of data points. This and only this can prove the design
to be safe over a long haul.
If I were spending 3 years of my life to build an RV I would buy the
Lycoming from Van for $18K instead of the Vortec from Jess at $11K or
whatever they quote now. The other hardware for that airplane is
going to cost you $25 to $30K plus three years of your life. I
wouldn't scrimp on the engine to save $6 to $8K. No way.
I've watched this newsgroup for over 2 years now and many have come
and gone touting auto conversions. I think Bruce Frank and the boys
have something worth really looking at. But the OMABP project was
just a bunch of fun loving guys having fun tinkering with a toy that
someone else was paying for. People bitch about the Lycosaurs being
old technology. Well, so is the wheel and I use the wheel everyday.
It isn't that the engines are old, it's that the technology is old.
What improvements have there really been in GA in the last 40 years?
NONE. The problem was solved when they built the Bonanza in the late
forties for the average Joe-Shmo to have his own airplane. That
doesn't mean Bonanzas are no good, just because the technology is old.
There's lots of technology that's old which we use everyday. When the
problem is solved, it's solved, the physics doesn't change like the
style of a car each year.
Anyway. I'm a crazy bastard and I like to do some flight test at
times just to tingle my spine, but I opt for a Lycoming in an RV for
many reasons and safety is the foremost. I could go on all day about
what is wrong with Lycomings. But, I could go on all day long about
what I worry about with that Vortec too. At least the Lycoming has a
few million hours on it and the failure modes are pretty well
understood. I don't understand where that Vortec may fail next at
all.
I hope this clears it up a bit for many of you who followed my posts.
In a couple months I'll be back in the cockpit of an RV-6 with an
O-320 160 hp on it doing some more testing. I'll write it up and post
it here and I hope you all will enjoy it.
BWB
----end forward-----
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
>My advisor, the leading RV guru in the western world, told me to install an
>adjustable door on the rear face of my oil cooler in the first place but I
>haven't yet. This may be the only way. He's been right on everything else.
>
>D Walsh
I put a cockpit controlable door over my oil cooler which is mounted on
the left, front horizontal baffle. Below 32 degrees F., I have this door
completely closed and have a hard time getting my oil temp over around 160
degrees.
I put "air dams" in front of cylinders #1 & 2 to raise cylinder head temps
in cool weather but this didn't help the low oil temp problem. My next
solution was to block about 1/3 of the inlet on both sides with duct tape.
This helped raise my oil temps and cylinder head temps. I had to climb out
at a shallower angle to avoid exceeding max. cylinder head temps but at
cruise the temps were in line and oil temps were a little higher.
I've thought about different ways to close up the inlets a bit for cold
weather operations that would be cosmetically superior to the duct tape but
haven't gotten very far with that project. Below 9 degrees F. the cockpi
gets a little cool. I have twin, Robbins muffs connected in series on
Larry's S.S. crossover system. Engine is a 150 hp.
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pagan <pagan(at)cboss.com> |
>
>>Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break and e-mail each other
>
I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding mistakes - just started |
<< I have just received my tail kit and was wondering if there are any
opinions on common mistakes I can avoid, unclear instructions or
drawings, and etc.
>>
Mike,
Go ahead and make the mistakes just like the rest of us did. It is called a
learning experience. Vans replacement parts are pretty cheap. But it is even
a little cheaper if you practice on non-flight parts first. Bang some rivets
etc. on scrap sheet. Also have your EAA tech Counselor check your work and
give you some hepful hints.
Gene Francis cafgef(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING (3 psi) |
Bob/Bill:
I know what AC 43.13-1A says about pressure testing fuel tanks. (0.5 psi)
There is also information in one of the AC65 series books (AC65-9A,
AC65-12A, AC65-15A) that shows how to calculate a conversion to the
weight of AvGas instead of water. (ie: The weight of 10 inches of AvGas
vs 10 inches of water. In other words 10 inches of fuel in a tank has a
pressure of X inches of water.) Without doing any calculations, I
pressured my tanks until a bulge just could just be seen. The pressure
gauge that I was using is a low pressure gauge and read 3 PSI. (THREE
pounds per square inch.) No leaks were found using an industrial leak
checking solution. (sold under the brand name of SNOOP) My tanks hold
fuel perfectly well and the aircraft flies fine. After the fact, I
calculated what 3 psi would be in the way of G load had AvGas been in the
tanks. 3 psi if my memory serves me correctly, would be the equivalent
to the pressure on bottom of the tank in a 9.8 G turn. Keep in mind that
all aircraft are designed with a safety factors. The RV-6 is rated at
+/- 6 G and design I believe is 9 G. In other words, I pressure tested
my tanks to the design limit. (Actually beyond. The calibration of the
15 PSI gauge was not current.)
I have also repaired the fuel tanks on an RV-4 and pressure tested them
to 3 psi also. I sent pictures to Van's 4 years ago of the tank and
gauge. The same gauge has been lent out to other RV builders to check
their tanks. Most have pressurized to 1.25 1.5 psi.
I DO NOT recommend using 3 psi unless you know what you are doing. I am
just trying to let everyone know that 3 psi did not damage or destroy my
tanks in any way. It also did not damage the RV-4 tanks I repaired back
in 1994.
BTW, I am not a know it all. I do make mistakes. Please try to learn
from my mistakes and not make the same ones.
Gary A. Sobek
N157GS RV-6 O-320 Hartzell
>
>Bob Steward wrote:
>
>> On certified birds its on the order of a few inches of water column.
> About
>> 0.5 psi MAX. Let me restate that... 1/2 psi. Figure the entire
>surface
>> area of the wing tank and multiply that times the 0.5 psi and
>you'll
>> certainly think twice about using "pressure" to test your nice
>smooth
>> aluminum tanks.
>
>Lots of helpful (and mostly consenting) replies, but no one has run
>the math
>yet, so I'll take a stab at it:
>
>If, as my scuba-diving buddies tell me, water pressure increases one
>atmosphere per 32 feet of depth, and if I recall correctly that
>standard
>atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 p.s.i., it seems we have a
>situation
>where 30 feet of water column gives about 15 lbs of pressure in nice
>round
>numbers. Now follow me closely here because it gets complicated: 15
>psi
>divided by 30 ft gives 0.5 psi per foot of water column.
>
>That's it. Persons building plastic airplanes or planning to install
>I*oprops
>on their RV's may wish to re-read the above to be sure they followed
>it. Now
>for the conclusion:
>
>My (arbitrary and capricious) use of 2-1/2 feet of water column means
>I was
>subjecting the tanks to (2.5x0.5=) 1.25 psi. There was a slight
>bulging of
>the tank skins between the seams at this pressure level. Nothing
>ruptured;
>the fuel cap didn't pop out (that was a surprise; there's something
>less than
>solid about the way those Usher caps want to rotate in the hole unless
>you
>tighten them so much that it takes a tool to close and open them) and
>everything returned to normal when the pressure was released (no
>permanent
>deformation.) IMO a very satisfactory test beyond the anticipated
>loads
>imposed by fuel in an accelerated flight regime. I'm confident of my
>tanks
>now, and not sorry I loaded them to this pressure level for testing.
>
>Bill Boyd RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
I have a Mac servo electric elevator trim kit new in box for $125 if anyone
wants to buy themselves a Christmas present. Reg price is $162 I think.
I opted to use a simple manual trim
I will pay postage anywhere....................Austin Tinckler.
Please reply off list if interested.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
<<
>are still going to list about alternate engines. We still think all
knowledge
>is valuable and should be posted. If I ever get to the point of installing
the
>Chevy V-6 and make it fly, I think I'll paint CHEVROLET in huge letters on
the
>side of my 6A. I am having to restrain myself and my language in response to
If you ever get to the point of installing the Chevy V-6 and make it fly in
an RV, your posts will be pertinent and most welcome. I'll look forward to
hearing from you again then.
Until then, then
- Mike
hartmann(at)sound.net
http://www.sound.net/~hartmann
>>
Okay, all you guys who haven't finished your RV's .... Off the net, parasites,
your posts are neither pertinent or welcome until you finish the airplane and
fly it.
Oops, that's me too! Guess I'll have to work in isolation while deciding what
engine to put in. Drat! I was just beginning to think this was a chat board
where opinions were discussed vs. just cussed, and advice on what to do next
was available from the guy one step ahead....plannning and research before
decision is terribly valuable, don't you think?
(now where's the combination of keys that create a face with it's tongue out
and blowing a raspberry?)
Cheers, damnit!!!!
Bob ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass runways??? |
For an RV I would like to have clear approaches to 1200 to 1500 feet to feel
good about routine ops. If you only have 700 feet available you need a Kitfox
or Avid. Either can take off and land in 200-300 feet with a clear approach
and at 27 to 37 MPH touchdown and t/o speed. Love those RV-4/6 but the FOX is
King of STOL. Fox and building RV. JR.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grass runways??? |
Oh, I for got , I have some time in the RV-4 and in the RV-6A. They are both
great grass field performers. Trike gear works just fine on grassfields.
Grassfields is not very descriptive, however, some more resemble a motocross
track than a runway. Again ,if you intend to operate off ROUGH dirt and grass
strips you need a Cub/Fox/Avid or something similar. My kitfox has the SMALL
tires and they are 21 inches tall and 8.00 in rim diameter and operate at
6-12psi. They can roll over terrain that 5in Clev. types would sink helplessly
into. Reasonably maintained turf strips should be no problem for a RV-6A. With
the Bigfoot mod I should think there would be no problem on moderetly soft
ground. Goodluck.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Winter Oil Temps |
Well I only added to my own confusion today.
I covered the oil cooler with duct tape before flying today. The OAT was 30
degrees on the ground and I flew to 7000' where the OAT was about 21. My oil
temp settled at 175 degrees. I'm happy...but I can't explain why.
BTW, my oil cooler is mounted on the pilot side of the aircraft, infront of
the #2 (or is it #1) cylinder.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
<< What is the highest anyone has been a RV? >>
16,500' on an August day to get above T-storms. IAS 100 Kts..TAS 155Kts if my
memory is correct. Climb was down to 300 fpm.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | POH Downloading Problems |
Listers,
Over the past few days I have received a few e-mails regarding problems
downloading the POH on my web site. From the e-mails, these problems seam
to be limited to version other than the Word 97 version. The document was
written in Word 97. The other versions are a result of Word 97 saving the
file in the other formats. Considering Word 97 is a Microsoft product, we
all can see the potential for problems here. Unfortunately, I do not have
access to other word processors other than Word 97.
