RV-Archive.digest.vol-du
December 08, 1997 - December 11, 1997
the BAD advise about drilling-out rivets.
Food for thought:
I'd rather have pop-rivets that are strong and holding well than hogged-out
holes and rivets that are now undersized in hols that are oversized.
Who cares how they look...it's the bottom of the damn airplane. Oh sure,
there are those people who seem to give your aircraft an annual inspection at
fly-ins, but who cares about them. Do you really want to make somebody else
happy???
I would NEVER drill out a rivet that is holding. A 7/64th steel rivet is
stronger than a -3 AN rivet (I don't know this to be fact but I sure do like
hearing myself say it).
Lots of RV's are built this way...the builders just wont confess.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
Just a note: The Qantas 747 that flew into Oshkosh in 1995 with the
outrageous red paint scheme was carrying 4.5 Tonnes of paint having
been painted with a brush, the normal scheme weighs in at 500kg. It
flew from Oshkosh to Seattle for a strip and respray which reduced the
extra weight to 1.5 Tonnes. Amazing what a difference a coat of paint
makes.....
----------
From: jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM[SMTP:jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 12:40
Subject: Re: RV-List: (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: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
<< You are making an erroneous assumption regarding the operation of the
Vernatherm. Unlike an automotive thermostat, the Vernatherm system was
designed to fail in a "safe mode". In other words, if it sticks closed,
the oil cooler gets full flow, NOT no flow. 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. >>
This is not exactly correct. At temperatures below 85 (I think) degrees C the
vernatherm is short and is not blocking the internal short cut return path
between the oil out port and the oil in port. This allows the oil to
preferentially take the path of least resistance, but not all of it does, some
still goes the long route thru the cooler. When the temperature rises, the
vernatherm grows in length (I'm sure you've had some similar experience in
this regard). This blocks off much of the short return path and forces more
of the oil to take the long path thru the cooler.
Use the correct ports (3/8" NPT between governor pad and spin-on oil filter is
out to cooler and goes to bottom, 3/8" NPT below crankcase vent is in from
cooler and goes to top), use -8 hose assys and you'll be in fat city.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
Donald DiPaula
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Honda make some very good engines, the guts of the Jabiru engine are a
set of Honda pistons and rods, the heads are specials to take dual
ignition. The final product is rated for 80hp, and a six is in
development at 120hp.
----------
From: Donald DiPaula[SMTP:dipaula(at)access.digex.net]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 1:11
Subject: RE: RV-List: 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: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
It could be that the 3 blade prop is a little less efficient at low
speed. With more of it inside the cowl radius you may be getting less
useable thrust but at cruise you may also have less drag.
----------
From: RV6junkie[SMTP:RV6junkie(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 1:00
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| 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".
------------------------------------
Be careful fellows, this sounds like a major mod to a proven oil system,
and you may introduce unforseen problems. At the minimum you will be
regulary forcing oil through the oil cooler bypass valve, maybe adding to
oil line and cooler failure with pressure surges and introducing parts of
unknown quality into a vital system.
George McNutt, Langley BC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vernatherm wasRe: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
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
__________________________________
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.
____________________________
Charlie is correct!! - if you remove your vernatherm you must install a
spring loaded oil cooler bypass valve in its place, you must have one or
the other installed. The bypass valve (no vernatherm) directs all oil
through the cooler no matter what the oil temperature and will only bypass
the cooler in event of a blockage. With neither valve installed most oil
would bypass the cooler and temps would go way up!
pump ---->I---by-pass valve or vernatherm -->I-----> engine
I I
I---------------cooler-------------I
vernatherm controls (bypasses cooler) by temp or pressure, bypass valve
opens by pressure alone.
George McNutt, Langley BC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
Vanremog wrote:
snipped
> This is not exactly correct. At temperatures below 85 (I think) degrees C the
> vernatherm is short and is not blocking the internal short cut return path
> between the oil out port and the oil in port. This allows the oil to
> preferentially take the path of least resistance, but not all of it does, some
> still goes the long route thru the cooler. When the temperature rises, the
> vernatherm grows in length (I'm sure you've had some similar experience in
> this regard). This blocks off much of the short return path and forces more
> of the oil to take the long path thru the cooler.
Gary,
I stand corrected. Thanks for the detailed info. What you have stated
suggests that if the Vernatherm or oil cooler lines are not correctly
installed, problems develop. I was always taught when troubleshooting
problems: Visually inspect the system First! Look for the simple and
obvious problems.(like verifying that everything is installed correctly)
More times than I care to admit, I have forgotten this advice. I usually
ended up mentally kicking myself after wasting time looking for more
exotic causes.
Thanks for the info.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | N595CM <N595CM(at)aol.com> |
Paint & ammenities
Chris May
RV-4 N595CM ------- O-360
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
> 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.
George,
I do have a vernatherm valve on my 150 hp "cool" engine. In fact, it's
new so as to avoid the continuing re-inspection AD of the valve.
> Canada) so I like the
>idea of oil cooler heat to heat the cabin.
I doubt that warm air from the oil cooler would be enough for your
location. The dual heat muff set up on the exhaust is barely adequate in
Wyoming/Nebraska when the temp is 10 degrees F. or below and I would guess
the btu's from an oil cooler would be considerably less.
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sport AV8R <SportAV8R(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
> 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.
IMHO you'd be NUTS to fit your RV with a 155 hp two-stroke anything...
when 9kilobucks will just about get you an overhauled 1st run O-320 (okay, Ive
got $10,500 in mine). But then again, I'm biased by experience. My olny
glider time came as a result of an unplanned downward ride in a very quiet
RANS S-12 with a seized Rotax 582 along as cargo to keep my son and me
company. We walked away with trivial airframe damage, but it could have been
worse (Witness the Velocity/Ivo crash with 4 fatalities).
Friends don't let friends fly two-strokes. (I might make an exception for a
true UL with a ballistic chute).
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vernatherm wasRe: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
Michael C. Lott wrote:
> 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.
Mike,
If Gary V. is correct, it would appear that the shape of the chamber
your Vernatherm is in,causes the oil to shunt itself towards bypassing
the oil cooler. Since removing the Vernatherm would expose both the
cooler and bypass exit ports. Did you test the vernatherm or check to
see if it was the correct part number for your engine. (No, I don't know
if there is more than one Vernatherm used in Lycoming engines. But I
would like to know if there is.) Lycoming has so many varients of its
engines, that it is possible that there are variations on the vernatherm
theme.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woodsboat <Woodsboat(at)aol.com> |
rv-list subscribe iav8rv4(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Loveday <eloveday(at)ici.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Frey Jigs returning |
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob -
Perhaps I can save you a some effort. My company, Sport Aero, is just about
to resume manufacture of Steve Frey's jigs. His widow and I came to an
agreement a couple of months ago, and I now have the entire complement of
stock, tooling and master jigs installed in my shop.
I haven't publicized anything about all this as yet because I'm also in
the midst of moving my machine/fabrication shop into the same facility and
I really wanted to be ready to manufacture & ship jigs before putting the
word out.
I am hoping to be ready by mid - January or so, and if you like, I'll be
happy to send you a copy of Steve's last brochure - I'm not planning any
changes - and will keep you posted on progress.
The new shop is across the street from Plymouth (MA) Airport (PYM), and
the address is: Sport Aero, 15 Roberts Rd. Unit G, Plymouth, MA, 02360.
Telephone is (508) 747-0061.
Hope I can be of service.
Ed Loveday eloveday(at)ici.net
RV-6 20181 Fuselage
working in cockpit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary A. Sobek" <gasobek(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | FAR Part 33 Engine Certification |
Greg:
Job well done.
The information Greg posted is from FAR Part 33. Most of it is the same
as in my 1993 copy of the FARs. The Amdt. that it includes are from the
October 1, 1974 changes. Maybe he has a newer copy with some
corrections that my copy does not.
My comments:
1. 33.43 (b) The torsional and bending vibration stresses of the
crankshaft and the propeller shaft ......... The peak amplitude must be
shown to produce a stress below the endurance limit; if not, the engine
must be run at the condition producing the peak amplitude until, for
steel shafts, 10 million stress reversals have been sustained without
fatigue failure and, for ..... .....fatigue will not occur within the
endurance limit stress of the material.
2. 33.49 Endurance test. Paragraph (b) (1) through (7) .
When I add up the time at the different runs, I came up with 100
hours at rated maximum continuous power and maximum continuous RPM.
I was going to make the same post Greg did but he beat me to it. Good
work Greg. Job well done! :-)
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
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: | "Bruce & Paulette Smith" <bpsmith(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | 2-cycle Hirth engine |
Wwwwwwwwwiiiinnnnnggggggg-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
<348B7EA1.4F71(at)sprintmail.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
The vernatherm does too jobs if you also have a spin on filter adapter.
As mentioned previously when the oil is cold the vernatherm is retracted
and shorter in length which leaves open a passage to let the oil bypass
the oil cooler and the filter Cold thick oil doesn't like to go through
the filter media very well. As the oil warms up the vernatherm grows in
length and closes the bypass passage forcing all the oil to go through
the filter and then the cooler. The problem seems to be that we need the
vernatherm to regulate the oil temp from a 115 deg F. day in Arizona to a
0 deg. F.
day up north in the winter and I just doesn't seem to be able to regulate
over that wide of a range. I guess we have to just follow the lead of
the certified airplane builders and do what they do. Restrict the
airflow.
BTW from what I have seen there are so many various factors in what oil
temps a particular RV has at a particular temp. What model
(RV-4's always seem to have lower temps) The cooler installation design.
Coolest seems to be mounted on rear baffle, then mounted on left forward
inlet ramp, and warmest with it mounted on the firewall with air ducted
to it using scat hose (but there have been exceptions to these).
All I know from talking to the Lycoming reps. is that they would much
rather see an engine run at 200 deg F all the time than for it to run
below 180 deg F for any time at all. If you don't get above the boiling
point of water for the pressure alt. that you are flying at you wont ever
get rid of the condensed moisture that develops inside the engine.
Hope this is of some value to the oil temp discussion.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own and do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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 >>
If I'm not mistaken, the NASA diesel contract was with Continental, not Lyc.
Renault has a diesel that I think might eventually be a candidate.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<>
Fuel useage was by dripping gasoline on a hot plate, wasn't it?
Thank you Mr. Gibson, you saved me a lot of work. There are a "few" uninformed
on the list, who think that just because the automobile was on the road at the
time, that the brothers Wright, weren't able to design something "other" than
an automobile/horseless carriage engine. I believe ignition was accomplished
by "dripping" fuel on a hot "plate." Wasn't it??
I think there's all but just a few people who need to take a trip to the
Smithsonian, and spend about 2 weeks there. Then, if they don't learn
anything, go to Minden, Nebtaska, and tour Pioneer Village. That ought to do
it.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No 4239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 non-pertinent info |
Can you buy a better watch than a Timex?
Certainly you can.
What's it called? ROLEX ring a bell?
Why is it considered better? The name? I don't think so!!
Chevrolet is as different from Lycoming, as Timex is to Rolex.
It's kinf of like Bob, at earolectric - whatever says; "A GPS, or Loran, is as
different from an IAS indicator, as a digital caliper is to a yardstick."
Equate the Chevy to the yardstick, as you would the Lycoming to the digital
caliper. If you do, you'll have the engine of choice, and you will be able to
breath (fly) safe.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No. 4239
P.S. God, Bob, I'm starting to agree with you. Love your posts. Keep'em
coming.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
Still Lyc's though, weren't they?
Ever consider that those Lyc's may not have measured up as A/C engines, and
that's why they were relegated to duty as power unit motors? There's a lot of
those on airboats in Louisianna, too. Still don't mean they are aircraft
engines.
Huntin alligators is a whole lot different from flying at 20,000 ft.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
Continental and Lycoming don't have to compete with the wanna be's. Ever
wonder why?
Chevy's don't have redundant ignition, two strokes are two strokes, and
deisels are deisels. Go figure!!!
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Excuse me, but what kind of horse power does it take, to continue to pull that
big pilot cooling fan, at 100%, 75%, and 65% power?
How much horsepower does it take to continue to pull a pickup down the highway
at cruise speed? (of 70 MPH) Especially considering that there is a
transmission involved, which changes from one gear to another, about 3 or 4
times? (About 12 to 20 HP.)
What is 65% 0f 160 HP? It's a bit above 12 to 20 HP, I think. And that is
continuous power too, I believe.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| 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? >>
Because 1 of the 2 actually did something different.
I'm probably heavier than you, or you mayu be heavier than me. Why?
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Oil cooler flow?, Fuel Lube?, Wing Root Gascolator? |
What are the theories on direction of oil flow through a vertical mounted
oil cooler? Seems like from bottom up would remove any possible air
entrapment.
Has anyone taken over the Fuel Lube distribution task from Bob Skinner?
I could use another film container worth.
Is anyone doing the wing root gascolator mounting? If so, what kind of
fittings are working out. Eustase did his with an IO-360, so there was no
Facet pump on the inside of the bulkhead to worry about. He is reviewing
his installation to give me what he can that might be helpful. He
sure is a nice fellow...!
Thank you!
Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q, mounting firewall stuff.
Seattle area
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< 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. >>
What was the hottest fighter in WWII, and was it air, or water cooled?
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
<< Be careful fellows, this sounds like a major mod to a proven oil system,
and you may introduce unforseen problems. At the minimum you will be
regulary forcing oil through the oil cooler bypass valve, maybe adding to
oil line and cooler failure with pressure surges and introducing parts of
unknown quality into a vital system.
George McNutt, Langley BC.
>>
George,
Remember this system will run just fine with nothing but plugs in the ports
for your oil cooler. By installing a valve in one of the oil lines you would
simply be controling the amount of oil going to the cooler. There should be
nothing in a system like this that would create any pressure surges either.
Its only a simple flow limiting device. I have tried covering the air inlet to
my cooler with only about a 10 deg rise in temp. covering the rear yeilds
about the same results. So installing a controlable door on the inlet or exit
would be a waste of time in my book. I plan on taking another look at the ol
Lycoming manual this week and seeing just how a valve like this will affect
the oil system. I still think it sounds like a great idea! But trust me I
wouldnt do it without a little research first.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: chevy by the test pilot |
Jerry
I hate to admit it, but I deleted your first posting of this message, when I
intended to print it. (We all goof sometimes.)
Would you mind resending it, so I could capture a copy of it. I sure would
appreciate it.
Thanks
WBWard(at)AOL.COM
P.S. You could send it to me privately, to keep the Chevy guys from having to
read it!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Glover <tglovebox(at)bc.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> 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.
OK, Hotrodders, listen up! A Lycont putting out 180 HP is highly
stressed! Sure it's only .5 HP/c.i., but it's doing it at wide-open
throttle and 2800 rpm, approximately one-half the rpm of the average
high-performance Yankee car engine! Theoretically, and VERY
simplistically, if one could buzz that ol' Lycont at twice its rated
rpm, it would be outputting 360 HP, or 1 hp/ci, and that's starting to be
classed as high performance. The formula below gives the relationship
between horsepower and rpm:
Horsepower= (torque x RPM)/5252.
Double the rpm, double the horsepower. It's also doing it with 4 BIG
cylinders, not 6 or 8 somewhat smaller ones at significantly higher rpm.
Just for interest's sake, I managed to dig up a horsepower curve chart
for one of Chrysler's 360 ci crate motors (Chevy...Bah!) which is rated
for 360 hp @ 5500 rpm; at 2800 rpm it appears to be putting out 180 hp or
so. This would be at wide open throttle, of course, and confirms my
statement that the engine would be stressed. My nomex is on, and
nit-pickers shall not be recognized!
Aircraft engines are normally asked to deliver 65 to 75% of their maximum
output for most of their life. Car engines are delivering a far lower
average output for most of their life. The design goals differ for both.
This isn't to say that car engines can't be modified for aircraft use,
but I suspect that much research will need to be done before it becomes
popular.