If anyone is having problems with the document, try to download the Word 97
version on a machine with Word 97 installed. I have had requests for a
*.txt version of the POH. I will try to get this version on the web site
next week. Most of the formatting and all of the graphics will be lost
during this conversion. For those who are waiting for the *.txt version,
please try to find a machine with Word 97 and download and print it there.
If anyone is still having problems with this, please e-mail me to let me
know. I need to know exactly what errors you are seeing and what version of
word processor you are using. An e-mail that states "It doesn't work" is
useless to me unless accompanied by the specifics (version of windows,
version of word processor, specific error messages, etc)
The vast majority of the RVer's who are downloading these files aren't
having any problems. For those who have e-mailed me over the past two days,
please let me know exactly what the problems were.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying and having a ball with it :)))))))
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lauritsen" <clevtool(at)tdsi.net> |
| Subject: | Christmas Gift Idea |
Need a cool gift idea or want to plant one in the wife or kids head, see
the following web page.
http://www.cleavelandtool.com/siouxsdk.html
Happy Holidays!
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, IA 50036
1-800-368-1822 orders
1-515-432-6794 questions
1-515-432-7804 FAX
clevtool(at)tdsi.net
http://www.cleavelandtool.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | The Physics of Fuel Tank Leaks |
The Physics of Fuel Tank Leaks
There has been much discussion of fuel tank leak testing and concerns about
G-forces increasing leak rates. I offer some information about the Physics
of fuel tank leaks.
Size of Leak:
1) Stain -- a small, slow leak where the fuel evaporates as fast it comes
out, leaving only a stain.
2) Seep -- a leak that reappears shortly after the surface was wiped
clean.
3) Heavy seep -- a leak that reappears immediately after the area is
wiped.
4) Running leak -- flows visibly.
Leak types 3) and 4) depend on orientation: more fuel comes out when the
head of fuel is higher, or when G-loads are applied in a direction favoring
leak flow.
Leak types 1) and 2) are not generally orientation or pressure or G-force
dependent because they leak by capillary action, rather than through an
orifice or aperture.
These leaks are akin the blotter effect: Put a blotter or paper towel into
fuel and the fuel wicks up the towel. The capillary effect is complicated.
The capillary rate depends on the surface energy, the geometry of the leak
capillary and surface tension of the fuel. What is important to know is
that fuel is very good at wicking through very tiny gaps in aluminum!
Leak types 3) and 4) can be detected by 0.5 PSI internal tank air pressure
and bubbly soap solution. Leak type 2) is difficult and leak type 1) is
very difficult to detect by the bubble method. For this reason I recommend
the Av gas method to find all sizes of leaks.
Cap off all plumbing and pour in a few gallons of 80 or 100LL Av gas.
Orient the tank so that a given surface is covered by the gas. Inspect it
over a period of two days or so for the tell-tail red or blue gas stain.
Then re-orient the tank so that a new area is covered. Repeat this
procedure until the entire internal surface of the tank has been covered
with a layer (however thin) of gas for a period or two days or more.
This technique will detect all 4 classes of leaks. If you choose to use it
before you mount your tanks, you can save yourself some time and headaches.
But if you choose to wait until the tanks are mounted and you fly the
plane, you will still be using this same technique. You control when the
test occurs.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | MJShep(at)compuserve.com |
In a message dated 12/6/97 4:11:42 PM, you wrote:
>my B-52G .....etc.
good comments.
You're going to have to take some sort of desensitivation course to tone down
your control inputs after flying the B-52. Fortunately it takes a lot less
time than going to a buf from a trainer!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
All our airplanes at Van's have it mounted on the glare shield under the
windshield. This gives you a very short cable run for very little signal
loss, and its easy to install.
You have to paint it black like your glare shield to stop it from
reflecting on the windscreen.
I know, I know; it usually says right on the antenna "Do Not Paint".
We hooked an antenna up to a late model receiver with the display set to
show signal strength and started spraying on the paint.
We didn't see the value change by even a single digit. It was just
common flat black from the hardware store. Exterior aircraft finishes
may produce a different result.
If you do it I recommend that you do your own test with the paint you
use. Sorry I don't remember the paint brand.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
the variation in #'s that
you see.
My personal RV-6A is quite loaded as far as equipment goes.
It has a basic IFR panel and a lot of options, 160 hp Lycoming, fixed
pitch 3 blade prop, and it weighs in at 1045 lbs. The orig (old blue we
call it) RV-6A I think weighed in at 995 lbs when it had the orig fixed
pitch wood prop. So I weigh about 50 lbs more which is probably about
right with the additional equipment/upholstery that I have. My airplane
has true airspeeds of 190 mph, burning 8.2 GPH
at 10,500 ft. Climb rate solo with 20 gal of fuel on a standard day at
500 ft MSL is about 1500 FPM.
So I exceed the cruise claimed by about 3 mph but I fall short of the
climb rate by about 100 FPM. Yes, I do work in the prototype shop at
Vans but my RV was the first airplane that I had ever built.
As a result I know that others can (and have ) done it too.
I also am confident that regardless of what brand engine you install,
"If" it is able to transfer 160 HP to the propeller, not weigh too much
more than the typical 160 hp RV-6A (1050 lbs or so), and not have much of
a difference in cooling drag as compared to the Lycoming,
then their is no reason that your airplane shouldn't do close to the same
( or even exceed if you have even higher HP).
Good luck and let us know how it works out!
Just a side note - Has all participants seen the RVator article on Dave
Anders RV-4 recently? In it he mentioned during testing determining that
every extra pound added to an RV decreases the ROClimb by 3 FPM. One of
our engineers did a calculator computation (a lot of it I didn't
understand) and verified his findings.
So my extra 50 lbs or so is costing me 150 FPM in climb compared with
what "Old Blue" used to do
- Build light / Climb fast -
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RMille6453 <RMille6453(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Top 10 Reasons not to build an RV (humor) |
Congrats Scooter!!
I had a feeling it was going to be sooner than later! Having hung out at the
same airport as you let me give you a few suggestions in dealing with that
bunch of naysayers.
1. Realize that most of them don't even own an airplane.
2. Notice the ones that do never go anywhere.
3. Stay with the high fibre diet, they dont.
4. Buy a Grumman while you're building, that'll really p*ss them off!
Rob Miller
RV 80153
Building Fuse Jig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sharlene Shipley or Bruce Knoll <snsbfk(at)mail.sage.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elec el trim |
Hi Austin,
I am currently building the empennage. Had planned to go with manual trim
as you are now doing. Why did you change your mind about elect. trim??
>
>I have a Mac servo electric elevator trim kit new in box for $125 if anyone
>wants to buy themselves a Christmas present. Reg price is $162 I think.
> I opted to use a simple manual trim
> I will pay postage anywhere....................Austin Tinckler.
>Please reply off list if interested.
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Knoll
RV6A to be QB
Empennage Started
snsbfk(at)mail.sage.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Forming a "bubble" on the cowl. |
>
>Can you elaborate on how you put a "bubble" in the cowl. I am mounting an
>H2AD engine, and need to make a small bubble for fuel pump clearance (about
>1/2" high).
>
Rob:
1. Sand the outside of the cowl where you want the bubble.
2. Form the desired shape of bubble, including fairing, on the outside
of the cowl. Probably the easiest way to do it is with modeling clay. (If
you make fiberglass intersection fairings for your landing gear, you will
probably need the modeling clay anyway.)
I didn't think of the clay at the time. I carved a leftover piece of foam
rubber from my seats to the desired shape and taped it to the cowl. I then
covered the entire piece of foam rubber with masking tape so that the
polyester resin wouldn't attack the foam. It worked well. The foam rubber
easily conformed to the cowl, yet it still had enough body to support the
fiberglass during the lay-up.
3. Lay-up two to three layers of fiberglass over the bubble. I
extended the lay-up about 1.5 inches past the formed bubble.
4. After the fiberglass has set up, cut out the cowl on the inside of
the bubble. I made a rough cut-out with a cut-off wheel, then ground
everything smooth with a sanding disk mounted on a die grinder. If you want
to get fancy, you can add a layer of fiberglass on the inside of the cowl.
5. Fill and finish the outside of the bubble.
I used the same method to make another bubble when my alternator fan ground
a hole in the cowling. This happened one time when I did a loop. I thought
that I had adequate clearance; obviously, I didn't. It is surprizing how
much your engine moves when you are pulling G's.
Mark Nielsen
RV-6; flying (150 hrs.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elec el trim |
> From: Sharlene Shipley or Bruce Knoll <snsbfk(at)mail.sage.net>
>
> Hi Austin,
> I am currently building the empennage. Had planned to go with manual trim
> as you are now doing. Why did you change your mind about elect. trim??
> Bruce Knoll
Happy to tell my story as to why...Hope I don't need a flame suit, but here
it is.
I got a ride one day with a friend in his RV-6 who really likes electric
everything. Since I was close to completing mine, he let me have the
controls. After a bit I found myself climbing and decided to trim a bit.
Well, I found the thing to be too damn fast and touchy and not able to find
the sweet spot so easily. Later, after landing, he told me that he had
already put a relay on it to cut the speed in half. Well, I guess I was
convinced once again of the old KISS principle, since I had flown with 2
other old buddies with manual trim and it was so nice and simple and fool
proof and close at hand that I wondered why I would want anything
different. Besides, it will always be there to work. No runaway, no
nothing.
Let me say however, that if anyone wants to put in electric,
and many have and are delighted with it,.... great. I am not about to say
one is better than the other for anyone. I just want what I want and be
happy with it.
Perhaps I am influenced by the lovely little Cessna 140s that I learned
on. Had the most convenient out of the way trim and Van's manual makes me
feel the same way. Maybe it is just plain old deja vu as I am an old dog
now.
Best regards and happy flying.............Austin Tinckler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Anthony Self wrote:
>
>
>
> First, I would like to apologize to everyone else for not responding to this
> guy off-list, but I just changed E-mail providers and I lost the original
> post. This is meant only for the person who posted the original.
>
> Would you please define "pertinent rv. info"? It's only "pertinent" if it's
> something that YOU are interested in, right? I guess I just happen to be one
> of the those "Chevy guy's" so maybe I'm not too smart.I agree with that or you'ld
own a FORD.