Tom Glover
Surrey BC
RV-6A empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< the heads are specials to take dual ignition. >>
This is one thing the Chevy boys don't seem to understand. Would you explain
it please?
Regards
WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
How about if I show up in my Nebraska sweatshirt??
WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Martin <fairlea(at)execulink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
>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 do not think that this is an alternative that will work for you. Even with
the oil cooler door it takes at least 20 minutes to get the oil to a
temperature hot enough to provide any cabin heat. I for one can not wait
that long. Sometimes the canopy fogs over and you have to wait a couple of
minutes for the cabin air to warm with the heat muff system. The oil cooler
cabin heat system would never get warm enough to remove the fog from the canopy.
As well, remove your heat muff in the summer anyways. It still generates
heat when it is not used and this adds to fuel vapour problems. This could
provide your annual heat muff check!
Tom Martin
RV4 sold, next one on the gear,fitting wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jim jewell <jjewell(at)okanagan.net> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
Is there an internal combustion design engineer with a wall full of
certificates out there?, A fellow that is a true unbiased gearhead's
gearhead !, Possibly a university proffessor, Or how about a consulting firm
specialist.
Some person, a firm, university, or organization that would take the time
to research, analyse, or otherwise study the apparently burning questions
about engines that plague us listers so persistantly of late.
I wonder if we could take up a collection to pay the affore said expert or
experts ?.
I thought we might form a commitee ourselves, but.....!!? (smiley)
Anyhow, if someone would kindly step forward we could ask:
-What if anything does an engines design origin have to do with it's
alternate possible uses?.
-What design types are, or are not suitable For our RVs?.
-Can an automotive engine design/type be upgraded/downgraded to a/c
use? Ifso, how?.
-what role does opinion play in modern design technolegy today?.
-what fuel is best?. Now and future?.
-Wich is best for a/c, water cooling/air cooling?.
-Are there any designs or types so far unmentioned in our archives?.
-etc.
If a collection is started, put put me in for ten bucks. If a commitee is
sought, count me out. I'm dumb enough to put up ten bucks, not stupid!(smiley).
I started out to suggest we organize an effort at fact finding and the
above happened. Fill in your own questions, ignor it, or del key, whatever.
Please have fun folks.
Thats why I bought my RV/6-eh Jim/wings in jig -When my dreams
come true, the skys the limit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
I agree with the instumentaion comment, but, after flying N925RV, the
airframe issues should be quite straightforward. Except for the
additional trim tab on the Rudder, I haven't done anything to the
airframe since it was signed off for first flight.
As long as one spends the time to properly check out the airfraome
prior to first flights, It shouldn't be an major issue in the test
program. This means doing all the inspections just like we do on any
other certified aircraft....
Instrumentation of the auto engine is another matter. Sudden stoppage
of an engine while taking off , or any other time while in flight, is a
very discomforting. Instrumented tests on the ground whose results assure
operation for at least the duration of a first flight would seem prudent.
Using others test results to better your own engine reliability also
helps.....
So lets keep the discussions going. I'm learning a lot from input on
this forum, especially from those whom have used Chevy engines in racing
or boating applications....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
writes:
>
>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
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>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: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Chevy V6 Installation |
> Instrumented tests on the ground whose results assure
>operation for at least the duration of a first flight would seem prudent.
>Using others test results to better your own engine reliability also
>helps.....
>Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
Fred,
Be carefull here. I believe that it would be a false sense of security to
believe that an engine conversion running on a test stand will most likely
run when installed in the flight mode. It's not so much the ENGINE that
will most likely cause problems, but the SYSTEMS. After you remove your
tested engine from the test stand and install it, you have the fuel system,
electrical system, cooling system, and power transfer (PSRU) system to
worry about on your first and susequent flights. I sent Greg Travis some
articles to post on his websight about torsional vibration and PSRU design
criteria that should be read and taken into consideration when designing an
engine conversion. I believe that an auto engine conversion can be made to
work in an RV, BUT, remember that if you throw enough money at it, you can
make a kitchen sink fly! Have you then accomplished your goals? (AFFORDABLE
alternative) AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | heated pitot tube information |
Would like a flyer on your products.b Cost of ToolKey??
Ed Anderson
AndersonE(at)bah.com
----------
From: Warren Gretz
Subject: RV-List: heated pitot tube information
Date: Monday, December 01, 1997 8:37PM
I now have an e-mail address that I can use for getting and replying to
questions about my pitot tube mounting bracket kits, new pitot tubes, and
my newest product, ToolKey.
ToolKey is an attractive, polished stainless steel, key fob tool designed
to open the fuel filler caps on your RV. The head of ToolKey has your RV
model laser cut into it. These are attractive, and useful, they also make
a great gift item for your RV buddies.
Please contact me if you would like a flyer on my products, have
questions about them, or would just like to make comments to me.
Warren Gretz
Gretz Aero
3664 East Lake Drive
Littleton, Colorado 80121
e-mail: gretz-aero(at)juno.com
by hoses. Avery's gun
looks like it is "upright" only.
Chris Browne
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.COM
-6A Tail kit for Xmas, the wife offered to buy it!
Buying more and more and more tools ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | re: alternative technologies et. als. |
>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".
Charles, my first computer didn't even know what a lower case letter was,
it took me quite awhile to adjust to the use of lower case both
for programing and communicating . . .
> . . . .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.
This kind of thing used to be done in certified aviation.
When I worked at Cessna in the 60s, I was sorry I had not
finished my pilot training . . . as a member of engineering
staff I could have participated in SERVICE TESTS being flown
on a variety of aircraft. The flying was limited to daylight
hours, non-the-less, we could wear out a brand new airplane in
a few months . . . and they did so with some regularity.
In years since, just complying with the regulations has become
so expensive that bureaucratic paper shuffling has replaced
real life testing. Now, certified aviation has to hear from
it's customers as to what breaks . . . instead of its own
engineering department. I agree that we who enjoy the freedoms
of "experimental" aviation have some opportunities long lost
to the certified iron.
Some of the anecdotal points supporting an inate superiority
of certified a/c engines over other choices suggest there
are good technical reasons that other engines have not come
into being . . . I'll suggest a potentially more compelling
reason. Aviation is the most static technology I can think
of in products offered to consumers. This condition is
exacerbated by regulation combined with low volumes of sales
which strongly discourages inovation in spite of regulation.
Look at the sales figures for GA aircraft and plot the numbers.
There were very strong (16,000+) peaks in the middle 60s and
70's followed and preceded by sharply sloping up and down
trends. Technology driven? Economy driven? More the latter
I think in the form of changes to tax laws that made it
alterantively attractive and unattractive as business
investments.
When your market potential is double whammied by the will
of government both in terms of manufacturing and marketing,
the market might well be DOWN more than it is UP.
> . . . . 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.
Others have stated that PROGRESS cannot be had without CHANGE.
In what ways would we "change" a contemporary aircraft engine
aside from total electronic ignition and fuel injection? And what
would those changes do for economy of purchase and ownership? I
believe we need to look outside the industry for the next quantum
leap in engine development (remember LORAN? the boat guys did it first).
>The most recent is this alternator/vacuum pump combination. This might be
>my answer to a problem that has been driving me crazy.
I'm working on a three part article (probably for Sport Aviation) that
will address these issues along with failure modes effects analysis
for fabricating a VERY reliable electrical system. I know this SEEMS
far fetched . . . our collective experience suggests there are reasons
to fret over electrical system reliability - search NTSB reports and see
how many start with, "Pilot reported electrical system failing" or
perhaps, "Transpoder lost on radar minutes before crash."
Those accidents should NOT HAVE HAPPENED . . . at least not because
of lost of electrical power. No magic involved here, just considered
application of off-the-shelf-technologies. This will be my contribution
to the future of aviation. There are many skills and willingness to
explore possessed by others who are also contributing. The future
of little airplanes in avition is not going to be saved by the likes
of Cessna, Lycoming, Teledyne, Piper, . . . or government.
By all means, be VERY critical of new ideas . . . poke at 'em, prod
'em, if we don't KNOW where the weakness are, then let's try 'em
and find out but unless change is happening, progress is not happening.
Risks? Sure . . undoubtedly some will pay dearly for having extended
the limits of an idea too far . . . As I recall, one of the Wright brothers
nearly died and his passenger became the first powered-flight fatality.
Had Wil and Orv possessed an engine with 1/10th the technology of the
very engines we're debating, how much easier thier task might have been.
They not only had to develop an airframe but the engine to go with it.
> . . . . 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.
Charles, I've come to realize that the "bell curve" in statistical
sampling applies to very nearly every system we encounter . . . physical,
financial, biological, social, etc. List-servers are not and never will
be immune from products emanating from both extremes of the bell-curve.
Most folk applaud the work going on and even if they don't understand
it, they would like to. Attempt to censure anyone's contribution is to
open ourselves to censure of everyone's ideas. Our salvation comes
from being able to do good science on ideas and pick out the best
upon which we may move forward in spite of the naysayers. Remember,
not long before the airplane first flew, physicians objected strenuously
to the idea that they were cross infecting their patients because
they wouldn't wash their hands.
I'll suggest that taking refuge in the past, however familiar and
comforting it may be, is dangerous and anti-progress. For one thing,
history still gives us CERTIFIED electrical systems that leave pilots
in the dark!
Another reader wrote . . . .
>Aircraft engines are normally asked to deliver 65 to 75% of their maximum
>output for most of their life. Car engines are delivering a far lower
>average output for most of their life. The design goals differ for both.
>This isn't to say that car engines can't be modified for aircraft use,
>but I suspect that much research will need to be done before it becomes
>popular.
There is a lot of work being done. CONTACT magazine has one or more
articles per issue by people who are sweating out the details. This
isn't a new effort. The C-150 I fly regularly once had a Ford Escort
engine in it. I've flown in a Ford V-6 powered C-172. . . . almost
10 years ago!
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 non-pertinent info |
| From: | bstobbe(at)juno.com (bruce d stobbe) |
>Can you buy a better watch than a Timex?
>Certainly you can.
>What's it called? ROLEX ring a bell?
>Why is it considered better? The name? I don't think so!!
==================================================================
And therein lies the whole point, I think. If your goal is to know what
time it is and spend the least amount of money doing it - the Timex is
the obvious choice since both watches will keep track of time well
enough. If your goal is something other than keeping time, well, that's
your decision, isn't it?
*Better* isn't necessarily synonymous with more expensive IMO.
Bruce Stobbe
RV-6 (destined for lycoming power nonetheless)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Tedd McHenry wrote:
> 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!
I think the operative concept here is not so much government certification
as it is the manufacturer's warranty. Lycoming warrants their engines
to TBO at full power during the warranty period (which is two years for
a new engine).
Of course, none of us are likely to go a full TBO run within the warranty
period (which for an O-320 or O-360 would mean flying roughly 4
hours a day, five days a week).
> 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.
I think the larger issue here is not HP/in^3. The only efficiency
metric related to HP/in^3, for all practical purposes, is packaging
efficiency which also affects lbs./HP (horsepower-to-weight).
Yes, a Chevy (or whatever) could undoubtedly put out 0.5hp/in^3 all day
and all night. But I think that you would find such an engine to have
a truly terrible horsepower/weight ratio. Much worse than the Lycosaur.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick E. Kelley" <webmstr(at)kalitta.com> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Gibson Allan wrote:
>
>
> Just a note: The Qantas 747 that flew into Oshkosh in 1995 with the
> outrageous red paint scheme was carrying 4.5 Tonnes of paint having
> been painted with a brush, the normal scheme weighs in at 500kg. It
> flew from Oshkosh to Seattle for a strip and respray which reduced the
> extra weight to 1.5 Tonnes. Amazing what a difference a coat of paint
> makes.....
This may be the first time that anyone has claimed that a new coat of
paint made an aircraft lighter :) One for the books!
PatK - RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine questions |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, jim jewell wrote:
>
> Is there an internal combustion design engineer with a wall full of
> certificates out there?, A fellow that is a true unbiased gearhead's
> gearhead !, Possibly a university proffessor, Or how about a consulting firm
> specialist.
> Some person, a firm, university, or organization that would take the time
> to research, analyse, or otherwise study the apparently burning questions
> about engines that plague us listers so persistantly of late.
> I wonder if we could take up a collection to pay the affore said expert or
> experts ?.
> I thought we might form a commitee ourselves, but.....!!? (smiley)
>
> Anyhow, if someone would kindly step forward we could ask:
> -What if anything does an engines design origin have to do with it's
> alternate possible uses?.
> -What design types are, or are not suitable For our RVs?.
> -Can an automotive engine design/type be upgraded/downgraded to a/c
> use? Ifso, how?.
> -what role does opinion play in modern design technolegy today?.
> -what fuel is best?. Now and future?.
> -Wich is best for a/c, water cooling/air cooling?.
> -Are there any designs or types so far unmentioned in our archives?.
> -etc.
If you can get any two engine "experts" to agree on all the answers to your
questions above, I'll eat my hat.
There are no concrete answers to your questions - the most honest answer
to most of them are "it depends." Just like the answer to the question
"can an auto engine be used in an airplane?"
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
44-45,47,49,51-53,55-60,62-67,69,71-72,74-78,80,82,84,86,88,
90-91,93,95-101
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
Charles,
Nicely stated! Welcome aboard the list! And please stay involved.
It's objective conversations of this type they we all benifit from....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>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.
> **** SNIP ****
>
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
| From: | wstucklen1(at)juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
Al,
I whole heartedly agree. I guess I generalized too much, but it's the
SYSTEM that is going to do the flying, so it should be properly ground
tested. When I stated airframe I mean the basic airframe and controls.
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
writes:
>
>> Instrumented tests on the ground whose results assure
>>operation for at least the duration of a first flight would seem
>prudent.
>>Using others test results to better your own engine reliability also
>>helps.....
>>Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
>
>
>Fred,
>Be carefull here. I believe that it would be a false sense of security
>to
>believe that an engine conversion running on a test stand will most
>likely
>run when installed in the flight mode. It's not so much the ENGINE
>that
>will most likely cause problems, but the SYSTEMS. After you remove
>your
>tested engine from the test stand and install it, you have the fuel
>system,
>electrical system, cooling system, and power transfer (PSRU) system to
>worry about on your first and susequent flights. I sent Greg Travis
>some
>articles to post on his websight about torsional vibration and PSRU
>design
>criteria that should be read and taken into consideration when
>designing an
>engine conversion. I believe that an auto engine conversion can be
>made to
>work in an RV, BUT, remember that if you throw enough money at it, you
>can
>make a kitchen sink fly! Have you then accomplished your goals?
>(AFFORDABLE
>alternative) AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
Did you use the same scales?
> ----------
> From: lottmc(at)datastar.net[SMTP:lottmc(at)datastar.net]
> Reply To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 1997 6:24 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: (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!)
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR Part 33 Engine Certification |
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Gary A. Sobek wrote:
> 2. 33.49 Endurance test. Paragraph (b) (1) through (7) .
> When I add up the time at the different runs, I came up with 100
> hours at rated maximum continuous power and maximum continuous RPM.
Open mouth, insert foot. Gary is correct. It's 100 hours (2/3rds of the
test), not 75 hours (1/2 the test), at 100% power.
The revision is:
----
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 100 (non contiguous) hours are spent at maximum power
and maximum speed
The remaining 50 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.
----
How embarrassing.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Nippondenso combination alternator/vacuum pump |
Thanks Charlie for info. I will check it out.
Ed
----------
From: Charlie Kuss
Subject: RV-List: Nippondenso combination alternator/vacuum pump
Date: Friday, December 05, 1997 6:18PM
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: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | 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.
>
True....
> 2. Notice the ones that do never go anywhere.
>
Well, they've all been there and done that...
> 3. Stay with the high fibre diet, they dont.
>
I'll finish typing this as soon as I get back from the bathroom...