Funny, but I kind of
> thought engines were adequate to meet the "pertinent" criteria, especially in
> an "experimental" aircraft. The aircraft is not experimental we know it will
fly with a certified
engine.The Chevy engine is whats experimental because it was built for
car that can break down an pull over the side of the road. Noty crash in
the woods
So here are some more suggestions to limit the
> "clutter", to use your words. Would all people painting their planes Red
> please E-mail each other. Would all the people flying 4's please E-mail each
> other. Would all less experienced pilots please mail each other. Would all
> experienced pilots please mail each other.....so on and so on. Would all the
> closed minded people please E-mail each other! We all have things on the list
> that we individually do not find interesting. For example, sometimes I start
> thinking about unsubscribing when someone starts a primer debate. Me
> personally, I'm sick of hearing about primer, BUT, there are obviously people
> who need help or info. on the subject or it wouldn't come up. To those people,
> I say keep on bringing it up if you need to know, I just probably won't read
> the post. I'm not interested in the RV8 stuff either, but obviously someone
> is, so let them openly discuss it. Judging by the number of posts in the past
> few days about Chevy installations, I think it's a very popular idea!
This is all hogs wash to shore up your weak argument.
> We are not all rich, we all can't afford to spend twice as much for the engine
> as we did for the airframe. I only make $25000 per year. I've been saving for
> this plane for about 5 years. I'm single and I CAN afford the plane WITH the
> alternative engine. I CAN'T afford to spend a year's salary on just the
> engine. Now, do you want to rag on me for not making enough money too?
This is not about how much you make or attacking your character. But
since you bring it up. How much is your life worth and say nothing of all
the work you put into you RV.
> Chevy V-6 and make it fly, I think I'll paint CHEVROLET in huge letters on the
> side of my 6A.Go ahead!
I am having to restrain myself and my language in response to
> you, but if you want me to really speak my mind (Rated R) here's my E-mail
If this all it takes to p*ss you off. I hope that you don't plan to fly
in my surroundings
> address: CHEVY_TRUCK(at)MSN.COM I would have given you that coutesy, But you chose
to use to open list to
do so. Pay back is a bitch.
(I am a Chevy fanatic, BTW). Remember, you do
> have a DEL key on your keyboard and no-one wants you involved in the Chevy
> posts anyway if you only have negative closed minded statements, so just don't
> read them. Simple enough?
I'll take this under advisement. BTW have a nice holiday season and good
luck with your project. Don Champagne
>
> Anthony K. Self
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
| From: | m.talley(at)juno.com (Michael L Talley) |
I visited the ultralight folks at my local airport today and talked to
the Hirth dealer who had just been to the factory. They (Hirth) plan to
announce and introduce a new engine at Lakeland. It is a 4 cylinder
opposed, WATER cooled, 2 cycle geared engine with electronic ignition and
fuel injection and oil injection producing 155 hp. I didn't get a weight
but it sounds like it would be lighter than an O-320. The local dealer
has one coming next year to put in his Avid Magnum. Soooo - we have
another alternative to consider. He said they thought it would sell for
around $9000.
Mike Talley
Arlington, WA
RV-6 skinning the second wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
I flew my -4 today at 1600 lbs, with 240 lbs in the backseat. It was
one inch forward of the aft c.g. limit. The inch would have given me
room to burn a good bit of gas before it passed the aft limit. The aft
weight was noticable but, no problem. Stalls weren't tricky, just a
little higher airspeed. The 10-15 mph gusty crosswind made the landing
hard for me. Wish I had more horse power. If I knew how, I would pour
some steroids in my 0-320. I used four 60 lb. bags of concrete for the
back seat weight, if I would have crashed into a pond I would have been
a solid block of concrete. (Assuming it was properly mixed, of course)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING (3 psi) |
<< I
pressured my tanks until a bulge just could just be seen. The pressure
gauge that I was using is a low pressure gauge and read 3 PSI. >>
I would be extremely skeptical of your gauge calibration, Gary. Mine bulged
significantly (can you say Michelin Man) at 1 PSI (calibrated gauge) so I
backed off and used 0.5 PSI.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
<< I know, I know; it usually says right on the antenna "Do Not Paint". >>
I believe this admonition was correct in near-ancient times when most common
paints contained lead.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I hadn't really thought about it. You may be right!
Even so, most all the new antennas (not just GPS) say Do Not Paint
right on them.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sliding Canopy Skirt Cap |
I hope that I'm not out of line in thinking that there are enough new faces on
the RV-List for me once again to shamelessly hawk my super slick and
....(hubba hubba) voluptuously formed Sliding Canopy Skirt Caps for the
RV-6/6A.
If you have tried to make this item in a brake or (god forbid) out of
composite you will attest to the extensive time and effort necessary to make
one that, frankly, doesn't look like a piece of crap.
The first production run of 50 has disappeared so I have made 50 more in my
trusty Hydraulic Press. For purposes of the following explanation, W is
lateral axis of aircraft and L is longitudinal axis of aircraft.
I have formed out of .032" thk 2024-T3 aluminum sheet, a cap which is used to
join the rear skirts of the 6/6A slider canopy. It starts out 3"W x 5"L and
has a 1.25"W wedge formed up out of the centerline about .440"H over the last
2.25"L.
The builder merely trims the cap edges by about .1875000" each side to restore
the rectangular shape (distorted during forming ala RV ribs), butts the skirts
together, notches them for clearance from the center track and installs this
cap right on the centerline, finally drilling, dimpling and riveting 4 places
along each side (2 pop rivets and 6 AN426-3-3.5).
I also cut a 2.625"W x .125"L notch in the leading edge of the skirts and bent
(with seaming pliers) the leading edge of the cap down slightly to contact the
plexiglass. This makes for a very sanitary installation and takes only
minutes instead of hours, if you cough up $10 each to me: Gary VanRemortel,
1963 Badgerwood Ln, Milpitas, CA 95035. This includes domestic (U.S.)
shipping.
Of course I'm getting rich, but don't think of it that way. I'm saving you
time and improving the project, so what the hey?
Sincerely,
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
<< They (Hirth) plan to
announce and introduce a new engine at Lakeland. It is a 4 cylinder
opposed, WATER cooled, 2 cycle geared engine with electronic ignition and
fuel injection and oil injection producing 155 hp. >>
I for one won't be standing in line for this one.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elec el trim |
<< I got a ride one day with a friend in his RV-6 who really likes electric
everything. Since I was close to completing mine, he let me have the
controls. After a bit I found myself climbing and decided to trim a bit.
Well, I found the thing to be too damn fast and touchy and not able to find
the sweet spot so easily. Later, after landing, he told me that he had
already put a relay on it to cut the speed in half. Well, I guess I was
convinced once again of the old KISS principle, since I had flown with 2
other old buddies with manual trim and it was so nice and simple and fool
proof and close at hand that I wondered why I would want anything
different. >>
The is precisely why Matt Dralle produces the Matronics Governor III, to allow
you to adjust the speed of these servos without a loss of motor torque.
Further it allows you to install a trim switch on each stick if you want and
solves the contention issue. In short, they're just the ticket, and so
compact.
No, I don't get a referral fee, I just used two of them on my 6A, one for
elevator trim and one for aileron trim. They're mounted on a shock isolated
tray under the pilot's seat with holes for access to the adjustment screws.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Continental O-200 |
Listers,
I have a friend that needs two Continental O-200 engines to use in his formula
one racer. Anyone who knows where they might be obtained, please E-mail me
off the list.
Thanks,
Jim Cone
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Forming a "bubble" on the cowl. |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Another technic (which probably requires a little more finesse and the
ability to visualize what you want the bubble to look like but can maybe
be done in a shorter time)
Cut an opening in the location and the shape that you want the
bubble/blister to be.
With a sander/grinder feather the edge from the inside. cut glass cloth
to overlap the edge all around.
brush resin on the edge of the hole and lay on one piece of glass.
Push, drape, form the glass into the hole in the approx. shape you want
the bubble to be.
Add a little more resin only to were the glass laps onto the scarfed edge
of the hole and let it start to set up enough that the glass will stay
put.
Then add a couple or three layers more of glass(depending on the weight
of cloth that you are using) but this time saturate all of the cloth out
into the bubble also.
After finishing applying resin, work the cloth with the brush as it
starts to set up to hold it in the shape you want.
A little bit of filling and sanding on the outside and your done!
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
On the pro side of what? And how much do those who are on the "pro" side,
actually know about the design differences between automotive, versus aviation
engines?
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
When is the last time you had your dragster at 20, 000 feet, which is the
service ceiling, for an RV-4?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
Michael C. Lott wrote:
>
>
> While I'm thinking about car engines in airplanes, Didn't some Tucker
> guy put an aircraft engine in a car several decades ago? They said he
> was ahead of his time.
He was ahead of his time, so the big three "nipped him in the bud".
They knew he was on to something good and they were not about to let
that happen.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
>If so, I want to know, because I think it easier to install a plate,
>sliding cover, etc to increase the temps rather than try to cool it down
>if it is too high. I live in West Texas and I think I may need all the
>cooling I can get.
>
Wes;
If it's any help to you, my a/c was one that ran too cool on the oil temp.
I had the cooler mounted on the air shroud just behind and above the left
rear cly. After experimenting with duct tape over it to get the temp up to
what it should be, I eventually put a valve in the line, just where the line
goes into the cooler. Then a simple bowden cable to the cockpit and I could
adjust the valve. It worked for me and gave me complete control over the
oil temp. The valve was one of stainless steel and a handle that controlled
from full open to full closed with only a 90 degree movement. It was rated
for 400 degrees and 250 pounds. Got it at the local hardware store.
I thought it was much easier than a sliding door etc.
John Darby
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dukeav8r <Dukeav8r(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Variprime Question |
Does anyone know the shelf life of the individual Variprime components?
I don't mean the pot life, I have one quart containers of 615 and 620 that are
a couple years old and was wondering if they could still be used.
Nothing on the containers to suggest its life span.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
My RV is not yet flying but I have had my old '57 Pacer to 18,000 MSL
still climbing at around 1,000 FPM. Of course I've also had a low
performance 1-26 glider to 30,000.
I always get a kick out of the altitude records set by powered
aircraft. It seems like there was a class record set a year or so
ago in a LongEZ of around 30,000 off the California coast. Anyone
with soaring experience and patience should be able to go as high as
ATC will allow or as high as physiologically possible whichever comes
first.
The glider record is somewhere around 48,000 now. Higher without
pressurization would be extremely risky.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad NM
RV-6QAntennas and under floor details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE" <PKIRKPATRICK(at)FAB9.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
When I was leak checking my tanks the regulator was set about 20 psi. I am
guessing about 5 psi was actually getting into the tanks because of the vent
holes on the blow off gun.