> 4. Buy a Grumman while you're building, that'll really p*ss them off!
>
Um...I don't think so.
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Network and System Administrator
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
Phone: 408-743-2224
Pager: 1-800-225-0256 Pin: 635776
Email: scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Donnelly" <daved(at)humminbird.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Antennas |
>
>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.
>
Actually, the "no paint" admonition comes from the marine market where
anti-fouling paint compounds do affect perfromance.
>
> 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: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Forming a "bubble" on the cowl. |
> 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....
> Mark
Wow, the creativity of this group is amazing! My fiancee is just now
"equipping" my bachelor equipped (i.e. nothing) kitchen, I'll have to make
sure she brings some of these spoons over .
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elec el trim |
----------
> From: W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com>
>
> Is the electric trim servo gone yet?
Yes, it was spoken for in 1 hour after posting.
> If it isn't, is it the same one Van sells, and will it work on an RV-4?
Yes it is a Van's and yes they work on all models.
ndell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
> Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No. 4239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing |
>You are taking the correct approach in flight testing that to few people
>do. At the time a builder/test pilot signs off his airplane to remove
>the phase 1 flight restrictions he makes a log book statement that he has
>found the aircraft to be normal and controllable in all modes of flight
>(this includes the complete C.G. and weight range).
>Far too many RV's are tested to the ends of the operating ranges when
>carrying the first passengers and/or the first baggage. This
>brings up a major point in what the flight testing is all about. It not
>only proves what the airplane can do, it is the time for the new RV pilot to
>be getting accustomed to what the airplane does do.
YES!!!!!!! Took the words right off my keyboard! My test flight program is
being developed to do exactly that: test the airplane. And get me used to
flying this airplane. I'm thinking 40 hours may not be enough. Am I nuts?
Probably. But this is the way I want to do it and, by the way, it is the
way it proabaly should be done. Talk to any professional test pilot. An
aircraft has certain design parameters that are theoretical until proven in
flight testing. But: are we going too far here; this is a proven design,
that over 1700 have endured flight testing. I think not: the aircraft I
built has not been tested and is different than any other RV-4 out there.
And, maybe more importantly, I am getting to know the airplane, its
idiosyncrasies (and mine), and the edges (and sometimes PAST the edges) of
its flight envelope. I am looking forward to that 40 hours.
I have heard too many pilots tell me their first landing with a passenger
was embarrassing because BOY, does this airplane land differently with
someone in the back. You mean you didn't TEST that before you threw someone
back there???
Yikes. I am also mystified by pilots having someone else helping them "fly
off the hours". I have even heard of people using a drill to run the tach
time up, fercryinoutloud. (!)
Reading Michael's report on weight in the back: I had thought of concrete as
it is a lot of weight in a small package, but decided I didn't want concrete
flying around in the cockpit if I needed to land somewhere I hadn't planned.
I'll probably go with sand.
My purpose in relating my flight testing experiences are two: one, to give
builders near that phase of their building (finishing) something to think
about. You should have an idea of what you want to accomplish during your
test flight program other than "flying the time off". And, two, when I was
building, I could have used ANY inspiration to keep the project going.
Hearing about someone else flying.....FLYING.....was always an inspiration.
I'm trying not to be a "former builder".
SO: Michael Lott, you and I are the Two Michaels; the Test Pilots, Riding
the Dragon. You keep us informed on your progress and I'll try and do the
same. Right now, I'm waiting for the weather and the mud on the taxiway to
clear.
Also, if this is something not needed on The List, let me know: many listers
have wanted me to keep them apprised by private e-mail if it is.
Keep building, it WILL fly.........
Michael K.
N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: chevy by the test pilot |
Jerry,
Thanks for the post. Always good to hear from someone with first hand info.
Bill makes some good points here. It does seem that he has some kind of
personal ax to grind with Jess Meyers, and to be fair I think this should be
considered when reading his comments. Odd that all his comments were on
safety concerns (which relates to quality of installation, not to the basic
engine)with nothing said about performance. I would be interested in his
opinion on relative performance now that he is flying a Lyc powered RV. As
far as his negative comments regarding the Belted Air PSRU I claim a foul,
since he provided no basis for the comment and on the other hand Jess has
been flying behind his belt PSRU's for 15 years.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Angiulo <mikeang(at)MICROSOFT.com> |
| Subject: | Riveting the tanks |
I've been making a mess of my left wing tank. Seems that I have a much
higher propensity to lean over rivets when they are wet with proseal.
Anyone else have this same problem? Is there some kind of trick I'm
missing? I'm riveting the tank in the same cradle that I did the leading
edge section (which turned out fine). I'm about ready to start the tank
over but I'd love to know how to do the next one better.
Thanks,
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Flight Testing (and inspiration) |
I can use inspiration. Jigging the bulkheads and putting in all
the floor ribs, baggage ribs, stringers etc. is not very satisfying
work. It is starting to look like an airplane now, though.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
<<<<< And, two, when I was
building, I could have used ANY inspiration to keep the project
going.>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
You wrote:
> ----------
>From: Bob Skinner[SMTP: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
>As most builders are aware, finding straight, dry lumber is
impossible, >hence the metal.
Have you considered using Unistrut (or B-Line, or similar)? It may be
on the pricey side, but it is very adjustable, and comes already epoxy
painted (usually green), as do the fittings.
Keith Jensen
-6a emp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: How to do 235 MPH in a 160 HP RV-6. |
So Gary goes downhill, full throttle at 235mph? What is Van's recommended Vne?
Hal Kempthorne
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kerrjb <Kerrjb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
<< Yes, a Chevy (or whatever) could undoubtedly put out 0.5hp/in^3 all day
and all night. But I think that you would find such an engine to have
a truly terrible horsepower/weight ratio. Much worse than the Lyco >>
There seems to be little dialog in all this alternative engine dicussion
regarding the Mazda conversions. Being a retired P&W gas turbine engineer (33
years),this engine seems to be a very likely candidate to compete with the
Lycomings in installed HP to weight ratio and the basic engine is basically
bulletproof to "hard" failures such as reciprocating engines are prone to do.
I am very familiar with two of the rotary developement groups: Power Sport and
Tracy Crook. Both are out there doing some very basic things and Tracy was
just here at our flyin this weekend and has over 585 hours on his rotary
powered RV4. Everett Hatch and Steve Becham were just reaching their prime to
get a competive engine on the market before Everett's untimely death.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE" <PKIRKPATRICK(at)FAB9.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Riveting the tanks |
To help keep from bending over rivets on the tank the best thing I found was
keeping the bucking bar clean. Also, try to keep the proseal off of the end of
the rivet. What was happening to me was the bucking bar had a tendency to
slip/slide which resulted in the bending of the rivet.
Good luck, I think this was the worst part of the kit construction so far.
Pat Kirkpatrick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | Riveting the tanks |
Mike,
It may be that the slick Proseal makes your bucking bar slip and slide.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Angiulo [SMTP:mikeang(at)MICROSOFT.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 12:42 PM
To: 'rv-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RV-List: Riveting the tanks
I've been making a mess of my left wing tank. Seems that I have
a much
higher propensity to lean over rivets when they are wet with
proseal.
Anyone else have this same problem? Is there some kind of trick
I'm
missing? I'm riveting the tank in the same cradle that I did
the leading
edge section (which turned out fine). I'm about ready to start
the tank
over but I'd love to know how to do the next one better.
Thanks,
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Kerrjb wrote:
>
>
> << Yes, a Chevy (or whatever) could undoubtedly put out 0.5hp/in^3 all day
> and all night. But I think that you would find such an engine to have
> a truly terrible horsepower/weight ratio. Much worse than the Lyco >>
>
> There seems to be little dialog in all this alternative engine dicussion
> regarding the Mazda conversions. Being a retired P&W gas turbine engineer (33
> years),this engine seems to be a very likely candidate to compete with the
> Lycomings in installed HP to weight ratio and the basic engine is basically
> bulletproof to "hard" failures such as reciprocating engines are prone to do.
> I am very familiar with two of the rotary developement groups: Power Sport and
> Tracy Crook. Both are out there doing some very basic things and Tracy was
> just here at our flyin this weekend and has over 585 hours on his rotary
> powered RV4. Everett Hatch and Steve Becham were just reaching their prime to
> get a competive engine on the market before Everett's untimely death.
I agree that the rotary technology is very exciting. I don't know why more
alternative engine enthusiasts aren't looking at that technology. Just
think, no more @&^#$#&!! poppet valves!
Both Lycoming and Continental, back in the early '80s, thought much of
of basic rotary design. Lycoming spent about $15 million (in today's
dollars) to try and make one for General Aviation and Continental developed
a whole line of roptarys for RPV applications. If the market hadn't
totally collapsed by 1986 we might be flying behind certified rotaries
now.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< A 7/64th steel rivet is stronger than a -3 AN rivet >>
Have you ever heard of dissimilar metal corrosion? You are certainly going to
now!
It's bad enough that with all the alloying, intergranular corrosion is
automatically inherent in the aluminum that airplanes are built out of, but to
exacerbate that by sticking a steel rivet in it, versus an aluminum rivet, is
asking for big trouble down the line.
Did the plans specify steel rivets in this area? I certainly havent found it
in mine.
This does explain why some of the rivets in my scrap horizontal stabilizer
were so hard to drill out.
Let me ask you this. If you damaged one of the through bolts in the wing spar
center section, would it be OK to run down to your local hardware store, and
replace it with a cad plated bolt from the floor stock, if it were the same
diameter and lenth?
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
Slave to the "Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No 4239
P.S. Now you know one of the reasons I call my airplane the "Junkyard Dog."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Mike Wilson <James_Mike_Wilson(at)ccm2.hf.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Lyc TIO 541 and prop for sale |
Text item:
I know someone who has a Lycoming TIO 541, 385HP and 3 blade constant speed
prop. This is the whole fire-wall forward ready to go. That's includes motor
mount, cooling baffles and all accessories. It is a complete working setup off
the Brokaw Bullet after conversion to turbo-prop.
$30k takes it all.
Say Mike sent you.
Call Larry at (352)726-2302
Text item: External Message Header
The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.
***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
Subject: RV-List: Continental O-200
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 00:43:16 EST
From: James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com>
by mole with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
by ganymede.or.intel.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19154
ST)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
Couldn't agree with your views more. I have a Mazda 13B installed in my
RV-6A awaiting Airworthiness inspection and am quite please with the
installation, HP, and smoothness. Weight for FWF of this installation falls
between a 320 and 360. Have had 68x72 prop up to 2300 rpm static thrust at
5000 engine rpm which prop manufacture stated indicated a strong 165 HP
engine. I expect to get around 175 HP on airframe. Have a EFI system which
helps.
My assessment is that the rotary is inherently more reliable than a
reciprocating engine as it has no cam shaft, no valves, no valve springs, no
keepers, no connecting rods, connecting rod bearings,etc., the rotary is the
epitome of KISS as far as an engine goes. However, I must state that it
took a lot of effort (approx 1 1/2 year additional build time) to get the
engine and all the subsystems designed, debugged and installed on airframe.
I will not disagree with those who state I could have had a overhauled
lycoming 320 for the $$ I have in the project. However, having reviewed the
number of accident/incident reports involving lycomings not to mention bad
rod bolts, crankshafts, and other similar items reported over the years, I
am not convinced that a good, well designed and tested alternative
powerplant is any less reliable.
Main thing is - if no one tries anything different, we are stuck with
whatever "improvements" a monopoly firm decides to incorporate and given
their legitimate liability concerns, I can't say I blame their conversatism.
Besides, none of us are forced to any of these decisions - we do have a
choice and that is what is great about this "hobby". It just depends on
how much you are willing to expend (time and $$) and risk to take for you
choice. Also, I will be able to do a first class overhaul of my engine for
about $750 or have it done for around $1900. Not for everyone, but then
neither is building experimental aircraft.
Nothing against lycomings except the price and the 1932 technology/design.
Ed
Andersone(at)bah.com
----------
From: Kerrjb
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?)
Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 2:02PM
<< Yes, a Chevy (or whatever) could undoubtedly put out 0.5hp/in^3 all day
and all night. But I think that you would find such an engine to have
a truly terrible horsepower/weight ratio. Much worse than the Lyco >>
There seems to be little dialog in all this alternative engine dicussion
regarding the Mazda conversions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Stress cracks and oops testing |
I, at one time, back in the dusty halls of time, had occasion to rebuild a
rv6 stabilizer completely. Only the skins were ok. The first clue to this
need to rebuild lay in the shocking state of HS610 and HS614. They had been
drilled with a 1/4 " drill for the relief for the 6 degree bend (to half
the width of remaining flange bent back), the wrong leg had been cut off
and hack saw scoring and groove to 1/32 " deep left undressed in the bend
area near a rivet hole.
I wondered how long this would stand up under normal use and also thought
about the oops factor that we encounter if you bend the angle back to 10
degrees, back to 4 to fix it, then back to 6. Just for fun, I put the old
parts in a vice and bent the legs back and forth in about a 4 " arc, 2
inches or so either way of centre. Well, it took 38 cycles to fail, and 31
before it showed a crack. One failed at the hack saw score (it was deeper)
the other did not.
So it is unscientific, so what ? Just thought it would be fun to
describe.
Van has a good strong design and aluminium is strong too , sometimes even
when abused to the point that would make a strong man cry.
There is a popular saying that if you left out every 4th rivet in the
whole airframe, the RV is still safe and strong. I cannot imagine these
parts ever to experience such bending back and forth and they won't. I just
post this because some worry too much about small errors and that is good
because it keeps your standards high. We just can't determine if a small
imperfection warrants rebuild or replacement. Err on the side of caution. I
think if I were an inspector, I would be ruthless, therefore I am not one.
BTW, the stab from Nightmare Airplane Works is now reborn and beautiful.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: The Wrights' engine. Was Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
WBWard(at)aol.com wrote:
Wendell,
Today, I counted 10 posts from you to the list concerning Chevy and
alternate engines. That's not a problem. What *is* a problem is that not
one of them contained any useful information.
A plea to *all* list members: Please consider carefully whether what
you're about to post is of general interest, or whether it is directed
at just the author. If you disagree with what someone posts, then by all
means respond, but please respond with something relevant -- whether the
Wrights used an automobile engine or not is totally irrelevant to the
suitability of a Chevy in a V6. Please respond with some facts or at
least anecdotal evidence to back up your position. Otherwise we'll end
up in circular flame-wars which aren't helpful to anyone.
> < engines were light enough so they had to design and build their own.>>
> Thank you Mr. Gibson, you saved me a lot of work. There are a "few"
> uninformed
> on the list, who think that just because the automobile was on the road at
> the
> time, that the brothers Wright, weren't able to design something "other"
> than
> an automobile/horseless carriage engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
but none was light and powerful enough. They then tried to get an
automobile company to build a suitable engine for them, but none was
interested. So finally they got someone else to build the engine. IIRC,
the Wrights did NOT design or build their aircraft engine.
> I believe ignition was accomplished
> by "dripping" fuel on a hot "plate." Wasn't it??
Ignition? I assume you mean carburetion.
Irrelevant point: Richard Pearse built an aircraft *and* engine, which
achieved takeoff (but not controlled flight) prior to the Wrights. He
later used his engine on a homemade motorcycle, for which use it was
most successful.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< A 7/64th steel rivet is
stronger than a -3 AN rivet (I don't know this to be fact but I sure do like
hearing myself say it). >>
This is not true based on my shear tests at work using a calibrated Chattilon
pull tester. I don't remember the actual values now (it was almost five years
ago when I first started the project).
The 7/64th rivet is not steel, but Monel (67% Nickel/30% Copper) with a steel
mandrel that doesn't always stay in place. With the mandrel in place they
were about 75% of the strength of a properly installed AN426-3 rivet in shear.
I didn't test tension but I assume this is also less because the shear test
almost pulled the dimple flat on the Monel pop rivet sample and the shank
deformed significantly prior to the break. The AN sample merely sheared in
place with little surrounding hole deformation so the rivet kept its heads
intact.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Boris <smbr(at)digital.net> |
| 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?
Or, If a man is completely alone in the middle of the woods, and he
speaks, is he still wrong. (from my RV wife)
(just trying to change the subject for a
> little while!)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting the tanks |
>
> I've been making a mess of my left wing tank. Seems that I have a much
> higher propensity to lean over rivets when they are wet with proseal.
> Anyone else have this same problem? Is there some kind of trick I'm
> missing? I'm riveting the tank in the same cradle that I did the leading
> edge section (which turned out fine). I'm about ready to start the tank
> over but I'd love to know how to do the next one better.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
As stated by some one else, it is vital to wipe off the bar, the rivet
snap, and most importantly, the rivet tails. You will see a big difference
when you do this. Also, don't keep working when you are tired. Try putting
rivetting tape or clear Scotch tape on the row of rivets to keep a whole
row in place and minimize ooze onto your gun snap. Use PR88 on your hands
and it will wash up clean and easily and you won't hate Pro-seal so much.
(or put on latex gloves). BTW, it is a good idea to keep a can of acetone
handy to dip the rag and also one to drop clecoes in so they don't gum up.
When you are finished, mix some Pro-seal and acetone with a brush and
paint it on all the work you have done. This will do a nice top coat and
catch the pin holes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent S. Himsl" <himsl(at)mail.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | RV8 Dimpling & Countershink |
Hello,
Followed discussion on dimpling versus countersink. Last night while
riveting The vertical stabilizer I cam across a dimpled hole (all had been
dimpled) that wasn't quite right. Ok, a few holes that weren't quite
right. Anyway, remembering the list comment about Van's saying you could
'touch up' a dimple with the countersink bit, I decided to try it using the
countersink as set up for standard countersink. Major improvement!
Excited by the result i decided to try it on all the dimpled rivets of the
VS. Not bad at all!
Finished riveting and was extremely impressed with the result. It looks a
lot better than the Horizontal Stabilizer, even factoring my high learning
curve.
My vote goes with the combination method. I feel it a win win combination
as I get the strength of dimpling with the near perfect fit and look of
countersinking. The amount of aluminum removed was minor even in the worst
hole.
Observations:
The countersink removed the least aluminum wherever the Avery squeezer had
been used.
Next came the Avery C-Frame dimpling tool.
The most material removed was from the Pop Rivet Dimpled holes and those I
made a mistake on.
Most mistakes came from inadequate 'whacking' of the C-Frame tool. But
excessive 'whacking' on the C-Frame tool is hazardous to very expensive
dimple dies. So another reason for the combo method.
Experiment on scrap first!
Builder:
Beginner, no prior airplane construction experience.
Anal Factor, 80%
Location, two car garage
Respectfully,
Vince Himsl
RV8 - Tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "joseph.wiza" <joe(at)mcione.com> |
| Subject: | Protective plastic Coating |
On some of my wing rivets I left the protective plastic and riveted. The
plastic is embeded between the rivet and the skin. I know not to smart,
has anyone else had this experience if so how did you get the plastic out.
Joe/wing waiting on fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting the tanks |
<< I've been making a mess of my left wing tank. Seems that I have a much
higher propensity to lean over rivets when they are wet with proseal.
Anyone else have this same problem? Is there some kind of trick I'm
missing? >>
I hate to say it, but things will progress somewhat better if you (or your
poor helper) wipe the bucking bar clean before each rivet. With practice, you
can get this number (1) up to 5 or 6. V time consuming....and stinky.
I recommend using a B4 grade sealant to do the fuel tank boogie. This will
give you a bit extra time to get this stuff all over you, before it starts to
set up. Also, it's available in pre-measured tubes. This approach is quite a
bit cleaner.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Torque Seal |
Let me introduce you to Torque Seal, if you don't know the stuff already.
It is a little tube of (usually yellow or orange) paint that you put on
nuts/bolts when you want to know if they have moved. (It is also labeled as
"Anti-Sabotage Inspector's Lacquer; Yikes!) Those of you nearing the stage
of Things Getting Torqued Onto The Airframe may need some of this
wonderstuff. Why?
When you're putting the tail on for the Final Assembly, for example, you
will be torqueing the bolts that hold the tail in place. (With a torque
wrench, of course, not by "feel".) Then you will get busy doing other
things and one day come back and look at those bolts and wonder: Did I
torque those? YES, because there, on the bolt, is a little dab of Torque
Seal paint. (Your inspector will also like your attention to detail.)
And, one day, you will be doing your After The First Flight inspection
(really, you will) and will be wondering if any of the Hold Together bolts
have moved. Or if the pushrod check nuts have moved. If they have, there
will be a little crack in the yellow paint. Like I found on one pushrod
check nut. Didn't I tighten that? Well, yes, because there was a little
dab of paint. But, for some reason, it moved. Wouldn't have known it
otherwise.
Will regular scrap paint do? No; Torque Seal, once dry, becomes somewhat
brittle, whereas other paints will flex.
See your parts/tool supplier catalogs.
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | L & M Rowles <lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au> |
Hello to all on the list,
Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
$11,089.00.
The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards Les Rowles.
Les Rowles
Po Box 1895
Traralgon
Australia 3844
lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick E. Kelley" <webmstr(at)kalitta.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Protective plastic Coating |
joseph.wiza wrote:
>
> On some of my wing rivets I left the protective plastic and riveted. The
> plastic is embeded between the rivet and the skin. I know not to smart,
> has anyone else had this experience if so how did you get the plastic out.
Drill out the rivets and remove the plastic. How did you prime with the
plastic on? Well, Ok, maybe you are not priming. However, I forgot to
remove the plastic on an aileron skin (inner side, easy to miss) but it
was caught when my painter etched the part. Sure surprised him; he had
not known until then that the parts came covered. He thought he might
have ruined a special part. :) Sorry, there is no chemical I would
gaurantee to remove the embedded plastic and, even if there was, you'd
still have to re-drive the rivet because of the gap. Not sure I would
trust it. Drill and replace is the only way to go.
PatK - RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Gregory R. Travis writes:
>
> Of course, none of us are likely to go a full TBO run within the warranty
> period (which for an O-320 or O-360 would mean flying roughly 4
> hours a day, five days a week).
Exactly, which is why it's not really relevant for our purposes.
> Yes, a Chevy (or whatever) could undoubtedly put out 0.5hp/in^3 all day
> and all night. But I think that you would find such an engine to have
> a truly terrible horsepower/weight ratio. Much worse than the Lycosaur.
Bit of a change of subject, but, yes, weight is the issue.
Which is exactly the reason I keep bringing this up. Every
time the subject of auto engine conversions comes up, the
discussion almost always focuses on durability and cost.
These just aren't the critical issues with respect to auto
engine conversions. Yes, auto engines can easily match the
durability of a Lycoming. And, yes, auto engines can match
a Lycoming for cost--and beat it if you're willing (and able)
to do some of the hard work yourself. The thing that truly
_is_ an issue, though, is weight.
The answer to the weight problem may be to use smaller
engines. A 4.3-litre Chevy is a big engine. It is big
enough to be bored and stroked out to about 5.1 litres,
which is nearly as big as an O-320. So, being an iron
block and water cooled, it's going to weigh more than
the Lyc. An aluminum auto engine that is optimized at
about 4.0 litres--such as the Olds Aurora--would probably
be a better choice. Or a turbocharged engine of around
2.7 litres. An aftermarket turbo on a VW VR6 might
would be quite light, for example.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
>
>
> Hello to all on the list,
>
> Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
> from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
> factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> $11,089.00.
> The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
That's the price for a factory overhauled engine exchange, provided you
supply a rebuildable core. Outright purchase is $21,866...ouch.
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, L & M Rowles wrote:
>
> Hello to all on the list,
>
> Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
> from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
> factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> $11,089.00.
> The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
It's not "too good to be true." Air Power is a division of Van Bortel
and is quite reputable.
Note a few things. First, the $11,089.00 price is for a Lycoming OVERHAULED
engine as opposed to a Lycoming REMANUFACTURED engine. Ostensibly, the
used parts (and there aren't many) that go back into an overhauled engine
need meet only service, not new, tolerances. Since even a Lycoming overhaul
gets new cylinders all the upper-end parts (valves, pistons, cylinders,
etc.) will be to new dimensions and tolerances. However, accy. gears,
the crankshaft, etc. might meet only service tolerances.
Overhauled engines have a 1 year warranty.
In the "real world," however, Lycoming doesn't cut it too close and will
simply replace parts that are near their wear limits.
Remanufactured engines are built to all new tolerances and have a longer
warranty than overhauled (2 years, same as new engines).
Second, the $11,089.00 price assumes that you already have a serviceable core
of EXACTLY the same type as the engine you want. Core charges are currently
running about $6,000 for an O-360. That means that, if you don't already
have an O-360 to trade, you must add $6,000 to that price. Meaning your
$11,089 factory-overhauled engine just became a $17,089 engine. Even then,
you may not be able to buy it if Lycoming is out of engines.
Lycoming will often take dissimilar cores but you have to haggle with them
about it.
Van Bortel's (Air Power's) current price list is on the web at:
http://www.vanbortel.com/airpower/lyc.html
Note: Continental no longer has an "overhauled" category. All their engines
are either new or new-tolerances (what Lycoming would call "remanufactured")
engines. I think Lycoming should drop the silly "overhauled" category as
well.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Donald DiPaula <dipaula(at)access.digex.net> |
> Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
> from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
> factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> $11,089.00.
> The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
i found a company while searching the web that advertised engines at $100 over
cost. they quoted me $10989 for a 0-time O-360-A1A, plus a $6000 core cost if
no exchange. their number was 1-800-247-2738 (i don't know the name or
where they are located).
i'd guess if two different companies are offereing the same thing for
about the same price, it's probably not too good to be true, just discount
marketing. if it's the same people, then i don't know.
-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: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
Actually there is nothing wrong with using a diesel in an aircraft,
Junkers Motoren (Jumo) made a wide range before and during the second
world war and some of the German bombers were powered by them. But they
were designed for aircraft service from the ground up.
----------
From: W B Ward[SMTP:WBWard(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 6:05
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative engines
Continental and Lycoming don't have to compete with the wanna be's.
Ever
wonder why?
Chevy's don't have redundant ignition, two strokes are two strokes, and
deisels are deisels. Go figure!!!
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
> Gregory R. Travis writes:
> >
> > Of course, none of us are likely to go a full TBO run within the warranty
> > period (which for an O-320 or O-360 would mean flying roughly 4
> > hours a day, five days a week).
>
> Exactly, which is why it's not really relevant for our purposes.
Well, except as it's indicative of how much faith the manufacturer places
in their engines. Believe it or not, there are quite a few operators out
there who go to TBO every 2-3 years and at relatively high sustained
(above 80%) power setting.
> Which is exactly the reason I keep bringing this up. Every
> time the subject of auto engine conversions comes up, the
> discussion almost always focuses on durability and cost.
> These just aren't the critical issues with respect to auto
> engine conversions. Yes, auto engines can easily match the
> durability of a Lycoming.
I agree that the use of a derivative engine will not significantly
affect the total of building an RV-class machine.
But I'm not sure I follow you about durability. How are you defining
durability?
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
Don't sell it. You could be the first 1.6 Liter Honda powered RV.
Grins from another CRX SI Owner (1989)
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald DiPaula [SMTP:dipaula(at)access.digex.net]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 4:24 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engines.
> Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true.
A company
> from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at
$300.00. above
> factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> $11,089.00.
> The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
i found a company while searching the web that advertised
engines at $100 over
cost. they quoted me $10989 for a 0-time O-360-A1A, plus a
$6000 core cost if
no exchange. their number was 1-800-247-2738 (i don't know the
name or
where they are located).
i'd guess if two different companies are offereing the same
thing for
about the same price, it's probably not too good to be true,
just discount
marketing. if it's the same people, then i don't know.
-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: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
W B Ward
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Boy do you want to start an argument between the P-51, Hawker Typhoon
and Spitfire drivers and the pilots of the Fock Wulf 190A's , Ta-152's,
P-47's, Hawker Tornado and just about every thing made in Japan.
----------
From: W B Ward[SMTP:WBWard(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 6:29
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
<< 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. >>
What was the hottest fighter in WWII, and was it air, or water cooled?
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Robert Acker wrote:
> > Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
> > from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
> > factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> > $11,089.00.
> > The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> > Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> That's the price for a factory overhauled engine exchange, provided you
> supply a rebuildable core. Outright purchase is $21,866...ouch.
You need a core to get the new prices listed so bump the new street price
to $27,866. Ouch indeed. In other words, at $18,000 or so, buying a new
engine through Vans saves around $10,000.
Remanufactured and overhauled engines, assuming one has a core, can
be obtained quite "cheaply" through dealers such as Airpower. However, if
you're looking for a NEW engine and don't have a core, or have a core
of the wrong type, you have no business but to go through one of the
major OEMs. It's really too bad but new engines are completely unaffordable
unless your kit supplier or STC holder has a special relationship to Lycoming.
Peter Bates at Lycoming told me that he, as a Lycoming employee, couldn't
buy a new Lycoming engine as cheaply as one could through Vans.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing (and inspiration) |
Hi Steve & The Gang
Just found out this gang of RV Builders exists - My Wing Kit left the factory
today
foa a 14 day trip to Long Island - I would trade places with you any day.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WoodardRod <WoodardRod(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 non-pertinent info |
> Can you buy a better watch than a Timex?
>
> Certainly you can.
>
> What's it called? ROLEX ring a bell?
>
> Why is it considered better? The name? I don't think so!!
>
> Chevrolet is as different from Lycoming, as Timex is to Rolex.
>
Sorry... couldn't pass this one up. I know for a fact that virtually any
$19.95 Timex you can purchase at Wal-Mart can keep better time than many
Rolex's. It's called technology... and sometimes, as Martha Stewart would say,
"It's a Good Thing."
The fact is that the new Quartz movements almost always provide far greater
accuracy over a far greater spectrum of conditions than the old perpetual
(self-winding) units (Rolex or any other).
The good news, however, is that if I were stranded on a mountain top for 10
years, my watch would still keep [poor] time as long as I could keep my arm
moving. The Timex battery would probably only last for 5 years!
How's that for a long-winded-explanation-to-analogy-relating-to-a-thread-
that's-crept so-far-from-its-original-theme-so-as-to-become-nonrecognizable.
:-)
Rod [mostly poking fun] Woodard
RV-8, #80033
Loveland, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owens" <owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | How High? World Record |
Hello all,
I was just reading some of the altitude threads that were going around, and thought
I might let you all know what's been going on lately on the REALLY high
altitude front. This may not be related to RV's, but might be of interest to
aviation buffs.
I work at Aerovironment, a company founded by Dr. Paul McCready, former World Champion
Glider pilot, and well known for his "Human Powered" Airplane adventures.
Our flight test team has just returned from a successful deployment of our
"Pathfinder" (not the Mars version, ours was named back in '92) 100' span Solar
Powered flying wing in Hawaii.
We were able to achieve 71,500 straight and level, for a NAA record for Propeller
driven aircraft, beating the Boeing Condor RPV record of 65,000'. This was
done using only solar power to take off and climb and maintain altitude. We
did use battery power to decend once the sun set. Talk about your "alternative
power". (Sorry, I couldn't resist). BTW, we did this with a Design/Fab/Test
group of less than 30 people. This is really a fun place to work.
You can find more info at:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/erast/index.html
And a picture at:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Pathfinder/Small/EC97-44287-2.jpg
We are currently working on the "next generation" aircraft, called "Centurion".
It's span is over 200', and we hope to hit Dan Golden's target of 100,000' by
the year 2000.
I have some other web sites if people are interested, meanwhile, it's back to skinning
the fuselage.