Pat Kirkpatrick
RV-6A Working on fuse bulkheads.
Planning on Mazda power
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< And how much do those who are on the "pro" side,
actually know about the design differences between automotive, versus
aviation
engines? >>
When hearing about auto conversions I am always reminded of that old saw, "If
wishes were horses, all beggars would ride".
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Variprime Question |
<< Does anyone know the shelf life of the individual Variprime components? >>
Try calling DuPont. They are in Wilmington, Delaware.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Perri <jperri(at)sprynet.com> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
<< My RV is not yet flying but I have had my old '57 Pacer to 18,000 MSL
still climbing at around 1,000 FPM. >>
Would you believe 100 FPM?
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
<< The valve was one of stainless steel and a handle that controlled
from full open to full closed with only a 90 degree movement. It was rated
for 400 degrees and 250 pounds. Got it at the local hardware store.
I thought it was much easier than a sliding door etc.
John Darby
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com >>
John,
I was thinking just last night that if one could find some kind of valve to
install in the oil line he could control how much oil was going to the cooler,
or shut it off completely. This is a great idea! Can you elaborate more on
what type of valve this is and how you tied it in to your oil line? What type
fittings does it have on each end. For our Colorado winters this sounds like a
perfect solution.
Ryan B RV4131RB(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
----------
> From: I THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE <PKIRKPATRICK(at)FAB9.intel.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING
> Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 9:27 AM
>
>
> When I was leak checking my tanks the regulator was set about 20 psi. I
am
> guessing about 5 psi was actually getting into the tanks because of the
vent
> holes on the blow off gun.
>
> Pat Kirkpatrick
> RV-6A Working on fuse bulkheads.
> Planning on Mazda power
>
The tank has an internal surface area of about 640 sq in. 5 psi * 640 sq
in = 3200 lbs distributed load.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
uys put marbles
into the can to displace the air (oxygen in air is the culprit). I have
used 1/2 full one quart cans that were stored about three years -- when I
started on the tail my neighbor gave me some old Veriprime. I soon
graduated to S/W wash primer.
The above holds true for the S/W wash primer as well. I throw it out when
it starts forming the skin.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage roll bar
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Forming a "bubble" on the cowl. |
> 5. Fill and finish the outside of the bubble.
> Mark Nielsen
> RV-6; flying (150 hrs.)
Thanks to all who responded on making bumps in the cowl, just the info I
needed.
Rob (RV-6Q, starting canopy).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Forming a "bubble" on the cowl. |
OK. Fiberglass is easily formed over a somewhat flexible mold. How about this:
"libertate" one of your spouse's large nylon mixing spoons, carefully
selecting the correct size and shape utensil. Wax the heck out of it, and form
a one or two layer layup over the bottom. Let this set up, and simply 'glass
the thing onto the cowl in the strategic location as necessary. You could even
'glass it on from the inside, and make the outside finishing much easier.
I thought of this while making supper for my family last night. I noticed the
sauce/spagetti sticking to the spoon like a resin/fiber mix and.....POOF! An
idea!
Don't forget to clean the spoon before returning it....
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
> To: N5lp
> From: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: 7 Dec 97 09:10:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: How High
>
>
>
> << My RV is not yet flying but I have had my old '57 Pacer to 18,000 MSL
> still climbing at around 1,000 FPM. >>
>
> Would you believe 100 FPM?
>
> -GV
I'm the original poster. No mistake, 1,000 FPM. Most of the climb
was at around 1,700 FPM. The point is maximum altitude has more to
do with atmospheric conditions (in this case wave) than aircraft
performance. No I'm not saying that makes it practical for
cross-country use.
This is one of the reasons Van talks about how hard it is to get good
performance figures. I find it is very common to have large areas of
sink or lift of around 100 to 200 fpm. This greatly affects aircraft
performance.
Larry Pardue
RV-6Q Building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:More First Flight |
More First Flight thoughts:
The first flight has many purposes. The LEAST of which is to "see what
she'll do". My first flight was well planned out according to what I needed
to learn about the airplane initially:
1)systems: do all the controls do what they are supposed to in all axis; 2)
stability: is the airplane stable in flight; are there any corrections in
rigging that need to be addressed before the next flight (heavy wing,
etc).3) do all the instruments and radios work; 4) slow flight: how do the
controls feel in slow flight (softer); any nasty tendencies when turning at
slow speed (no); 5) stall speed: flight characteristics at stall (wing drop,
etc.); indicated stall speed clean and with flaps one notch (landing
configuration): important to know on base and final. 6) engine function:
EGT, CHT, fuel and oil pressures. 7) smile duration: how long can a person
smile before their face hurts.
Using these peremeters, I developed a flight card for the first flight.
This mostly consisted of level flight below 100 mph (which turned into 120
during the flight: slick airplane), left and right turns at 30 and 45
degrees, slow flight level and turning, stalls with flaps up and 20 degrees.
And a lot of looking around in amazement that something I built was up there
FLYING. And quite well, I might add.
I had another sheet for data recording: EGT/CHT, pressures, IAS, manifold
pressuer/RPM, and a gig list (things to change before next flight).
Had all this on my trusty knee board,
Nothing fancy. Just seeing if and how the airplane flys.
Having the check lists for prestart etc. also helped as I was in an
unfamiliar aircraft under somewhat stressful conditions and I wanted to do
things right, not leave anything out (fuel ON).
After the flight, celebration. Have some champagne so you're not tempted to
go up again. You need to calm down and, more importantly, you need to look
the airplane over before the next flight. Especially the engine compartment
and flight controls. This is the first time they have been subjected to the
stresses of flight and you want to make sure everything stayed together.
And your face is going to be REALLY sore from the RV smile, anyway.
Then develop the fight cards (if you haven't already) for the next flights.
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
<19971206.165200.4751.0.SMCDANIELS(at)juno.com>
Scott:
What is your 3 bladed Prop? I am planing on the 2 blade Sensitech. Colud
you indicate why you when that way. Cost & other problems?
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <rv(at)tppal.com> |
| Subject: | Pop Rivets on Skins |
The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
underside of the wing. Any input???
thanks...
Paul Besing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Barnes <skytop(at)starnetinc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Primer cleanup |
Randy Lervold wrote:
>
>
> I'm starting into my RV-8 kit and this is my first post to the RV List. I
> have however been "lurking" for some time now gleaning all sorts of
> valuable information. Based on what I've read here I made the decision to
> go the Sherwin Williams industrial wash primer route. So I bought some and
> then bought a small "detail" gun from Sears. Here come the questions;
>
> 1) What is the best solvent to use for cleanup? I've tried acetone and it
> seems to congeal the remaing primer mix... yikes!
>
> 2) Any hints/techniques for making the setup and cleanup routine easier and
> faster?
>
> 3) Geez, if I follow Van's instructions I'm going to be priming about 300
> small batches. Has anyone just gone ahead and deburred the edges and primed
> a whole kit's worth of parts?
>
> Fledgling RV-8 builder,
>
> Randy Lervold
> starting on emp kit
> Vancouver, WA
>
Randy, I'm using the same wash primer as you are using. I use a cheep
lacquer thinner that I purchased there at Sherwin Williams called E-Z
lacquer thinner. I think it was under $4.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Kitz <jkitz(at)greenapple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
Paul Besing wrote:
>
>
> The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
> underside of the wing. Any input???
Yea Paul,
Drill them out, inspect the inside, dimple the ribs and skin, and start
the harder job of bucking -4 rivits.
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
underside of the wing. Any input???
thanks...
Paul Besing >>
What is the s/n of this kit?
I've seen another -4 done that way. It was an early kit, and I understand the
builder had almost no help. I also recall a factory approval to use the Avex
CS4-4 rivets to close the wing. I'd guess CS4-3's would be a better choice
(correct length). I'd bet it's as strong as any other (isn't the shear
strength of the -4 pops about the same as a -3 hard rivet?) , but the cosmetic
factor would be a bit low. Now, if the builder used Cherry brand rivets, it
would look better- just be a bit heavy.
Check out the rest of the workmanship, too.
Check six!
Mark
w. It was designed this way
because low oil temps (unlike excessive oil temps) don't seize engines.
First check to see if the Vernatherm is even installed. If it isn't, you
are getting full flow to the oil cooler at all times. If the vernatherm
is installed, check it's operation in a pan of hot/boiling water. You
will most likely find that you connected the oil lines to the wrong spot
or you need a new one.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Introducing myself... |
Hi guys,
I'm planning on ordering the first parts for an RV-6 in April '98
(right after Sun 'n Fun) and, in doing my due diligence, found this list.
Just wanted to check in and introduce myself. I'm Gregory Travis and,
from reviewing the RV archives, some of you already know about my engine
web page. I'm quite flattered! I'll be doing a revamp of the page over
the holidays and will include a lot of info that I hope will be helpful
and informative for those going the derivative engine route. Materials
include torsional vibration articles (getting ready to OCR those), some
really great info from RenJen engine corp about their (failed) collaborative
effort with Lycoming to develop a regenerative aircraft diesel, engine
weight/BSFC/dimension spreadsheets, etc.
Back to RVs...
Right now I'm trying to make the final decision between a quick-build
vs. a "standard" kit. I have a spamcan for my day-day flying and am in
no particular hurry to complete the RV ('though I would like to get
it done within ~3-4 years). On the other hand, I'm fairly busy and wonder
if going the quick-build route might be a better way to ensure eventual
completion for this first-time builder.
Anyway, here I am. Looking forward to all the things I'll learn,
greg
greg@littlebear.com http://www.prime-mover.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Hinch <chris(at)dcc.govt.nz> |
Gentlemen , please!
I would say ladies, too, but the ladies on the list don't descend to the
level of poorly considered and ill advised me-too cat calling that has
gone on the list over the last few days.
How about taking a few deep breaths, remember why we're here, and
remember that we share a passion and dedication (obsession?) quite
unlike any other group in the world.
Remember this?
"RV-LIST POLICY STATMENT: The purpose of the RV-List is to provide a
forum of discussion for things related to the construction and flying
of Vans' RV-series aircraft. This RV-list is intended for use by RV
pilots, builders and enthusiasts. The list's goals are to serve as an
information resource to its members; to deliver high-quality content;
to provide moral support; to foster comaraderie among builders and
pilots;
to promote the construction of safe, well-built aircraft; and to support
the safe operation thereof. Reaching these goals requires the
participation
and cooperation of each and every member of the RV-list."
This holidays, don't forget to take time out from rivetting, priming and
head scratching to remember your family and friends, especially the ones
who think you're crazy enough to succeed with this "crazy aeroplane
idea" and support you anyway.
Enough of me on my soapbox. Merry Christmas, everyone.
Chris Hinch
chris(at)dcc.govt.nz
No RV-8 empennage yet, but I can tell you all about soundproofing a
garage!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cowling Bubble For H2AD Fuel Pump |
Rob Acker,
I have finished my cowling for my H2AD installation. I cut a hole in
the cowling to give fuel pump clearance inserted a balloon in the hole
and then applied cloth and epoxy over the balloon. the tighter you can
keep the cloth/epoxy pulled, the better. BTW, my bubble is at least 1"
high to give me 1/4 to 3/8" clearance. It is a lot bigger than I thought
it would have to be. After I fly the plane and before I paint it I will
probably add more epoxy to fair this smoothly and do the same on the RH
side of the cowling for a matching appearance on both sides
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE" <PKIRKPATRICK(at)FAB9.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
OOPS!,
I just re-read the post I put out about the pressure I guessed i had in the
tanks during leak checking. I missed a "." it should have read .5 PSI. Any
thing over this would probably blow the baloon off or burst it.
Sorry for the confusion,
Pat Kirkpatrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:More First Flight |
>
>More First Flight thoughts:
>
>The first flight has many purposes. The LEAST of which is to "see what
>she'll do". My first flight was well planned out according to what I needed
>to learn about the airplane initially:
>
>1)systems: do all the controls do what they are supposed to in all axis; 2)
>stability: is the airplane stable in flight; are there any corrections in
>rigging that need to be addressed before the next flight (heavy wing,
>etc).3) do all the instruments and radios work; 4) slow flight: how do the
>controls feel in slow flight (softer); any nasty tendencies when turning at
>slow speed (no); 5) stall speed: flight characteristics at stall (wing drop,
>etc.); indicated stall speed clean and with flaps one notch (landing
>configuration): important to know on base and final. 6) engine function:
>EGT, CHT, fuel and oil pressures. 7) smile duration: how long can a person
>smile before their face hurts.
>
>Using these peremeters, I developed a flight card for the first flight.
>This mostly consisted of level flight below 100 mph (which turned into 120
>during the flight: slick airplane), left and right turns at 30 and 45
>degrees, slow flight level and turning, stalls with flaps up and 20 degrees.
>And a lot of looking around in amazement that something I built was up there
>FLYING. And quite well, I might add.
>
>I had another sheet for data recording: EGT/CHT, pressures, IAS, manifold
>pressuer/RPM, and a gig list (things to change before next flight).
>
>Had all this on my trusty knee board,
>
>Nothing fancy. Just seeing if and how the airplane flys.
>
>Having the check lists for prestart etc. also helped as I was in an
>unfamiliar aircraft under somewhat stressful conditions and I wanted to do
>things right, not leave anything out (fuel ON).
>
>After the flight, celebration. Have some champagne so you're not tempted to
>go up again. You need to calm down and, more importantly, you need to look
>the airplane over before the next flight. Especially the engine compartment
>and flight controls. This is the first time they have been subjected to the
>stresses of flight and you want to make sure everything stayed together.
>And your face is going to be REALLY sore from the RV smile, anyway.
>
>Then develop the fight cards (if you haven't already) for the next flights.
>
>Michael
>N232 Suzie Q
>
Michael,
Congratulations on your flying aircraft! I can't begin to express how
envious I am. I am still working on the empennage, so flight seems like a
far off pipe dream. I don't even feel like a real builder yet because I'm
working on the pieces that EVERYONE builds, even the guys who get frustrated
and never finish. When my wings appear on my jigs with those beautiful
Phlogiston spars, maybe then I'll feel like I'm proving my intent to
actually fly someday.
This brings me to a critical point. One I've never thought of until your
post. I have a very rare disorder that limits my smile duration only while
in flight. Perhaps it's not too late to bag the whole RV thing and buy an
old Cessna 150 to fly. I also have rare, well developed callouses on my
fingers for tapping on the air speed indicator and VSI to make sure they're
not stuck. After all, no aircraft can be climbing at Vy at only 500 fpm can
it? :-)
Again congratulations. I am interested in your flight testing "regimen".
It sounds very well thought out and executed. Any suggestions would be
greatly appreciated.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Priming vertical stab skeleton.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355 <JNice51355(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
My input is - Rip Them Out!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<348AF6E5.2966(at)greenapple.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Paul is probably referring to flush pop rivets that are approved for use
in difficult to rivet areas, is this right Paul. If so then you need to
check to be sure the accepted rivets were used. If the whole wing bottom
was blind (pop) riveted then I agree; plan on drilling out some rivets
and replacing them.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
<19971207.125337.11823.1.donspawn(at)juno.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
The primary reason for the 3 blade choice originally was for ground
clearance. The RV-6A clearance isn't bad with standard props, but I
intended to use some dirt strips in AZ (which I did) and with a
vulnerable wood prop I wanted all the clearance I could get to protect
the tips. The diameter is 63 " and resulted in not even any erosion of
the white paint on the tips from dirt, sand, gravel, etc.
The reduced tip speed also allowed me flight in light rain with no power
reduction resulting in no erosion to the tip paint what so ever. The
airplane was 3 years old when I finally had to repaint the tips after an
encounter with moderate to heavy rain on the way home from OSH 95. So I
guess my orig intent for the purchase worked out
but I don't think I would do it again if I was planning to use a fixed
pitch prop.
A reduced Diam 3 blade automatically should be less efficient
than a 2 blade because of smaller prop disc area and increased drag from
3 blades swinging through the air. It also was more expensive, I think
the price now is almost as much as the metal sensenich.
If I decided to use a fixed pitch prop again I think I would go
with the sensenich metal unless I was on a very restricted budget then a
less expensive wood prop is a good alternative.
The metal performs very well but I have yet to fly in an RV that ran as
smooth as mine with the 3 blade wood.
Scott McDaniels N64SD / RV-6A 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions of
my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
>
>>
>> The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
>> underside of the wing. Any input???
>
>Yea Paul,
>Drill them out, inspect the inside, dimple the ribs and skin, and start
>the harder job of bucking -4 rivits.
>John Kitz
Paul
... what John says would be really hard to do. Van does approve of
pop-rivets on the lower skin ("Optional Skinning Procedure" of the RV6
manual - page 7-34).
The rivets reccommended for this are CS-4 [aluminum] or MK-319-BS
[monel]. The CS-4 are put in a #30 (1/8) hole, and the MK-319-BS are put
in a 7/64 inch hole (about a #35). If you did manage to drill out all of
those rivets cleanly (no trivial task), you would still end up with
oversize holes.
If MK-319-BS rivets were used (my bet) this would mean drilling out
all of the holes to #30, and either re-dimpling for the larger head of
AN426AD4 rivets, or using the "cheater" repair rivets. The trouble with
the repair rivets is that, in general, they are not approved for wholesale
replacement of entire rivet rows. They _are_ weaker due to the reduced
head diameter (tension or peel failure, not shear). The 1/8 rivets would
be _much_ harder to buck in the blind than the 3/32 called for in the plans.
Since they are on the bottom skins, if the rest of the construction
is OK (ask for a local EAA Technical Counselor to look at the kit for you),
I would live with it, happy in the knowledge that it is an approved (by
Vans) assembly technique. If it still bothers you at the painting stage,
various filling techniques could be employed to hide the pop-rivet heads -
at the expense of weight ... your personal trade-off.
... good luck ... Gil (it actually is approved) Alexander
...let us all know ...
EAA Technical Counselor, Chapter 40, Northridge, CA
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming cylinder porting |
>
>Has anyone had any experience with ported cylinder heads on their Lycomings?
>I have extensive porting experience with two-strokes (particularly
>snowmobiles) and some automotive four strokes, and had to laugh at my first
>look inside an "as-cast" Lycoming cylinder head. The intake and exhaust
>ports looked to have the flow characteristics of a drainage culvert at best.
>There appears to be room for a lot of improvement. I intend to find out
>someday.
>
>Jon Elford
Jon,
... Lycon in Visalia CA does this for about $600 (you deliver the
cylinders). They claim something like 10 HP extra.
A lot of the Bakersfield Bunch RV have modified engines from here.
I have an old e-mail address of "lycon(at)lycon.com"
... good luck .... Gil Alexander
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "joseph.wiza" <joe(at)mcione.com> |
Attended the Treasure Coast Airpark RV fly-in. Lots of RV's and sharing of
good info. Believe I'll attend next year.
Stopped at a near by airport to get directions to the flyin. I met a man
named Jon R. Shimer who belongs to EAA. Claimed he had a 0320 150/160 0
time since overhaul for sale. I dont know anything about this individual
or the engine but here is his phone # 561 464 4876.
Joe/waiting for fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Introducing myself... |
greg(at)ibid.com wrote:
> Just wanted to check in and introduce myself. I'm Gregory Travis and,
Welcome to the RV list, Greg. I look forward to seeing your contribution
to the engines debate.
> Right now I'm trying to make the final decision between a quick-build
> vs. a "standard" kit.
Consider doing the standard emp and then move to the quickbuild. IIRC,
the emp kit costs $1095 and gets you a $2000 reduction in the price of
the QB. Sounds like a great deal to me.
Newcomers to the list will (I hope) be interested in my "Bunny's Guide
to RV Building" pages at
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4809/bunnytop.htm>.
Frank.
PS: You didn't bring Paul Lamar with you, I hope! :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
Solder on lugs is a problem if the cable is free to move, so either
clamp the cable so tight it can't move within the area wetted by the
solder ( and use a good silver bearing solder) or find an industrial
electrician with a good hydraulic crimper ( try your local yellow
pages)
----------
From: Sport AV8R[SMTP:SportAV8R(at)aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 12:45
Subject: Re: RV-List: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING
Bill Boyd
wondering how I'm going to crimp the terminal lugs onto the battery &
starter
cables. I understand solder is a no-no (brittleness/fatigue failure)
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | POH Downloading Problems |
Microsoft have a Word Viewer on their web site as freeware, the guys
having trouble might want to chase it down.
It is a 3Mb download so it will take a while. It is basically an edit
blocked version of Word.