Respectfully,
Laird Owens, AV Design Group
RV-6 22923 (I like alternative power as much as the next guy, but I'm putting
a Lycon in mine)
owens(at)aerovironment.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Donald DiPaula wrote:
> i found a company while searching the web that advertised engines at $100
> over cost. they quoted me $10989 for a 0-time O-360-A1A, plus a $6000 core
> cost if no exchange.
Just a minor correction. That is NOT a "0-time" engine. That is a Lycoming
overhauled engine. The only "0-time" Lycoming engines are either NEW or
REMANUFACTURED engines.
Obligatory triva: The FAA says that only the original engine manufacturer
OR THIRD PARTIES AUTHORIZED BY THE MANUFACTURER can "zero time" an engine.
I don't know of any domestic third parties that Lycoming or Continental
has ever authorized to zero-time an engine. Overseas perhaps Piaggio
(for Lycoming) or Rolls-Royce (for Continental) may have been so designated.
I dunno.
> i'd guess if two different companies are offereing the same thing for
> about the same price, it's probably not too good to be true, just discount
> marketing. if it's the same people, then i don't know.
A few of the other Lycoming and Continental distributors have attempted to
beat Van Bortel (or, "The worst little whorehouse in Texas" as it's
un-affectionately known by the other distributors) at their own game.
For instance, Educumbe G&N (an authorized Lycoming factory distributor)
down in Owensboro, KY sells engines at $100.00 over factory invoice. Perhaps
this is who you heard of?
Man, these margins make the PC industry look positively complacent! :-)
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vernatherm wasRe: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
Hi Guys
I just replaced the Vernatherm in my left engine on my Seneca it was not
closing all the way after the oil heated up and the results was hi oil temp.
Replaced the Vernitherm and magic Oil temp back to normal, We played with the
bad one for a while, heating it up and measuring the distance it closed or
expanded. So dont remove it, the oil will not go through the cooler.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
----------
> From: SCOTT R MCDANIELS <smcdaniels(at)juno.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions
> Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 12:22 AM
>
If you don't get above the boiling
> point of water for the pressure alt. that you are flying at you wont ever
> get rid of the condensed moisture that develops inside the engine.
>
> Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
I think the water exits the breather pipe and exhaust stack at a rate
governed by the oil temp and crankcase pressure, independent of pressure
altitude. Recall also that water evaporates at tempertures less than the
boiling point -- the boiling point is the temperture of fastest
evaporation.
Dennis 6A Fuselage
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Torque Seal |
Nail Polish works too, and is a bit cheaper. (it is used in industry
believe it or not)
----------
From: mikel(at)dimensional.com[SMTP:mikel(at)dimensional.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 6:44
Subject: RE: RV-List:Torque Seal
Will regular scrap paint do? No; Torque Seal, once dry, becomes
somewhat
brittle, whereas other paints will flex.
See your parts/tool supplier catalogs.
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin & Theresa Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing - chatter |
<--snip-->
>Also, if this is something not needed on The List, let me know: many listers
>have wanted me to keep them apprised by private e-mail if it is.
>
>Keep building, it WILL fly.........
>
>Michael K.
>N232 Suzie Q
>
Michael,
By all means keep sending this stuff to the list. As long as you are
careful to have an accurate subject line people who are not
interested can hit the delete key. With over 700 people on the list,
anyone who expects that each and every message will on a subject that
they are personnally interested in is dreaming in technicolour.
Good luck, be careful, and have fun,
Kevin Horton RV-8 80427 (just started tail kit)
khorton(at)cyberus.ca (613) 839-0228 (home)
Engineering Test Pilot (613) 952-4319 (work)
Transport Canada
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FUEL TANK LEAK CHECKING |
I am an Electrician - with a Greenly Hi-Press Tool if you are in the area.
Bill
KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
Gentleman
I am a new RV 6 Builder - I have the Ep kit completed and the wing kit left
the factory to day, for a 14 day trip to Jericho L.I. I am looking for some
RV Builders or Owners in the North East. I own a Seneca 1 travel is not a
factor, I would like to see a completed project, and get some info on Flight
Training in the RV 6 or RV 4
Any help or words of wisdom will be appreciated.
Bill Sivori
KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Riveting the tanks |
Acetone eats latex, try vinyl gloves instead, they a sold for people
with a latex allergy.
----------
From: Austin Tinckler[SMTP:tinckler(at)axionet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 6:10
Subject: Re: RV-List: Riveting the tanks
As stated by some one else, it is vital to wipe off the bar, the rivet
snap, and most importantly, the rivet tails. You will see a big
difference
when you do this. Also, don't keep working when you are tired. Try
putting
rivetting tape or clear Scotch tape on the row of rivets to keep a
whole
row in place and minimize ooze onto your gun snap. Use PR88 on your
hands
and it will wash up clean and easily and you won't hate Pro-seal so
much.
(or put on latex gloves). BTW, it is a good idea to keep a can of
acetone
handy to dip the rag and also one to drop clecoes in so they don't gum
up.
When you are finished, mix some Pro-seal and acetone with a brush and
paint it on all the work you have done. This will do a nice top coat
and
catch the pin holes.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
If you instrument it right it could also tell you both what broke and
give you warning ( a half hour or so) that it was about to happen
before it became either critical to your survival or your planes. This
is quite common industrial practice.
If you are interested I could detail a typical condition monitoring
system for a reciprocating engine.
----------
From: wstucklen1(at)juno.com[SMTP:wstucklen1(at)juno.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 1997 11:26
Subject: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Stucklen)
I agree with the instumentaion comment, but, after flying N925RV, the
airframe issues should be quite straightforward. Except for the
additional trim tab on the Rudder, I haven't done anything to the
airframe since it was signed off for first flight.
As long as one spends the time to properly check out the airfraome
prior to first flights, It shouldn't be an major issue in the test
program. This means doing all the inspections just like we do on any
other certified aircraft....
Instrumentation of the auto engine is another matter. Sudden
stoppage
of an engine while taking off , or any other time while in flight, is a
very discomforting. Instrumented tests on the ground whose results
assure
operation for at least the duration of a first flight would seem
prudent.
Using others test results to better your own engine reliability also
helps.....
So lets keep the discussions going. I'm learning a lot from input on
this forum, especially from those whom have used Chevy engines in
racing
or boating applications....
Fred Stucklen RV-6A N925RV
(Working on 2'd RV-6A - Chevy Powered!)
wstucklen1(at)juno.com
writes:
>
>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
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>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: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
What follows is my personal opinion and may be disputed by most if not
all of the rest of the bodies on the net.
----------
From: jim jewell[SMTP:jjewell(at)okanagan.net]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 9:55
Subject: RV-List: engine questions
Is there an internal combustion design engineer with a wall
full of
certificates out there?, A fellow that is a true unbiased gearhead's
gearhead !, Possibly a university proffessor, Or how about a consulting
firm
specialist.
Some person, a firm, university, or organization that would take the
time
to research, analyse, or otherwise study the apparently burning
questions
about engines that plague us listers so persistantly of late.
I wonder if we could take up a collection to pay the affore said
expert or
experts ?.
I thought we might form a commitee ourselves, but.....!!? (smiley)
Anyhow, if someone would kindly step forward we could ask:
-What if anything does an engines design origin have to do with
it's
alternate possible uses?.
1. Design origin relates to the expected loading of an engine,
automotive engines are designed for a low continuous load with
occasional spurts of high load during acceleration. As such the cooling
system both internal and external is sized for the normal load at
maximum ambient and altitude expected (and I may be corrected) around
50C at 12000 ft for the air side of the cooling circuit and the
lubrication system is similarly sized. Aircraft engines, marine engines
in displacement hulls (not speed boats) and generators ( other than
pure welders) are designed for operation at higher loads for long
periods at similar ambients in order to achieve reliable operation.
The basic problem is that an automotive engine is designed to deliver
30HP continuously and an aero engine at least 65% and as much as 75% of
maximum power for the same period so once you are out of the VW class
the sizing becomes a little iffy.
-What design types are, or are not suitable For our RVs?.
2. Design types are not a question, details of these designs are.
-Can an automotive engine design/type be upgraded/downgraded to
a/c
use? If so, how?.
3. The cooling and lubrication systems will need to be upgraded to cope
with the higher heat losses and forces on the bearings. The bearing
clearances and cylinder bores will need to be opened out to both
increase oil flow and pressure available at the bearings and to provide
room for the pistons and bearing surfaces to expand as they heat up.
Lubrication to the cylinder walls and valve guides will need attention.
The oil pump and cooling pump will need to be up-sized to deliver both
increased flow and pressure to the engine. Ideally the bearing surface
area would also need to be increased. (doubled or tripled). The Valve
will need attention to cooling, probably requiring Sodium cooled stems.
DHC have just certified a water-cooled twelve ( I think, I will have to
check) cylinder 400HP normally aspirated racing engine derivative but
by the time it flew there were no automotive parts left as their
quality was too inconsistent to be useable in a production engine.
-what role does opinion play in modern design technolegy
today?.
4. Reliable electronic ignition and fuel injection give room for
improvements in efficiency to bring the current generation of
conventional engines to a higher level of economy, useability and
performance, ie single control engines. Stratified charge also has
possiblities.
-what fuel is best?. Now and future?.
5. Pick one, the only fuel I haven't seen suggested for future use is
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). (and given LPG costs 17 cents a litre in
OZ, that is a surprise)( Its a mixture of Propane and Butane for the
uninitiated and you are probably firing your barbie on it) Otherwise if
it will burn someone has tried it, including coal.
-Which is best for a/c, water cooling/air cooling?.
6. Pick one.
-Are there any designs or types so far unmentioned in our
archives?.
7. I haven't seen a mention of a rotary ( not a Wankel but a Bentley
BR-2 ala Sopwith Camel / Snipe), a radial or steam power ( this has
been done, a Champ was flown on a steam engine across the US in the
fifties)
-etc.
If a collection is started, put put me in for ten bucks. If a commitee
is
sought, count me out. I'm dumb enough to put up ten bucks, not
stupid!(smiley).
I started out to suggest we organize an effort at fact finding and
the
above happened. Fill in your own questions, ignor it, or del key,
whatever.
Please have fun folks.
Thats why I bought my RV/6-eh Jim/wings in jig -When my
dreams
come true, the skys the limit.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
I it is a point to ponder if you get an artist to paint your plane,
the paint could be thicker than the Aluminium. On the 747 it was up to
2mm thick in places.
----------
From: Patrick E. Kelley[SMTP:webmstr(at)kalitta.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 11:46
Subject: Re: RV-List: (no subject)
Gibson Allan wrote:
>
>
> Just a note: The Qantas 747 that flew into Oshkosh in 1995 with the
> outrageous red paint scheme was carrying 4.5 Tonnes of paint having
> been painted with a brush, the normal scheme weighs in at 500kg. It
> flew from Oshkosh to Seattle for a strip and respray which reduced
the
> extra weight to 1.5 Tonnes. Amazing what a difference a coat of paint
> makes.....
This may be the first time that anyone has claimed that a new coat of
paint made an aircraft lighter :) One for the books!
PatK - RV-6A
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Question On Powdercoating... |
Listers,
I have a 6061-T6 part that I have been black-anodizing, then silkscreening with
white epoxy lettering. To increase the durability of the lettering I was
thinking about having a clear, powdercoat applied. Would this help? Would
it be better to clear powdercoat the part first, then silkscreen over the
top?
Thanks for your thoughts...
Matt
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
For the netizens who are unaware dual ignition serves a number of
purposes:
1. The regulators in most countries require two independent sources of
ignition. Not one of their worse ideas as a failed plug does not equal
a failed cylinder and a failed coil, a failed engine.
2. Twin sparks improve the combustion efficiency by providing two wave
fronts of flame in the cylinder. This improves combustion by reducing
the burn time at higher pressures.
3. Therefore you can have lower fuel burn due to leaner mixtures as
lean mixtures will ignite at high pressures where they won't at lower
ones. It also improves power. ( try flying on one magneto and you will
see the difference). Some new cars and motorcycles are fitted with dual
ignition for this reason.
4. There isn't room for a third spark plug. :-)
----------
From: W B Ward[SMTP:WBWard(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 6:50
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
<< the heads are specials to take dual ignition. >>
This is one thing the Chevy boys don't seem to understand. Would you
explain
it please?
Regards
WBWard(at)AOL.COM
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing |
Keep the flight test mail coming! With the quantity of mail on the list, I blow
much of it away unread, but I always read the flight test stories.
Brian Eckstein
----------
>
> >You are taking the correct approach in flight testing that to few people
> >do. At the time a builder/test pilot signs off his airplane to remove
> >the phase 1 flight restrictions he makes a log book statement that he has
> >found the aircraft to be normal and controllable in all modes of flight
> >(this includes the complete C.G. and weight range).
> >Far too many RV's are tested to the ends of the operating ranges when
> >carrying the first passengers and/or the first baggage. This
> >brings up a major point in what the flight testing is all about. It not
> >only proves what the airplane can do, it is the time for the new RV pilot to
> >be getting accustomed to what the airplane does do.
>
> YES!!!!!!! Took the words right off my keyboard! My test flight program is
> being developed to do exactly that: test the airplane. And get me used to
> flying this airplane. I'm thinking 40 hours may not be enough. Am I nuts?
> Probably. But this is the way I want to do it and, by the way, it is the
> way it proabaly should be done. Talk to any professional test pilot. An
> aircraft has certain design parameters that are theoretical until proven in
> flight testing. But: are we going too far here; this is a proven design,
> that over 1700 have endured flight testing. I think not: the aircraft I
> built has not been tested and is different than any other RV-4 out there.
> And, maybe more importantly, I am getting to know the airplane, its
> idiosyncrasies (and mine), and the edges (and sometimes PAST the edges) of
> its flight envelope. I am looking forward to that 40 hours.
>
> I have heard too many pilots tell me their first landing with a passenger
> was embarrassing because BOY, does this airplane land differently with
> someone in the back. You mean you didn't TEST that before you threw someone
> back there???
> Yikes. I am also mystified by pilots having someone else helping them "fly
> off the hours". I have even heard of people using a drill to run the tach
> time up, fercryinoutloud. (!)
>
> Reading Michael's report on weight in the back: I had thought of concrete as
> it is a lot of weight in a small package, but decided I didn't want concrete
> flying around in the cockpit if I needed to land somewhere I hadn't planned.
> I'll probably go with sand.
>
> My purpose in relating my flight testing experiences are two: one, to give
> builders near that phase of their building (finishing) something to think
> about. You should have an idea of what you want to accomplish during your
> test flight program other than "flying the time off". And, two, when I was
> building, I could have used ANY inspiration to keep the project going.
> Hearing about someone else flying.....FLYING.....was always an inspiration.
> I'm trying not to be a "former builder".
>
> SO: Michael Lott, you and I are the Two Michaels; the Test Pilots, Riding
> the Dragon. You keep us informed on your progress and I'll try and do the
> same. Right now, I'm waiting for the weather and the mud on the taxiway to
> clear.
>
> Also, if this is something not needed on The List, let me know: many listers
> have wanted me to keep them apprised by private e-mail if it is.
>
> Keep building, it WILL fly.........
>
> Michael K.
> N232 Suzie Q
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
> rebuilt engines at $300.00. above factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
$11,089.00.
The place is on the north end of the airport at Arlington , Texas.
Trade a plane has all their numbers. airpower(at)vanbortel.com
817-468-7788 Hadn't bought from them, but havn't heard any thing bad.
Don Jordan~~RV6A wings~~ Arlington, Tx~~donspawn(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin & Theresa Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Riveting VS 803 to VS 808 |
RV-Listers,
I am ready to rivet the VS 803 and VS 808 together. George Orndorff
back rivets the two pieces together to get a good finish on the flush
rivets at the bottom. I was planning on doing that, but it is going
to take me longer than I expected to get my piece of scrap steel
cleaned up to make a back riveting plate. Can I expect to get a good
finish if I use a hand squeezer or rivet gun and bucking bar, or
should I hold out for the back riveting?