----------
From: Scott Gesele[SMTP:scottg(at)icsnet.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 9:35
Subject: RV-List: POH Downloading Problems
Listers,
Over the past few days I have received a few e-mails regarding problems
downloading the POH on my web site. From the e-mails, these problems
seam
to be limited to version other than the Word 97 version. The document
was
written in Word 97. The other versions are a result of Word 97 saving
the
file in the other formats. Considering Word 97 is a Microsoft product,
we
all can see the potential for problems here. Unfortunately, I do not
have
access to other word processors other than Word 97.
If anyone is having problems with the document, try to download the
Word 97
version on a machine with Word 97 installed. I have had requests for a
*.txt version of the POH. I will try to get this version on the web
site
next week. Most of the formatting and all of the graphics will be lost
during this conversion. For those who are waiting for the *.txt
version,
please try to find a machine with Word 97 and download and print it
there.
If anyone is still having problems with this, please e-mail me to let
me
know. I need to know exactly what errors you are seeing and what
version of
word processor you are using. An e-mail that states "It doesn't work"
is
useless to me unless accompanied by the specifics (version of windows,
version of word processor, specific error messages, etc)
The vast majority of the RVer's who are downloading these files aren't
having any problems. For those who have e-mailed me over the past two
days,
please let me know exactly what the problems were.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying and having a ball with it :)))))))
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Certification standards |
Hal asked a question regarding certification standards and power settings
for certificated aircraft engines. I just thought I would clear up
any confusion here.
For the types of aircraft engines most likely to be found in RVs
(i.e. direct-drive, normally-aspirated ones) the certification procedure
requires an endurance test. The endurance test specifies
150 total hours of running of which:
A total of 75 (non contiguous) hours are spent at maximum power
and maximum speed
The remaining 75 hours are split fairly evenly among power
settings of maximum recommended cruise power or maximum
economy power as well as runs at 75, 70, 65, 60, and
50 percent of maximum continuous power.
The periods of maximum power are interspersed with the periods
of reduced power.
Additionally,
One cylinder must be operated at redline temperatures for
at least 35 hours during the maximum power tests with the
other cylinders not less than 50F below their maximum
temperatures. Oil temp must be within +/- 10F of maximum.
All accessory pads are loaded to their maximum during the
maximum power runs.
A full torsional survey must have been completed with then engine
developing 110% of its rated maximum continuous power. The torsional
survey includes a survey with one cylinder disconnected in order
to determine the characteristics of the engine in that
configuration (the engine need not be shown to operate within
fatigue limits with one cylinder inoperative however).
A full detonation survey must be completed.
To pass:
The engine must not blow up :-)
No variable adjustments on the engine must need to be reset to
continue operation (i.e. an engine with solid lifters must not
need a valve adjustment at the end of the run)
The engine must be fully disassembled and...
All of the parts within the engine must conform to the original
type certificate (which I interpret as meaning "must be within
new dimensions").
The non-helicopter normally aspirated O-320 and O-360 are all rated with
their maximum power, maximum takeoff power, and maximum continuous power
at the same value.
Maximum RECOMMENDED cruise power is now 65% (SI 1094) although all the
engines we're likely to be interested in were certified back when maximum
recommended cruise power was 75%.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Introducing myself... |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Frank van der Hulst wrote:
>
> greg(at)ibid.com wrote:
> > Just wanted to check in and introduce myself. I'm Gregory Travis and,
>
> Welcome to the RV list, Greg. I look forward to seeing your contribution
> to the engines debate.
Just to be clear - I joined the list so that I could learn more about
building my RV and not with any engine agenda. On the other hand, if it
has pistons, vibrates, and burns fuel then I love it. Doesn't matter
if it says Lycoming, Chevy, or Sulzer on the side.
>
> > Right now I'm trying to make the final decision between a quick-build
> > vs. a "standard" kit.
>
> Consider doing the standard emp and then move to the quickbuild. IIRC,
> the emp kit costs $1095 and gets you a $2000 reduction in the price of
> the QB. Sounds like a great deal to me.
I've heard this from several sources (to start with the emp.).
>
> PS: You didn't bring Paul Lamar with you, I hope! :-)
>
Nope. *argh!* what's this trying to burst from my chest? auughhh! *splat*
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PILOT 8127 <PILOT8127(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
Paul,
I have an RV-3 s/n 559. Built in 1986 with pop rivets on the under side of the
wings. Workmanship looked good. Flys fast (215 g/s GPS verified) w/ 160hp.
O-320. Mild aerobatics. Still tight. They don't look as good as the flush
rivets. But seem plenty strong.
P.S. I split -S- out of a loop (on top) and passed 225 IAS before I got'er
slowed up. I did the wing-over unintentionally while pointed toward the ground
at 5500 ft. Just shows the strength of the airframe that Van designed. All the
rivets look good.
Gary, Flying N5AJ
(former Mustang II Owner/Pilot)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Pop Rivets on Skins |
I wholeheartedly agree with Gil on this. I've seen several RV's with all pop
riveted wing skins, one even had universal heads all over. Another used flush
MK319BS rivets, and then filled every hole with epoxy. Many have pop riveted
bottom wing skins.
Drilling out all of the pop rivets would be a surefire mess, particularly if
they are the monel MK319BS pop rivets. Some (a lot) of these will invariably
spin in the hole. Once they start spinning, you're done unless you can
somehow get to it to hold it from the rear. You should also have the mandrel
removed before even trying to drill them out (also on CS4-4s). (BTW, I have
used an automatic center punch to remove mandels with better results than
anything else I've tried. Works sorta like an impact tool to drive those
little suckers out!)
I would also suggest getting someone who is intimately familiar with BUILDING
an RV to look it over and ask some pertinent questions about the pop riveting
(why he did it, or had it done; what type rivets; etc.) as well as everything
else. If they are not of the approved type, I would forget about buying it,
period, as there may be other bogus items/construction that you can't readily
see. If they are an okay type, there's no shame in pop riveted bottom skins
IMO.
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA (2nd-time Offender)/EAA Tech Counselor
>
>>
>> The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
>> underside of the wing. Any input???
>
>Yea Paul,
>Drill them out, inspect the inside, dimple the ribs and skin, and start
>the harder job of bucking -4 rivits.
>John Kitz
Paul
... what John says would be really hard to do. Van does approve of
pop-rivets on the lower skin ("Optional Skinning Procedure" of the RV6
manual - page 7-34).
The rivets reccommended for this are CS-4 [aluminum] or MK-319-BS
[monel]. The CS-4 are put in a #30 (1/8) hole, and the MK-319-BS are put
in a 7/64 inch hole (about a #35). If you did manage to drill out all of
those rivets cleanly (no trivial task), you would still end up with
oversize holes.
If MK-319-BS rivets were used (my bet) this would mean drilling out
all of the holes to #30, and either re-dimpling for the larger head of
AN426AD4 rivets, or using the "cheater" repair rivets. The trouble with
the repair rivets is that, in general, they are not approved for wholesale
replacement of entire rivet rows. They _are_ weaker due to the reduced
head diameter (tension or peel failure, not shear). The 1/8 rivets would
be _much_ harder to buck in the blind than the 3/32 called for in the plans.
Since they are on the bottom skins, if the rest of the construction
is OK (ask for a local EAA Technical Counselor to look at the kit for you),
I would live with it, happy in the knowledge that it is an approved (by
Vans) assembly technique. If it still bothers you at the painting stage,
various filling techniques could be employed to hide the pop-rivet heads -
at the expense of weight ... your personal trade-off.
... good luck ... Gil (it actually is approved) Alexander
...let us all know ...
EAA Technical Counselor, Chapter 40, Northridge, CA
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
John Kitz wrote:
>
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
> >
> >
> > The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
> > underside of the wing. Any input???
>
> Yea Paul,
> Drill them out, inspect the inside, dimple the ribs and skin, and start
> the harder job of bucking -4 rivits.
> John Kitz
> N721JK
> Ohio
Paul and John
Remember, some people use pop rivets to close out the wings, maybe the
last7-8 rows of rivets, it even suggest that in the manual.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Chevy V6 non-pertinent info |
<<
> ... Why Don't you Chevy guy's give the rest of us a break
and e-mail each other so the rest of us can get on with other more
pertinent rv
info. Besides you clutter up the list ....> >>
As a direct result of this discussion I'm having to radically re-think my
intial enthusiasm re. alternate engines. I was hard-core anti-Lycosaur but
having followed this thread closely I'm now not so sure that it's a good idea
for me. I've got about 30 hours at the stick of various friends aircraft and
not started lessons ("Once you get your ticket you'll have neither money nor
time to build." was another bit of not-very-pertinent info....now don't let
that start another thread, doggonit, I'm feeling rather sane at the moment! ).
With that level of experience, the advice of keeping the variables to a
minimum, seem darned good advice...Maybe it just saved my rear and the
airplane.
I would hardly call the thread that resulted in saving my life, not pertinent.
I guess you can be forgiven, though. I'll bet you thought that key labled Del
was just a reject from a Mid-West computer manufacturer.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elec el trim |
Is the electric trim servo gone yet?
If it isn't, is it the same one Van sells, and will it work on an RV-4?
I'm interested. I want to go electric elevator and aileron trim on my -4.
Thanks
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No. 4239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
<<
Drag racing is as different from flying, as taking a bath is, to driving to
work. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. Automotive engines were
designed
for automobiles, trucks, and vans, and aircraft engines were designed for
aircraft. Wake up. >>
Lousy simile. ...taking a bath is to Olympic swimming...would have been
better. Still lousy, though. Didja ever hear about all the home-builders
using the aircooled Lyc engines the Army built into ground-power units?
Yep, lot of airplanes flying engines designed for electrical generators out
there. Yawn..going to bed.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
<< All our airplanes at Van's have it mounted on the glare shield under the
windshield. >>
Scott,
Are these the wire or tape strips antenna?
Gene Francis--Getting ready to shorten the antenna leads that Van sent me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
<< Gentlemen , please!
I would say ladies, too, but the ladies on the list don't descend to the
level of poorly considered and ill advised me-too cat calling that has
gone on the list over the last few days.
How about taking a few deep breaths, remember why we're here, and
remember that we share a passion and dedication (obsession?) quite
unlike any other group in the world.
>>
Oh, yeah!! Ya wanna step outside and say that??
Point well made, Chris. My above reply is only to remind you that there will
always be the type who is happy to vent and sign off, i.e., there's always
someone out there who's offended by polite, rational thinking...makes 'em feel
inferior.
And a cool yule to you too ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kerrjb <Kerrjb(at)aol.com> |
Joe,
Thanks for the plug on the RV list. I failed to get your address card. Please
email me your address. so that you will get an invite next year. Anyone else
out there that might wish to attend send me an address.
Bernie Kerr
kerrjb(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
Scott,
I downloaded your nopix 3.6mb Word 95 file. Internet Explorer said
it did not recognize the file format so I copied it into Microsoft Works
3.0 for Windows and it opened the file. After stripping graphics I then
moved the file to Microsoft Works for DOS and the (13 pages) file only
occupies 26,420 bits. It is a very nice handbook, thank you for sharing it
with us.
Later, when I thought about the file sizes it made me realize that if the
computer folks were also running the aircraft business the RV8 would have
pressurization, satcom datalinks and four minature turboprop engines, with
all the extra gizmos it would have a blistering 150 Kt cruise speed!
George (never give up the DOS) McNutt
Langley BC - starting rear wing spars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
<<
I visited the ultralight folks at my local airport today and talked to
the Hirth dealer who had just been to the factory. They (Hirth) plan to
announce and introduce a new engine at Lakeland. It is a 4 cylinder
opposed, WATER cooled, 2 cycle geared engine with electronic ignition and
fuel injection and oil injection producing 155 hp. I didn't get a weight
but it sounds like it would be lighter than an O-320. The local dealer
has one coming next year to put in his Avid Magnum. Soooo - we have
another alternative to consider. He said they thought it would sell for
around $9000.
Mike Talley >>
Oh, great, another complication/alternative. Hey, I happen to hate
alternatives! That's why I'm building my own airplane!! Huh? Say what. :-)
That sounds neat Mike. Let's keep an eye out for it. I kinda like the idea
of the Diesel though. C'mon Continental/Lycoming!!!
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
<< In it he mentioned during testing determining that
every extra pound added to an RV decreases the ROClimb by 3 FPM. One of
our engineers did a calculator computation (a lot of it I didn't
understand) and verified his findings.
So my extra 50 lbs or so is costing me 150 FPM in climb compared with
what "Old Blue" used to do >>
Hey, thanks for the objective info. I keep hearing, "build it light" but this
is the first quantification I've seen. Lot's of "It handles so much better"
but no numbers.
Got any more nuggets?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
<< So I hope my
comments do not seem to abuse anyone else or be taken out of context. They
certainly are not meant to (I almost capitalized that). This then will be
my last post concerning this long discussion about alternative engines.
Charles Golden >>
Aw, gee, you just took all the fun out the shout-fest!
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
As to the reliability of Van's claimed performance vs. Joe Pilot. I hope
you'll go to great lengths to get veriflyable readings and then post them
here. Hey, if your numbers are better than Van's then you can eat crow as you
pass everyone; if you've got a dog, you can say "I told you so".
A no-loser :-)
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Gibson Allan writes:
>
>
> The worst thing you can do to an engine is put it in a new experimental
> aircraft, as the flight test regime is completely incompatible with
> running in a new engine.
--snip--
One of the things I find most attractive about an auto engine
conversion is that--because it's water-cooled--you can fully
test it and break it in on the ground with minimal complications.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
or it's entire TBO--that's what max continuous power
is!
An important point that is often forgotten is that aircraft
engines have a very easy life. A Lycoming is required to
put out a continuous 0.375 hp/in^3 for 1500 to 2000 hours,
which is peanuts. Any auto engine made in the first world
can easily do that. The Lycoming is also called on to
produce 0.5 hp/in^3 once or twice a flight for a few seconds.
I don't think the engineers at GM would sweat much over that
one, either.
I don't mean to minimize the complications involved in
converting an auto engine for aircraft use. It's a big task,
and one I wouldn't approach lightly. But durability of the
basic engine isn't the big issue, if it's an issue at all.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
Qmax LLC
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
The engines used were O-290D's, John Thorp converted a lot of them for
T-18's, this involved removing the bell housing flange, either
reinforcing the output flange or replacing the crank with one from a
0-320 and removing one of the piston rings ( the D has Four per
cylinder). This is as per the T-18 Newsletter.
----------
From: Qmax LLC[SMTP:QmaxLLC(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:37
Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Apples
<<
Drag racing is as different from flying, as taking a bath is, to
driving to
work. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. Automotive engines were
designed
for automobiles, trucks, and vans, and aircraft engines were designed
for
aircraft. Wake up. >>
Lousy simile. ...taking a bath is to Olympic swimming...would have
been
better. Still lousy, though. Didja ever hear about all the
home-builders
using the aircooled Lyc engines the Army built into ground-power
units?
Yep, lot of airplanes flying engines designed for electrical
generators out
there. Yawn..going to bed.
Bob
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
Paul Besing wrote:
>
> The RV-4 partial kit that I am looking at buying has pop rivets on the
> underside of the wing. Any input???
The only downside of the blind rivets on the bottom of the wing is that they are
not as smooth as the bucked rivets. Van's builders manual suggest this as an
alternative approach to wing skinning. It allows the top skin to be riveted much
easier. The local RV guru around these parts has his -4 done this way. I used the
same approach but bucked rivets on the bottom skin just like on the horz-stab.
Gary Zilik
RV-6A S/N 22993
ors
switches, wire, etc... than the manual setup?
Gary Zilik
Rv-6A S/N 22993
Manual flaps and trim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
| Subject: | Re: Vernatherm wasRe: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
Wait a second Charlie.
I had high temp problems with mine when I removed the vernatherm. When
I put it back in, the oil temps went back down to normal. I was told
with no vernatherm your oil bypasses the cooler, which seems right since
that is how mine acted with the vernatherm removed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Perri <jperri(at)sprynet.com> |
If at first... I am now in real desperate need of Lycoming bearings
for my IO-360.
Now going on four months waiting. Need a new set of LW 13884 M03. I
have tried all outlets and get the same answer they are expecting an
order from Lyc. any day/month or maybe next year. I'm sure glad I don't
make my living with my aircraft. Good reason to find an alternate engine
for the next project. Any help would make several people involved in
this rebuild very happy.
Thanks
JMP RV-6 N345JE Temp. Out-Of-Service
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
> I was thinking just last night that if one could find some kind of valve to
>install in the oil line he could control how much oil was going to the cooler,
>or shut it off completely. This is a great idea! Can you elaborate more on
>what type of valve this is and how you tied it in to your oil line? What type
>fittings does it have on each end. For our Colorado winters this sounds like a
>perfect solution.
> Ryan B RV4131RB(at)aol.com
>
Ryan;
All I'm sure of is that I got it in the plumbing section of the local
hardware store. It is stainless steel, has 3/8 " female fittings on both
ends, and the label gave it's temp and pressure limits. In essence it is a
ball valve. Looks like something you would find on a steam fitting rather
than just water. I used and adapter (brass) to fit into the oil cooler/valve
and an adapter to fit into the oil line going to the cooler. The valve that
way is in effect mounted on the cooler. Then the bowden cable is clamped on
the firewall and the wire runs to the handle. I placed the cable handle on
the up right between the two seats, where most people have the throttle etc.
(I put my throttle on the left side of the cockpit) It only took a couple
of tries and I could control the oil temp to within 5-10 degrees of what I
wanted. But like I said, my oil temp started too low, so I'm sure this
would not help if the temp is too high to start with.
If more questions, I'm going to be off the list for 4-5 days, mail me direct
and I'll catch it when I get home.
John Darby
Stephenville TX
johnd@our-town.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
If 2 people build the same kind of plane from the same set of plans
using the same type and amount of materials, how come one is 50 pounds
lighter than the other? This is a riddle i hav not figured out yet.
Any good answers out there? (just trying to change the subject for a
little while!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Introducing myself...Greg T. |
Greg,
Welcome to the list. I didn't know you were into RV's too. Thanks for
posting that stuff I sent you. Al RV-6 Emp & Wings
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I'm planning on ordering the first parts for an RV-6 in April '98
>(right after Sun 'n Fun) and, in doing my due diligence, found this list.
>Just wanted to check in and introduce myself. I'm Gregory Travis and,
>from reviewing the RV archives, some of you already know about my engine
>web page. I'm quite flattered! I'll be doing a revamp of the page over
>the holidays and will include a lot of info that I hope will be helpful
>and informative for those going the derivative engine route. Materials
>include torsional vibration articles (getting ready to OCR those), some
>really great info from RenJen engine corp about their (failed) collaborative
>effort with Lycoming to develop a regenerative aircraft diesel, engine
>weight/BSFC/dimension spreadsheets, etc.
>
>Back to RVs...
>
>Right now I'm trying to make the final decision between a quick-build
>vs. a "standard" kit. I have a spamcan for my day-day flying and am in
>no particular hurry to complete the RV ('though I would like to get
>it done within ~3-4 years). On the other hand, I'm fairly busy and wonder
>if going the quick-build route might be a better way to ensure eventual
>completion for this first-time builder.
>
>Anyway, here I am. Looking forward to all the things I'll learn,
>
>greg
> greg@littlebear.com http://www.prime-mover.org
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming cylinder porting |
>
>>
>>Has anyone had any experience with ported cylinder heads on their Lycomings?
>>I have extensive porting experience with two-strokes (particularly
>>snowmobiles) and some automotive four strokes, and had to laugh at my first
>>look inside an "as-cast" Lycoming cylinder head. The intake and exhaust
>>ports looked to have the flow characteristics of a drainage culvert at best.
>>There appears to be room for a lot of improvement. I intend to find out
>>someday.
>>
>>Jon Elford
>
>Jon,
> ... Lycon in Visalia CA does this for about $600 (you deliver the
>cylinders). They claim something like 10 HP extra.
>
> A lot of the Bakersfield Bunch RV have modified engines from here.
>
> I have an old e-mail address of "lycon(at)lycon.com"
>
> ... good luck .... Gil Alexander
>
>------------------------------------
>RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
>"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
>mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
>
Gil,
Thanks for the tip. I'll let you know what I dig up regarding this issue.
Right now I need to go work on the airplane before I go crazy thinking about it.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Jigging vertical stab
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
Qmax LLC
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
I remember seeing a note on a NASA website that Lycoming have a
development contract for a Diesel / Avtur burning engine but this
probably falls into the category of watch this space.........
----------
From: Qmax LLC[SMTP:QmaxLLC(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:55
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative engines
<<
I visited the ultralight folks at my local airport today and talked to
the Hirth dealer who had just been to the factory. They (Hirth) plan
to
announce and introduce a new engine at Lakeland. It is a 4 cylinder
opposed, WATER cooled, 2 cycle geared engine with electronic ignition
and
fuel injection and oil injection producing 155 hp. I didn't get a
weight
but it sounds like it would be lighter than an O-320. The local dealer
has one coming next year to put in his Avid Magnum. Soooo - we have
another alternative to consider. He said they thought it would sell
for
around $9000.