Thanks for your advice,
Kevin Horton RV-8 80427 (just started tail kit)
khorton(at)cyberus.ca (613) 839-0228 (home)
Ottawa, Canada
would never lose
leaded gas. After all, it would effect two many people.
It seems I remember a small owl in the NW causing a lot of people their
jobs and an industry a lot of money due to environmental issues. I bet a
lot of us can relate to some sort of environmental project in your local
area that either did or came close to shutting down industry without major
changes taking place. This is not to question the actual occurances (as I
want my kids to have a good environment in the future) but to question if
this could spring on general aviation very quickly.
I wonder who would support general aviation and our 100LL guzzlers in the
event a decision was made to eliminate 100LL in 5 years, let's say. Anyone
think the fuel suppliers? How about the aircraft manufacturers (Cessna,
Piper, Beech, etc.)? Maybe the FAA? Certainly the EAA. The picture being
drawn appears bleak to me. I am aware that the amount of 100LL being
consumed and pollution exhausted is extremely small in relationship to
other fuels, but sometimes, nothing is to small to be a target (witness the
owl). The small consumption is also a very small production to the fuel
suppliers.
Anyway, just another thought as to why several are looking for alternative
engine sources. We have to be willing to look out into the future to be
able to imagine it.
Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Kitz <jkitz(at)greenapple.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative Engines |
Hello List;
Why haven't we heard from builders that have put auto engines in RV's
over the past 25 years? I was at a fly in at Wadsworth, OH in 1992 and
someone came in with a Buick V6 in an RV. I believe it was a direct
drive. Maybe someone knows what has happened with his engine or others
that have gone to other type engines. I would be interested to hear
from someone that has done it.
John Kitz
N721JK
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone out there really know how much weight is added to our projects when
we prime, top coat, clear coat?
Brian Eckstein
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting the tanks |
<< When you are finished, mix some Pro-seal and acetone with a brush and
paint it on all the work you have done. This will do a nice top coat and
catch the pin holes. >>
I'll see if I can find it at home, but I recall a classroom book for those
assembling the C-17 that mixing sealant with anything (MEK, acetone, LT) was
very very bad, and they would be terminated if apprehended. A different type
(A or C) of sealant is used when brushing is desired.
Ryan Bendure? Can you confirm?
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting VS 803 to VS 808 |
>it is going to take me longer than I expected to get my piece of scrap steel
>cleaned up to make a back riveting plate.
>Kevin Horton
Kevin,
Do you have access to a hand belt sander? The kind used in wood working.
Use a 40 grit oxide belt (Usually the dark red ones) and GFA .
(Grind For Appearance) Polish it up with your 3M wheel or scotch brite and
about a half hour of work and your done. Don't need no steenking surface
grinder! Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
Oddly enough a lot of boat engines (and some stationary generators that I
have seen also) are based on ???? You guessed it - an automotive engine.
Take yourself on down to the local OMC dealer and look at the engines there
which are derived from essentially stock small block and big block chevy's,
not to mention the Volvo series of boat engines.
Dont know why you have chosen to exclude speed boats from your comments.
If anything I would think that they would provide the most severe test of
all. I would think the problems associated with driveshaft/gearbox
torsionals (which are usually highlighted in any discussion of auto engines
in aircraft) would be most severe in a planing boat hull which transitions
coninuously from max load to no load as the planing hull leaves the water.
Are you going to tell me that a boat pulling a skier (or 2) along the water
at 40 - 50 knots doesnt demand a significant amount of power? If so you are
boating with the wrong crowd; you guys cant be having any fun. While boating
with my buddy in his 454 Chevy powered ski boat we regularly demand every
ounce of power that engine can crank out. While it may be true that these
engines were not designed for this use, in practice they work.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>1. Design origin relates to the expected loading of an engine,
>automotive engines are designed for a low continuous load with
>occasional spurts of high load during acceleration. As such the cooling
>system both internal and external is sized for the normal load at
>maximum ambient and altitude expected (and I may be corrected) around
>50C at 12000 ft for the air side of the cooling circuit and the
>lubrication system is similarly sized. marine engines
>in displacement hulls (not speed boats) and generators ( other than
>pure welders) are designed for operation at higher loads for long
>periods at similar ambients in order to achieve reliable operation.
> The basic problem is that an automotive engine is designed to deliver
>30HP continuously and an aero engine at least 65% and as much as 75% of
>maximum power for the same period so once you are out of the VW class
>the sizing becomes a little iffy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)traveller.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting VS 803 to VS 808 |
Kevin & Theresa Horton wrote:
>
>
> RV-Listers,
>
> I am ready to rivet the VS 803 and VS 808 together. George Orndorff
> back rivets the two pieces together to get a good finish on the flush
> rivets at the bottom. I was planning on doing that, but it is going
> to take me longer than I expected to get my piece of scrap steel
> cleaned up to make a back riveting plate. Can I expect to get a good
> finish if I use a hand squeezer or rivet gun and bucking bar, or
> should I hold out for the back riveting?
Kevin,
I am assuming that the VS803 and 808 are very similar to the VS603
(spar) and VS608 (stiffener) on my RV6. I set the flush rivets in the
conventional manner with a bucking bar and the results were very good.
The key is to properly countersink the holes.
Sam Buchanan
http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6/vs_log.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| 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. >>
I've heard that Lycoming keeps the oil flowing contenously through the cooler
so that the oil won't sludge up and plug the oil cooler. Sounds like a
possibility to me.
Gene.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <rv(at)tppal.com> |
| Subject: | I finally made up my mind |
After all the very helpful input that I have received from all of you, I
finally made up my mind. I was looking into saving a few bucks by getting a
partially built kit built by someone that I do not know from Adam, or buying
a factory new kit that I would know for sure that I was the only determining
factor regarding construction. I have since purchased a -6a from Vans, and
will receive it in March. I assume all of you will be on the list by then,
so that I may take advantage of this valuable resource, and enjoy the
comrodory (spelling) that we all share.
Thanks for all the input and for helping me with my decision to buy such a
quality airplane.
Paul Besing
RV-6A
197AB (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Lycoming ignitions |
I've got a puzzle. Why does lycoming route their spark plug wires from one
magneto to the top set of plugs on one side and the bottom set on the
otherside? That leaves the other magneto to the other sets of plugs.
Gene Francis,RV 5.7A
It will be 6-A when I get all the rest of systems to the engine hooked up
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Lycoming ignitions |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Cafgef wrote:
>
> I've got a puzzle. Why does lycoming route their spark plug wires from one
> magneto to the top set of plugs on one side and the bottom set on the
> otherside? That leaves the other magneto to the other sets of plugs.
There's a superstition around that the bottom plugs, in a tired
engine, are more apt to get oil, etc. fouled. Thus if one magneto
were to service only the bottom plugs while the other magneto serviced
only the upper plugs, the upper magneto might be at an advantage when
it came to mag-drop tests, etc. By making each magneto take an equal
share of premo plugs and skag plugs each can be expected to contribute
an equal amount to engine power, vibration, mag drop, etc.
All that withstanding, Lycoming DOES allow an alternate arrangment
for some engines, (ref: SI 1419, SI 1362) in which the top plugs are fired
by one mag and the bottom by the other. This improves starting
on the HIO-360 & O-235 engine where the bottom plugs are fouled and only one
one impulse coupling is fitted.
Likewise, alternate ignition routings are given in SI 1924 and the overhaul
manual for switching ignition leads around to improve vibration
characteristics.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
<< It could be that the 3 blade prop is a little less efficient at low
speed. With more of it inside the cowl radius you may be getting less
useable thrust but at cruise you may also have less drag. >>
I think the boat types call it cavitation. Basically, the prop "slips" at low
speed.
When I start my take-off roll, the prop spins past 2400 rpm. As my speed
increases, the rpm slows to 2360 or so. By the time I get to 110 kts the
rpm's are back to 2450 but now the prop is grabbing air.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355 <JNice51355(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Weight |
That's a good question. Has anyone weighed their nearly completed project
before and after painting?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< It's bad enough that with all the alloying, intergranular corrosion is
automatically inherent in the aluminum that airplanes are built out of, but
to
exacerbate that by sticking a steel rivet in it, versus an aluminum rivet, is
asking for big trouble down the line. >>
The rivet in question is not steel. It is a Monel head/shank with a steel
mandrel. Don't believe everything you read and let's be careful with our
facts here.
Huckbolts of Monel are commonly used in aluminum aircraft structures. I don't
have my galvanic table here at home so I can't comment except to say that I
know of no prohibition against using Monel in contact with aluminum. My
original comment was regarding only the relative strength difference between
the 7/64" monel rivet vs the AN426-3 aluminum rivet in single shear.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: List Archive CDRom... |
>--------------
>Hi Matt,
> When I was subscribed to the RV List, I think recall a thread
>about a CD that you were in the process of putting together that would
>contain either all or part of (I don't remember for sure) the archives of
>the RV List. Unfortunately with the change of my work duties, I don't
>have the time to read all the messages I was getting while subscribed to
>the list, and I don't have access to the web.
> Is the CD available now, and if it is, what are you charging for
>it? I am thinking that if I had that, I would be able to access the
>information I needed without having to read all the messages. In advance,
>thanks for your time. Hope to hear from you soon.
>
>Allan Pomeroy CNY
>AB6A(at)juno.com
>Skinning HS
>--------------
Allan and fellow Listers,
Yes, there is a CDRom with all of the archives now available. On the disk,
the archives have been formatted in a number of ways including HTML, RTF,
and plain text. All of the email header information has been removed and
the Subject, Date, and From fields have been highlighted in the case of the
HTML and RTF formats. Binary search indexs have also been created for each
of the formats and are included on the CD in addition to a subject/date
index. These indexes were designed to be used with the search engine I am
currently writing for the archives. The index format specification is
available upon request. No ETA on the search engine availablity at this time.
The archive-data-only CDRom is available for $29.00 + shipping.
You may FAX or mail your order to:
List CDROM
Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94551-0347
510-606-6281 FAX
Include:
Fuel Name
Shipping Address
Visa/Mastercard number
Exp. Date
Specify disk format:
1 - PC Windows3.x/DOS
2 - PC Windows95/NT
3 - UNIX
4 - Mac
Personal checks made out to "Matronics" are okay too.
Thanks for your interest.
Matt Dralle
Matronics
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | keebs(at)pcsonline.com (Scott M. Kuebler) |
| Subject: | Sarasota, FL Builders |
Hello all,
I've finally made it back on the list, after a long and hectic move
from Buffalo, NY to Sarasota, FL. If there are any active builders in
this area I would sure like to meet them. I need to find out about
General Aviation in this area, and I'm also looking for a place to
build. The spare bedroom is filling up quick with the empannage and
wings!
I'm looking forward to meeting some local RVer's, and getting back to
building.
Thanks,
Scott Kuebler
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-cycle Hirth engine |
Bruce & Paulette Smith wrote:
>
>
> Wwwwwwwwwiiiinnnnnggggggg-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I think the boiling point of water varies with pressure altitude, doesn't
it? I was just passing along what Lycomings position is about oil temps
and ridding the engine interior of moisture.
You are probably right about the evaporation at lower temps. The
position of recommending operation at a min temp of
180 deg F is Lycomings with the reason given of needing to boil of
moisture and other contaminates from the oil. !80 Deg is also where the
bottom of the green arc on the oil temp gage starts in all the certified
airplanes I have ever flow.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions
of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SAVOY INTL <SAVOYINTL(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
of
of basic rotary design. Lycoming spent about $15 million (in today's
dollars) to try and make one for General Aviation and Continental developed
a whole line of roptarys for RPV applications. If the market hadn't
totally collapsed by 1986 we might be flying behind certified rotaries
now.
Inquiry: Does anyone have any information on the fuel consumption of the
rotary engines compared to the recips. I have always been interested in
rotarys but have been under the impression that they used considerably more
fuel for a given horsepower. Hope I am mistaken. Can someone offer some
enlightenment?
Lloyd Morris
RV-6
Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting VS 803 to VS 808 |
Kevin & Theresa Horton wrote:
snipped
> George Orndorff back rivets the two pieces together to get a good finish on
the flush rivets at the bottom. I was planning on doing that, but it is going
> to take me longer than I expected to get my piece of scrap steel
> cleaned up to make a back riveting plate.
Kevin,
Why try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? I went to a local metal
supplier and bought a 15" X 6" X 1/2" piece of cold rolled steel for
$16. I live in South Florida, so shipping costs (from mid America
suppliers) for something of this nature can exceed it's cost. I cleaned
up both sides with my right angle die grinder with 2" ScotchBrite pad.
(total time 15 minutes) I noted one side had a few blemishes, so I use
the opposite side. My rudder & elevator rivets turned out great.
I made my own C style dimpler/riveter tool as well. The materials were
about $30. Factoring in my time, I didn't really save anything over
buying it from Avery. I had fun making it though. I did it while I was
waiting for my empennage kit to arrive. Basicly, it was a case of too
much nervous energy.
> Can I expect to get a good finish if I use a hand squeezer or rivet gun and bucking
bar, or should I hold out for the back riveting?
The dimpler won't work. The C frame tool will work, but back riveting
gives the best results, with the least chance for error. Remember that
these materials are thin, and are easily damaged if mishandled.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 #80372
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question On Powdercoating... |
Matt Dralle 510-606-1001 wrote:
>
>
> Listers,
>
To increase the durability of the lettering I was thinking about having
a clear, powdercoat applied. Would this help?
It would definately help.
> Would it be better to clear powdercoat the part first, then silkscreen over
the
> top?
Since powdercoating is basicly powder that is melted by post heating in
an oven/kiln, it would depend on the nature and heat tolarance of the
silkscreen material. I believe the heat range involved is 300+ degrees
F. You may be forced to silkscreen after powdercoating
Charlie Kuss
>
> Matt
>
> --
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Yup, Mine does the exact same thing. I don't think that is the
explanation for slightly reduced acceleration and climb performance
though.
Read the piece that (I think Barnaby Wainfan did) kit planes ran a short
time back. It describes it better than I ever could.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Paint Weight |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I know of this being done on a number of projects with weights ranging
from 12 Lbs all the way up to over 20 Lbs.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Spruell" <spruell(at)qedsoln.com> |
| Subject: | Houston Bay Area RVators Social |
The Houston Bay Area RVators will be hosting its holiday social this
Saturday, December 13, from 10:00 - ? at Clover Field (T02) in
Friendswood, TX (about 8 miles south of Hobby Airport). We hope to
have a few RV's show up, but we are not going so far as to call it an
actual fly-in. If you have a flying RV and live within a reasonable
distance of Houston, we would love to have you drop in.
We will be operating out of the hangar directly beneath the radome on
the SW side of the field. If the weather doesn't cooperate, we will
try again on Sunday, Dec. 14 from 1-5.
Family and friends are welcome and food will be provided, but please
bring your own chairs. Contact me at spruell(at)qedsoln.com if you have
any further questions.
Steven Spruell
RV-6A N316RV (Fuselage)
Houston Bay Area RVators
http://www.iwl.net/customers/markr/hbar
tain 100% power for 150 hours, or
whatever. Well, maybe, because 100% power on my auto engine
is a bunch more, by any reasonable comparison, than full power
on a Lycoming. But I can't see anyone doubting that a
4.3-litre Chevy could put out 120 hp for 2,000 before it
needed a rebuild. (Even with a few seconds of 160 hp once
or twice an hour.)
The real issue, I think, is: can an auto engine that's as
_light_ as a Lycoming put out 120 hp for 2,000 hours? I
don't know of anyone who has demonstrated that, yet. My
personal opinion is that it's a reasonable expectation.
That's not based on any science, though. Just on having
observed the durability of bog-stock auto engines in race
cars for many years.