Mike Talley >>
Oh, great, another complication/alternative. Hey, I happen to hate
alternatives! That's why I'm building my own airplane!! Huh? Say
what. :-)
That sounds neat Mike. Let's keep an eye out for it. I kinda like the
idea
of the Diesel though. C'mon Continental/Lycoming!!!
Bob
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lothar Klingmuller <lothark(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
>
>I flew my -4 today at 1600 lbs, with 240 lbs in the backseat. It was
Michael: Why did you do this?
PS: Personally, I think every pilot should get a check ride in type @ MAX
weight so pilot knows ther difference in flying solo, little fuel vs. @
max load.
Safe and happy landings -ALWAYS!
Lothar|| Denver, CO || plumbing new PILOT SHED (~carriagehouse)||
loocking for RV- 6 JIG |||
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: chevy by the test pilot |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
Lots of good first-hand info deleted...
>*Bill Phillips reply who flew 100hrs test on the chevy RV-6*
>If I were spending 3 years of my life to build an RV I would buy the
>Lycoming from Van for $18K instead of the Vortec from Jess at $11K or
>whatever they quote now. The other hardware for that airplane is
>going to cost you $25 to $30K plus three years of your life. I
>wouldn't scrimp on the engine to save $6 to $8K. No way.
Jerry, thanks for posting this info. Bill can be as abrasive as 3 grit
sandpaper, but his letter puts a lot of things into perspective. Cost is
certainly an issue for almost everyone, but should not be the deciding
factor for the installation of the single most important item on an
aircraft.
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
>
>If 2 people build the same kind of plane from the same set of plans
>using the same type and amount of materials, how come one is 50 pounds
>lighter than the other? This is a riddle i hav not figured out yet.
>Any good answers out there? (just trying to change the subject for a
>little while!)
That's easy, Attention to detail, and PAINT! Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
>Gibson Allan writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually the Continental was required by its certification tests to
>> deliver its maximum continuous power for its entire TBO. Ditto for the
>> Lycoming.
>
>At the risk of being flamed for my relative ignorance of FAA
>engine certification procedures: isn't the operative phrase
>here "maximum continuous power?" I would certainly hope that
>an engine would be required to deliver maximum continuous
>power for it's entire TBO--that's what max continuous power
>is!
>
>An important point that is often forgotten is that aircraft
>engines have a very easy life. A Lycoming is required to
>put out a continuous 0.375 hp/in^3 for 1500 to 2000 hours,
>which is peanuts. Any auto engine made in the first world
>can easily do that. The Lycoming is also called on to
>produce 0.5 hp/in^3 once or twice a flight for a few seconds.
>I don't think the engineers at GM would sweat much over that
>one, either.
>
The GM engineers probably wouldn't sweat, but with 265 cu/in, that would
only yield 132.5 hp. Hardly mind boggling performance. Get a 265 cu/in
(4.3 liters) to put out 180 hp for any length of time and that's a recipe
for disaster IMHO. :-)
>I don't mean to minimize the complications involved in
>converting an auto engine for aircraft use. It's a big task,
>and one I wouldn't approach lightly. But durability of the
>basic engine isn't the big issue, if it's an issue at all.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>[-6 tail]
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
>
>If 2 people build the same kind of plane from the same set of plans
>using the same type and amount of materials, how come one is 50 pounds
>lighter than the other? This is a riddle i hav not figured out yet.
>Any good answers out there? (just trying to change the subject for a
>little while!)
>
Scott's aircraft has more radio equipment as well as VOR & GS. Set up for
IFR as "Old Blue" 6A prototype is a modestly equipped VFR aircraft. They
probably weigh nearly the same now as Old Blue now has a C/S prop.
Everything has some weight to it. Even an extra coat of paint adds some weight.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
John,
Isn't there some Lycoming or aviation engine part list on the internet
somewhere? Even one of the aviation news forums might be of some help if
you can't get any satifaction here. Wish I could point you in the right
direction. Maybe Greg Travis can help you here. Al
>If at first... I am now in real desperate need of Lycoming bearings
>for my IO-360.
>Now going on four months waiting. Need a new set of LW 13884 M03. I
>have tried all outlets and get the same answer they are expecting an
>order from Lyc. any day/month or maybe next year.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
The basic idea is that with an RV, adding a pound to the gross
weight (whether that be to the empty weight or with payload) is a much
higher percentage of the typical RV empty weight than it is with say a
C-172 using the same engine size range. The 172 also has a lot more
wing area than an RV to help haul the weight.
Ask any RV driver with a few hundred hours of flight time and
they will tell you that the most fun way to fly (for performance anyway)
is solo with reduced fuel load on a cold high pressure day.
The performance difference compared to max. gross weight on a warm day is
astounding, regardless of what engine and prop. combination you have
installed.
I used a C-172 as an example because a lot of pilots have flown
them (and probably not noticed that dramatic of a performance change just
by taking a second passenger).
The difference in an RV is very noticeable. There are a lot of RV's
flying that have a high enough empty weight that the are carrying the
weight of a passenger around even when they are solo.
Fortunately we have a high level of performance in an RV
and even loaded to gross on a hot day from a high altitude runway we can
do better than that C-172 does on its best day.
Light is Right!
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These ideas and opinions are my own
and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
"My advisor, the leading RV guru in the western world, told me to install
an adjustable door on the rear face of my oil cooler in the first place but
I haven't yet. This may be the only way. He's been right on everything
else".
-------------------------------
1) My 1965 vintage Lycoming overhaul manual says next to nothing about the
veratherm valve that thermostatically controls oil flow to the oil cooler.
However a diagram shows a spring loaded oil cooler by-pass valve and a
"optional thermostatic by-pass valve available". Most people with low oil
temperatures probably do not have the thermostatically controlled veratherm
valve installed in their engine and need to control the airflow through the
cooler to keep temperature up.
2) The recent discussions on low oil temperatures and cabin heating has me
thinking about these two systems. I dislike having to remove and inspect
the cabin heat muff annually (a repetative AD here in Canada) so I like the
idea of oil cooler heat to heat the cabin.
I have deducted that temperatures where one requires cabin heat are
about the same as those where the oil runs cool. Therefore would it be
possible to design a functional system where selecting cabin heat would
simultaneously reduce the airflow through the oil cooler. I envision a four
inch scat discharge tube from the oil cooler being reduced to two inches or
less through the firewall by a cabin heat control valve.
Anyone done any research or tinkering in this area? How are those with a
operational oil cooler heat system plumbing the air ?
George McNutt, Langley BC.
6A - Rear wing spars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
I too have the Performance 3-blade wood prop. I choose it because it was
smooth. It seems to be as fast at the Sensenich props but they do out-climb
me. I agree with Scott, if I was buying another prop for my plane it would be
a Sensenich with a trip to the balance shop.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Donald DiPaula <dipaula(at)access.digex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
> >An important point that is often forgotten is that aircraft
> >engines have a very easy life. A Lycoming is required to
> >put out a continuous 0.375 hp/in^3 for 1500 to 2000 hours,
> >which is peanuts. Any auto engine made in the first world
> >can easily do that. The Lycoming is also called on to
> >produce 0.5 hp/in^3 once or twice a flight for a few seconds.
> >I don't think the engineers at GM would sweat much over that
> >one, either.
> >
> The GM engineers probably wouldn't sweat, but with 265 cu/in, that would
> only yield 132.5 hp. Hardly mind boggling performance. Get a 265 cu/in
> (4.3 liters) to put out 180 hp for any length of time and that's a recipe
> for disaster IMHO. :-)
disaster for GM, perhaps. honda (acura) wrings 170-180 hp out of 1.8 litres
(110 cubic inches?) 4-bangers that are perfectly happy to run at redline
as much as you want, as long as they get their oil/filter changes and valves
adjusted. that's only 1.6 hp/cu. in. they get rather more power/cubic inch
from the smaller motorcycle engines, which have similar longevity if cared
for properly (like, 93 hp/ 599 cc. feel free to do the math. just don't
miss the oil changes or valve adjustments).
> >I don't mean to minimize the complications involved in
> >converting an auto engine for aircraft use. It's a big task,
> >and one I wouldn't approach lightly. But durability of the
> >basic engine isn't the big issue, if it's an issue at all.
maybe i just don't have enough experience in aircraft; but it seems like any
tuned liquid-cooled 4-stroke engine running on clean oil with good air and oil
filters _should_ be the least likely part to fail...
it's not the engines i would worry about in the conversions; it's the
adaptation to the aircraft use (mounting, fuel flow, air intake, air for
cooling, PSRU, etc.)
no, i have never converted an engine for aircraft use; i am speaking
theoretically, based on my own (limited) experience.
-D-
"White has an insurmountable advantage in chess and should be able to win every
game. I have discovered a marvelous proof of this, which this .signature is
too small to contain."
My 1989 Honda CB-1 (CB400F) is *SOLD*!
My 1989 Honda CRX Si is for sale, email me if interested.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
| Subject: | flying at 1600 and aft c.g. |
I wanted to know exactly what to expect of the flying characteristics
should I ever have the need to load it like this. It was safe, as far
as the c.g. and weight were concerned. I did all the calculations
according to the manual instructions. My empty c.g. is 68.74. Now I
feel safer knowing what the planes limits are.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Yes, you can if you want to set up a test bench with adequate cooling
unfortunately your plane is not a good place to do it as its radiator
will be far too small. By the same token you could also bench run in an
air cooled engine it just requires a load and a cooling fan, a
generator and load will do the job. No difference in cost either way.
----------
From: Tedd McHenry[SMTP:tedd(at)idacom.hp.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 1997 11:47
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Gibson Allan writes:
>
>
> The worst thing you can do to an engine is put it in a new
experimental
> aircraft, as the flight test regime is completely incompatible with
> running in a new engine.
--snip--
One of the things I find most attractive about an auto engine
conversion is that--because it's water-cooled--you can fully
test it and break it in on the ground with minimal complications.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
Hold on there folks....
I too used the steel pop rivets (MK-319-BS) in the bottom of my wings as I
built my aircraft mostly by myself. Never gave it a thought until I saw all
December 03, 1997 - December 08, 1997
RV-Archive.digest.vol-dt