Some years ago, for example, the national championship in
one of our showroom stock classes in Canada went to a guy
driving a Honda with over 80,000 km on it. Before anyone
jumps down my throat with arguments about how far airplanes
go in 2,000 hours, I'd like to point out some facts.
o 80,000+ km in a road-going car is probably about
1,200 or 1,300 hours.
o This engine was, by regulation, dead stock.
o This engine had, I believe, three seasons of
racing on it. That would mean about 75 hours,
virtually all of it at WOT, and much of that
at 100% power.
o This "100% power" would be _way_ more than
a similar displacement (or, probably, weight)
aircraft engine would be rated at.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
> Dont know why you have chosen to exclude speed boats from your comments.
>If anything I would think that they would provide the most severe test of
>all.
>Mike Wills
Mike,
I think if you put a stop watch (Or Hobbs meter) on a speed boat that was
used as you described, you would find that you are doing major work on the
engine in a relatively few hours. I say this from some experience. (you
know boats are just holes in the water that you throw money into!)
Really, Think about it in hours at high power. If you are out skiing all
day (8 Hrs.) I'll bet you barely run 1 1/2 hours at full power. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JAF522 <JAF522(at)aol.com> |
Unsuscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Charles,
You make a valid point in saying that RV's (or any airplane) that is over
weight will not meet performance spec. However, the performance most
affected will be take off distance and rate of climb. Weight only affects
the induced drag and induced drag is a very small percentage of the total
drag at cruising speeds and above. Unfortunatly, many RV's are overweight
because builders can't resist adding extras. they pay the penalty for
this in longer take off runs & lower climb rates, also faster landing
speeds. They probably consider this an OK tradeoff because RV performance
is far superior to the average spam can, even if 50-100 lb. overweight.
Carried to an extreem though, this could transform a super airplane into
a dog.
Best of luck with your Chevy project.
Bill, RV-4 N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Hi John
One thing you might consider about your installation of a valve in the
oil line to the cooler: If the vernatherm is working as intended, when
the oil heats up, the vernatherm expands and closes off the direct flow
of oil to the screen and the engine bearings, forcing the oil to go
through the oil cooler first. By restricting the flow of oil to the
cooler, you are also restricting the flow to the rest of the engine. If
the vernatherm is not closing off that port completly, you might get by
with this but I dont think that I would be willing to chance it. Take a
look at the Lycoming direct drive overhaul manual (fig. 2-3 in my copy)
and you will see what I mean. If Your added valve were to accidentally
close off completely, could be total oil starvation as well as very high
pressures developed by the oil pump since the pressure relief valve would
be out of the loop.
Bill, RV-4 N66WD
Bill, RV-4 N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How High? World Record |
<< Our flight test team has just returned from a successful deployment of our
"Pathfinder" (not the Mars version, ours was named back in '92) 100' span
Solar Powered flying wing in Hawaii.
We were able to achieve 71,500 straight and level, for a NAA record for
Propeller driven aircraft, beating the Boeing Condor RPV record of 65,000'. >>
Our own Dave Dent at LVK gave Chapter 663 a briefing and showed a video of
this unique craft. It is really something!
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Alternative power |
I rechecked my info and yes your right, Continental have the contract,
Lycoming are doing it out of their own pockets.
As to why, my guess is that the US is going the way of the Russians and
stopping supply of Avgas because the market is just too small. Given a
747 takes 150 Tonnes of Avtur at a time and I doubt if most GA airports
use that much in a year this is understandable.
Since a 150HP turbine is in both the unaffordable and unobtainable
class this is understandable if the government looks a diesel's for GA.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
KB2DU wrote:
>
>
> Gentleman
>
>. I am looking for some
> RV Builders or Owners in the North East. I own a Seneca 1 travel is not a
> factor, I would like to see a completed project, and get some info on Flight
> Training in the RV 6 or RV 4
> Any help or words of wisdom will be appreciated.
>
> Bill Sivori
> KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
>
> Bill, I live in NH and building a 6QB. I'm 20 min from Nasua (Boire Field) *ASH*
airport. I'm a retired pilot and CFI with 30,000+ hours
in many types. Be glad to entertaine you curiosity or help. We have a
few guys up here with completed RV's and in progress.
Regards,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
Greetings folks,
I noted a small drawing on the wing jig detail sheet showing where one
of the wing skins needs to be trimmed away to result in a butt-joint at
the rear spar with the other skin. Just WHY this little drawing was put
HERE is beyond me! But, I'm still not sure if it's telling me to trim
away the top sheet, or the bottom..and how far forward? Will the two
rivets that go through the skins at the spar flange go through both
skins AND the flange, or, just ONE of the skins, with the other (bottom
skin?) trimmed away to just inside the spar flange? Geeze...I hope I'm
getting the point across here. I'm even confusing myself! I think
Christmas stress is getting a firm hold on me already... :(
Adios!
Brian Denk
RV-8 #379
fitting wing skins
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6A <RV6A(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | PS-5C Carberator |
I just bought a used engine (0-360 A1A) with a PS-5C carberator. I've talked
to the local crowd and they say it is a pressure carb and is good for
aerobatics. I am building a 6-A and don't plan to do aerobatics. Has anyone
used this type carb on RV's, or do I need to sell it or trade it for a Marvel?
Thanks, Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
RV6junkie wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think the boat types call it cavitation. Basically, the prop "slips" at low
> speed.
>
I believe that your close but not on target. What makes the prop
cavitate in the introduction of air in the prop wash.
> When I start my take-off roll, the prop spins past 2400 rpm.
Thats from the initial power surge of the engine.
As my speed
> increases, the rpm slows to 2360 or so.
Now the speed is governed by pitch and the prop biting.
By the time I get to 110 kts the
> rpm's are back to 2450 but now the prop is grabbing air.
Now your thrust has overcome drag and your accelerating back to rated
power.
Not trying to be a smart *ss
Don
>
> Gary Corde
> RV-6 N211GC - NJ
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Hawkins <jah(at)mindspring.com> |
Hello All,
One trick I used to stop the paint cup from running when I used to
paint cars was the following:
Take an old tube sock and cut the top elastic part off about 4 inches
down from the top. After you fill the cup and reattach it to the gun
slide the sock over the bottom of the cup and up to the top of the cup
where it meets the gun.
Presto... no more drips on the surface you are painting or your shoes.
The sock absorbes all the spilled paint.
-Jeff
P.S. I ordered my RV-8 tail kit this morning.
>
>Chris,
> I got the min spray gun and while it works, the frustration with
>spillage from the open cup, critical adjustment of the sypon tube, etc.,
>just added up to more frustration than I thought it was worth. There are
>plenty of 30$-$50 spray guns that will do just fine for primer that I would
>recommend over the mini spray gun.
>Got you e mail address, guess I didn't realize you were just up here "TDY".
>
>
>Ed
> ----------
>From: CHRIS.BROWNE
>To: rv-list
>Subject: RV-List: Spray Gun
>Date: Monday, December 01, 1997 3:45PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was about to cough up $100 for a HVLP Spray gun when I saw
> Avery's "mini" gun with the paper cup. Has anyone used it? Is
> it as handy as it is avdertised to be? The biggest advantage I
> can see with the HVLP gun I was looking at was the fact that the
> gun itself can be inverted since paint cup is separate from the
> gun and the paint and air are supplied by hoses. Avery's gun
> looks like it is "upright" only.
>
> Chris Browne
> Chris.Browne(at)BGE.COM
> -6A Tail kit for Xmas, the wife offered to buy it!
> Buying more and more and more tools ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing (and inspiration) |
<< I can use inspiration. Jigging the bulkheads and putting in all
the floor ribs, baggage ribs, stringers etc. is not very satisfying
work. It is starting to look like an airplane now, though. >>
Every task you perform on your airplane, is as important as the last, just as
it is necessary for the next. Every fastener correctly installed, is one step
closer to the day when you will see this thing ready for testing.
I am just now building up my jig, so I can tear apart the horizontal
stabilizer, replace all the parts that were destroyed during previous
activities on the aircraft, and rebuild to the specifications in the plans. I
think I can safely say, I know how you feel, from time to time. But when I
read a posting by one of these guys who has had his first flight, or one where
they talk about attending a fly in. It makes me want to go right back to the
shop, and get with it again.
I took a break this evening, because I wore my 10-32 tap out, while working on
my jig, and have to wait til tomorrow, so I can go buy a couple or three of
them.
Hang in there. If you are assembling the fuselage, you are light years ahead
of me.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Chevy V6 Installation |
>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).
We're not talking about ability to produce horsepower here. If you want to
cite extremes, an Indy car engine produces 800+ hp from less than 250 cu/in.
But the dang thing will only last for maybe 3 hours of intended use. I'm
talking about the ability to produce horsepower reliably for extended
periods of time. When I fly, I typically use throttle settings much higher
than when I drive to the airport. If I drove my Nissan Maxima (3.0 liters -
157 hp) to the airport, or anywhere for that matter, at a constant 75% power
setting, I'd be breaking every speed limit known to man. These engines were
designed with this limitation in mind. Continuous use at 75% power for 2000
hrs was not one of the design requirements for an auto engine. It simply
isn't necessary. It was, however, at the top of the list when Lycoming and
Continental sat down to draw up a design for the engines we typically fly
behind today.
I'm certainly not saying it can't be done by an auto engine. Please don't
get me wrong. But before I get into my 6A with the love of my life (my
wife) and head out where the emergency strips are few and far between, I'm
going to be behind something that has proven to be capable of these demands.
Again, if a reputable company were to run tests confirming that indeed a GM
4.3 V6 could run at 75-100% power for a duration far exceeding a reasonable
TBO, then that would be different in my eyes. That would only leave the
issue of the other equipment involved in the swap (ie. reduction drive,
mounts, cooling, etc.) to scrutiny.
I tend to be a Lyc fan for more than one reason. The obvious is that it's a
tried and true workhorse having proven itself over the years, but not to be
overlooked is that an RV with a Lyc and open exhaust sounds AWESOME! I can
tell if an airplane flying overhead is an RV or not without even looking up.
Then to look up and see it sliding effortlessly through the air with those
wide, square wings is almost enough to.......well, maybe.......get me to
work on mine.
Happy Holidays to all.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Jigging vertical stab
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting VS 803 to VS 808 |
>
>RV-Listers,
>
>I am ready to rivet the VS 803 and VS 808 together. George Orndorff
>back rivets the two pieces together to get a good finish on the flush
>rivets at the bottom. I was planning on doing that, but it is going
>to take me longer than I expected to get my piece of scrap steel
>cleaned up to make a back riveting plate. Can I expect to get a good
>finish if I use a hand squeezer or rivet gun and bucking bar, or
>should I hold out for the back riveting?
>
>Thanks for your advice,
>
>Kevin Horton RV-8 80427 (just started tail kit)
>khorton(at)cyberus.ca (613) 839-0228 (home)
>Ottawa, Canada
>
Kevin,
Assuming your parts on your -8 are labeled the same as my -6A (only with 8's
as the first # instead of 6's), you are talking about the vertical stab rear
spar and the rear spar flange strip. I just happened to perform this step
barely 24 hours ago. I used my c-frame tool to rivet the entire spar. My
tool is from Cleaveland Aircraft Tool and the bottom of the c-frame accepts
the .401 sets for the rivet guns. For the AN470 rivets, I used my 1/8"
straight rivet set in the bottom and a flat set on the end of the ram. I
placed the spar with the mfg. head of the rivet down on the .401 rivet set
and holding moderate down pressure on the assembly to hold everything tight,
struck the ram with the flat set in it 2-3 times with a regular 12-16 oz
ball peen hammer. Make sure the spar is perfectly perpendicular to the
rivet set and ram or the rivets will hob-nail. When I got to the AN426
rivets, I swapped the 1/8" rivet set for a large diameter flat set on the
bottom. I repeated the rest of the procedure the same as with the AN470's.
The spar came out beautiful. The AN426 rivets are perfectly recessed in the
dimples and all shop heads are textbook quality.
One hint; when you rivet the hinge brackets on stick a 3/16 bolt through the
rudder hinge holes (you may need to run a 3/16 drill bit through them to
clean the primer out ot the holes). This will hold the hinge brackets
aligned with each other while you rivet them on. One of my elevator hinges
on my horiz spar took a little tweaking to get a bolt through after it was
riveted on because I didn't do this.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Jigging vertical skeleton
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Weight |
Brian:
When I was in A & P school, one project was to weight a piece of 0.032
aluminum, prep it, and prime both sides. We did not pass this test
unless the weight increase was less than 1.5%. Very few of us had less
than 1.5% weight increase. Remember, this was primer only on both sides.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>Does anyone out there really know how much weight is added to our
>projects when we prime, top coat, clear coat?
>
>Brian Eckstein
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
You might want to include the primer in that as well. It might give an
idea if alodining is any lighter with just priming the contacting
surfaces.
----------
From: JNice51355[SMTP:JNice51355(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:48
Subject: Re: RV-List: Paint Weight
That's a good question. Has anyone weighed their nearly completed
project
before and after painting?
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
Just to set a few things straight.
I don't think you cannot power a plane with an automotive derived
engine.
I do think one straight out of the box from GM or Ford will have
cooling and lubrication problems in aircraft service unless modified.
Trying to get the power levels GM & Ford claim as peak power is a
recipe for a failed engine. Half these figures are more realistic if
the engines are properly converted. Out of the box, forget it, 60HP
maybe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
Ah. Sounds like you have your prop pitched for cruise not climb, at low
speed its stalled.
----------
From: RV6junkie[SMTP:RV6junkie(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:17
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: 3 Blade Prop?
<< It could be that the 3 blade prop is a little less efficient at low
speed. With more of it inside the cowl radius you may be getting less
useable thrust but at cruise you may also have less drag. >>
I think the boat types call it cavitation. Basically, the prop "slips"
at low
speed.
When I start my take-off roll, the prop spins past 2400 rpm. As my
speed
increases, the rpm slows to 2360 or so. By the time I get to 110 kts
the
rpm's are back to 2450 but now the prop is grabbing air.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | engine questions |
Speed boats use most of the power getting up onto the step and dragging
the skier out of the water, a very high torque load situation, the
driver usually throttles back to control the speed or at least RPM.
Total time ( and that is the usual limiting factor) quite short unless
you are talking about endurance events. The other item is the time
between overhauls of these engines is also quite short, having had
discussions with my boat racing mechanic, the lubrication failures
previously described are quite common in the conversions but since they
are running in water the cooling system induced failures are much rarer
and having cold oil helps with the lubrication.
The Volvo Penta series are a much more thorough conversion being a
factory engine redesigned for marine use with the appropriate beef ups.
It all gets back to the power vs reliability vs weight question.
The key word in your note is DERIVED, they have to be modified, a stock
engine cannot perform reliably. The other item is the derating of the
motors used for generators etc. I doubt if they are delivering anything
like the powers being suggested.
----------
From: Mike Wills[SMTP:willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:32
Subject: RE: RV-List: engine questions
Oddly enough a lot of boat engines (and some stationary generators that
I
have seen also) are based on ???? You guessed it - an automotive
engine.
Take yourself on down to the local OMC dealer and look at the engines
there
which are derived from essentially stock small block and big block
chevy's,
not to mention the Volvo series of boat engines.
Dont know why you have chosen to exclude speed boats from your
comments.
If anything I would think that they would provide the most severe test
of
all. I would think the problems associated with driveshaft/gearbox
torsionals (which are usually highlighted in any discussion of auto
engines
in aircraft) would be most severe in a planing boat hull which
transitions
coninuously from max load to no load as the planing hull leaves the
water.
Are you going to tell me that a boat pulling a skier (or 2) along the
water
at 40 - 50 knots doesnt demand a significant amount of power? If so you
are
boating with the wrong crowd; you guys cant be having any fun. While
boating
with my buddy in his 454 Chevy powered ski boat we regularly demand
every
ounce of power that engine can crank out. While it may be true that
these
engines were not designed for this use, in practice they work.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>1. Design origin relates to the expected loading of an engine,
>automotive engines are designed for a low continuous load with
>occasional spurts of high load during acceleration. As such the
cooling
>system both internal and external is sized for the normal load at
>maximum ambient and altitude expected (and I may be corrected) around
>50C at 12000 ft for the air side of the cooling circuit and the
>lubrication system is similarly sized. marine engines
>in displacement hulls (not speed boats) and generators ( other than
>pure welders) are designed for operation at higher loads for long
>periods at similar ambients in order to achieve reliable operation.
> The basic problem is that an automotive engine is designed to deliver
>30HP continuously and an aero engine at least 65% and as much as 75%
of
>maximum power for the same period so once you are out of the VW class
>the sizing becomes a little iffy.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
Yes, as pressure falls so does the boiling point. So the higher you go
the less you need to heat the oil to strip moisture. In a hard vacuum
even the oil will boil ( its called vacuum distillation).
----------
From: smcdaniels(at)juno.com[SMTP:smcdaniels(at)juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 1:26
Subject: RV-List: Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions
I think the boiling point of water varies with pressure altitude,
doesn't
it? I was just passing along what Lycomings position is about oil
temps
and ridding the engine interior of moisture.
You are probably right about the evaporation at lower temps. The
position of recommending operation at a min temp of
180 deg F is Lycomings with the reason given of needing to boil of
moisture and other contaminates from the oil. !80 Deg is also where
the
bottom of the green arc on the oil temp gage starts in all the
certified
airplanes I have ever flow.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own and
do not necessarily represent the opinions
of my employer.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Question On Powdercoating... |
If your using a polypropylene powder coat this melts at 230C, there is
a possibility that the epoxy may run slightly. However epoxy won't
stick to polypropylene so it shouldn't be too bad. Polyester powder
coat is another matter, and something I haven't had much to do with so
back to the floor.....
----------
From: Charlie Kuss[SMTP:charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:19
Subject: Re: RV-List: Question On Powdercoating...
Matt Dralle 510-606-1001 wrote:
>
510-606-1001)
>
> Listers,
>
To increase the durability of the lettering I was thinking about
having
a clear, powdercoat applied. Would this help?
It would definately help.
> Would it be better to clear powdercoat the part first, then
silkscreen over the
> top?
Since powdercoating is basicly powder that is melted by post heating in
an oven/kiln, it would depend on the nature and heat tolarance of the
silkscreen material. I believe the heat range involved is 300+ degrees
F. You may be forced to silkscreen after powdercoating
Charlie Kuss
>
> Matt
>
> --
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 510-606-1001 Voice | 510-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<<
Have you ever heard of dissimilar metal corrosion? You are certainly going to
now!
>>
Wendal,
Have you ever heard of cad plating? Most of the steel rivets for this use are
cad plated or monel. What do you think those nut plates and the bolts holding
your wings and tail on are made out of?
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Riveting the tanks |
<<
I'll see if I can find it at home, but I recall a classroom book for those
assembling the C-17 that mixing sealant with anything (MEK, acetone, LT) was
very very bad, and they would be terminated if apprehended. A different type
(A or C) of sealant is used when brushing is desired.
Ryan Bendure? Can you confirm?
>>
Mark,
I agree. They make the sealants in different thicknesses and curring times. I
assembled mine wet with a thick sealant then went over the rib flanges with a
thinner version almost brushable. I have my own secret source for the sealant
I used, so im not sure what the numbers would be for the people purchasing
sealant from normal sources.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Even in racing automotive engines rarely deliver full power, they are
more likely to be limited by RPM than maximum power.
Remember it only takes 10HP to hit 60MPH, therefore at 120MPH, 40HP
would be about right. This however leaves no margin for acceleration so
a burst of 100HP may be required. By the way, I have a great respect
for the Japanese as engine builders, if they ever make a V-8, that
would definitely be worth a look at as their QA on automotive parts is
up with some of the aircraft manufacturers.
P.S. with 80,000KM on the car the engine was probably well run in.
----------
From: Tedd McHenry[SMTP:tedd(at)idacom.hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 12:48
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
Gregory R. Travis writes:
>
> I agree that the use of a derivative engine will not significantly
> affect the total of building an RV-class machine.
A typo here, I think. Did you mean to say "affect the total
cost?" Yes, that's basically what I meant. A firewall-forward
kit is going to end up costing in the same ballpark as a Lyc
installation, I suspect. But the right person (and there are
some on this list) could do their own installation and probably
save a bit.
> But I'm not sure I follow you about durability. How are you defining
> durability?
Inaccurately, I'm sure! I really just mean the ability of the
long block to live for, say, 2,000 hours at some reasonable
power output.
A lot of people are fond of saying silly things such as "your
auto engine can't put out 75% power for 2,000 hours" or "your
auto engine can't sustain 100% power for 150 hours, or
whatever. Well, maybe, because 100% power on my auto engine
is a bunch more, by any reasonable comparison, than full power
on a Lycoming. But I can't see anyone doubting that a
4.3-litre Chevy could put out 120 hp for 2,000 before it
needed a rebuild. (Even with a few seconds of 160 hp once
or twice an hour.)
The real issue, I think, is: can an auto engine that's as
_light_ as a Lycoming put out 120 hp for 2,000 hours? I
don't know of anyone who has demonstrated that, yet. My
personal opinion is that it's a reasonable expectation.
That's not based on any science, though. Just on having
observed the durability of bog-stock auto engines in race
cars for many years.
Some years ago, for example, the national championship in
one of our showroom stock classes in Canada went to a guy
driving a Honda with over 80,000 km on it. Before anyone
jumps down my throat with arguments about how far airplanes
go in 2,000 hours, I'd like to point out some facts.
o 80,000+ km in a road-going car is probably about
1,200 or 1,300 hours.
o This engine was, by regulation, dead stock.
o This engine had, I believe, three seasons of
racing on it. That would mean about 75 hours,
virtually all of it at WOT, and much of that
at 100% power.
o This "100% power" would be _way_ more than
a similar displacement (or, probably, weight)
aircraft engine would be rated at.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
----------
From: Gibson Allan
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 4:05
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: 3 Blade Prop?
Might I clarify this thing, cavitation as opposed to entrainment has
nothing to do with air.
Cavitation is the technical term for what happens when the local
pressure falls below the flash point of the liquid ( note liquid not
fluid). The fluid boils producing bubbles of steam which as the
pressure rises away from the prop collapse. This collapse is very
energetic producing local temperatures of the order of 10,000C ( yes,
10,000C, about twice the surface temperature of the Sun, this has been
verified experimentally, the cavities collapse in a blue flash, a
little dissolved Argon helps) . If your prop is in the road when this
happens the material it is made from is vaporised. Ultrasonic cleaners
use this effect to remove grime, paint, aluminium and just about
anything else in the road that lacks sufficient strength to resist the
force. The pitting on your boat prop ( or a cooling water pump) is
produced by this effect. It was being looked at as a way of initiating
a fusion event but that was during the fuss over cold fusion.
Entrainment is where air is sucked into the low pressure region behind
the prop by the wake. These bubbles do not collapse but rise to the
surface and burst.
Aircraft Props don't cavitate they stall ( unless you are under water
in which case a cavitating prop is the last thing you are worrying
about.....).
Please excuse me for being pedantic but we may as well get the
terminology right.
----------
From: Don Champagne[SMTP:mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 5:38
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: 3 Blade Prop?
RV6junkie wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think the boat types call it cavitation. Basically, the prop
"slips" at low
> speed.
>
I believe that your close but not on target. What makes the prop
cavitate in the introduction of air in the prop wash.
> When I start my take-off roll, the prop spins past 2400 rpm.
Thats from the initial power surge of the engine.
As my speed
> increases, the rpm slows to 2360 or so.
Now the speed is governed by pitch and the prop biting.
By the time I get to 110 kts the
> rpm's are back to 2450 but now the prop is grabbing air.
Now your thrust has overcome drag and your accelerating back to rated
power.
Not trying to be a smart *ss
Don
>
> Gary Corde
> RV-6 N211GC - NJ
>
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
<< << the heads are specials to take dual ignition. >>
This is one thing the Chevy boys don't seem to understand. Would you explain
it please?
Regards >>
The reason you need dual plugs in a Lycoming is because in a big, slow turning
engine, the flame front travels slowly and you need a second spark to get the
entire mixture burned. That's the reason you get an RPM drop when you shut off
one mag. Also back in ' 02 when they (the Lyc's) were designed they didn't
have the electronics to reliably spark those things that we do today, neither
of which is true on today's engines.
Regards, Merle (but we've ALWAYS done it that way !) Miller
these engines are not designed for aircraft use,
we are tired of hearing it. I said I was not going to respond to any more of
these posts but I have as much right to discuss alternative engines on the
list as everyone else does to talk about any other facet of RV construction.
I state again I didn't want to foster a war, only hear from some like minded
individuals.
Regards, Merle (can't we all just get along) Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fixing hole in skin |
I lost the message regarding patching a hole in the skin with a cut rivet shank.
I tried it and it worked great. My thanks to the contributor. The solution
I was contemplating was not as easy or attractive.
Brian Eckstein
yes, there was a hole where there shouldn't have been one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <majortom(at)mursuky.campus.mci.net> |
Why are'nt Continental engines ever considers for the RV?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
> By the way, I have a great respect
>for the Japanese as engine builders, if they ever make a V-8, that
>would definitely be worth a look at as their QA on automotive parts is
>up with some of the aircraft manufacturers.
Allan,
Lexus does make a V-8 and it is a work of art. In fact with Burt Rutan
designing the test airframe they got the engine certified. As I understand
it, shortly after it was certified one of the test engines broke a crank.
Greg Travis probably knows more about this. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
Does anyone know how fast the AIR COOLED German Me-262 JET was?
The live expectancy of the 1942-1945 Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the
Spitfire & Mustang was 100 hours. The longest that I have ever heard of
a Merlin engine running before overhall was in Elmer Ward's "Man-o-War"
P-51. He has gone 800 hours because of the reduced power setting he
flies.
I believe that anything is possible if you are willing to invest the time
and $.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason way
so few engage in it."
>
>
><< What was the hottest fighter in WWII, and was it air, or water
cooled?
>
> Regards
>
> Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
> >>
>P-51- water cooled -'nuff said !!
>
>Regards Merle ( I don't want to argue I just want to build it my way)
>Miller
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
| Subject: | Help with Nutplates |
I am getting ready to put all my fiberglass tips on the tail and was
wondering how crazy I should go with nutplates in this area. I have no
lights in the tail at all, but who knows at some point down the line,
and I already know I want to put them the the VS tip, what about the
rudder and HS tips? At the very minimum it should be good for
inspection assuming I cut some holes in the end flanges to look in.
Gary Fesenbek, RV-6AQ, 170 hp Lycosaurus, Weedeater APU
Fiberglass work on the tail. QB in the mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Orndorff G <OrndorffG(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: looking for a carburator |
Guys,
I'm looking for someone who has bought a new 0-360 and is not going to
use the carburator and would like to sell it. I'm overhauling a 0-360 a need a
carb. I can be reach by email or call me at 817-439-3280....George Orndorff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carroll Bird <catbird(at)taylortel.com> |
L & M Rowles wrote:
>
> -->
> Just an enquire about a deal that sounds to good to be true. A company
> from Texas is advertising in Australia rebuilt engines at $300.00. above
> factory price. IE:-0-360 AIA
> $11,089.00.
> The company is Air Power from Arlington Municipal Airport.
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>
>
Before you rush out and buy one of these engines finsd out how
much they want for a core charge. You have to have a runout for a core.
or pay the charge for one. They usually get around $8000 for a core.
this ouuld make the engine cost as much as a new one from Van's.
Carroll
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevin lane" <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
you know, I used to think those fighter plane replica paint jobs were kind
of silly. Now that I'm flying, they seem to fit my attitude! How 'bout
someone coming up with a Van's Air Force paint scheme? It could be an
easy, before the real paint job, and use primer grey, raw aluminum, with
say, bright yellow star and checkered rudder. Those 24 hr. sign shops can
make it up in vinyl for not much $. That also got me thinking about
designing a set of insignias we could display on our planes which would
indicate building options we used. Might be nice at the fly-in's. I was
thinking just a small 1" square computer icon-ish thing with say a spar, if
you built your own, or other symbols indicating perhaps, prepunch, wiring,
upholstery, quick-build,...( or like Randall had to, mine his own
bauxite)...or some digits indicating how many years to completion. Maybe
RV-listers could have one with a computer terminal.. There must be someone
out there with too much time on his hands until his emp kit arrives!
kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Al Mojzisik wrote:
> Allan,
>
> Lexus does make a V-8 and it is a work of art. In fact with Burt Rutan
> designing the test airframe they got the engine certified. As I understand
> it, shortly after it was certified one of the test engines broke a crank.
> Greg Travis probably knows more about this. Al
Al,
I think you're confusing about three separate engine projects :-)!
One is the Toyota/Lexus V-8. The principle players in this game are
Toyota, Hamilton Standard, and RAM. Toyota brought the basic engine
and the bucks. Ham Stand. developed the FADEC (Full Authority Digital
Engine Control), and RAM, down in Waco, is doing much of the airframe
fitting and flight tests.
I've not followed that project much in the past six months or so (and they
keep it very secret) but last I knew they were flying it in a Piper Malibu
as well as one side of a Cessna 340.
According to someone in the project, who asked that I not divulge his
name, there aren't really any "automotive" parts left in the engine.
Other deep throats at the time indicated that the engine ran like a kitten
(i.e. smooth, easy start, etc.) but that they were having trouble with
weight, fuel burn, and COST (compared to equivalent Lycontinentals). Part
of the cost problem was the high cost of labor in Japan and they were looking
at moving production of some parts (notably the gearbox) to the US to
lower costs.
I talked to a Toyota/Ham Stand. booth guy about the engine at Sun 'n Fun last
year. He, more than anything, turned me off on the engine as he was evasive
and just plain wrong on a number of issues.
The engine with the broken crank that you refer to is, I believe, the
Orenda MacLaren V-8 engine. Stillborne for twenty years now I think this
engine may FINALLY be coming 'round the corner. Course I've thought that
about Zoche in the past too! :-). They've been flightesting that engine
on King Airs and, I believe, Beavers and indications are that the progress
has been pretty good. Orenda has had some turnover on their engineering
and management staff related to the program and that is cause for some
concern but it looks like it has settled down now.
Was it Lancair or S-H that had one of these babies in their aircraft at
Oshkosh?
The Rutan airframe project that I'm most familiar with is the Rutan
testbed/proof-of-concept for the Williams FJX-2 turbofan. He may have
had something to do with the Toyota V-8 as well, I can't remember off
the top of my head.
Obligatory Trivia: Lycoming is also working with Ham Stand. on FADEC
control. They've fitted the same (virtually) FADEC as had gone on the
Toyota V-8 on a Lycoming flat-6 and have been running it in the test
cell. Deep background rumor has it that plopping the FADEC on the Lycoming
instantly pulled it way out ahead of the Toyota engine in virtually
every category save for noise and prop efficiency.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "joseph Matza" <matzaj(at)gghlaw.com> |
KB2DU wrote:
> Gentleman
>
> I am a new RV 6 Builder - I have the Ep kit completed and the wing kit left
> the factory to day, for a 14 day trip to Jericho L.I. I am looking for some
> RV Builders or Owners in the North East. I own a Seneca 1 travel is not a
> factor, I would like to see a completed project, and get some info on Flight
> Training in the RV 6 or RV 4
> Any help or words of wisdom will be appreciated.
>
> Bill Sivori
> KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
>
bill,
save your av gas there are a couple of 4's at hwv (brookhaven) one is
inside midislands hanger, the other is tied down near brookfield
avaition.
joe
8-vertstab at isp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Donald DiPaula <dipaula(at)access.digex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
> >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).
>
> We're not talking about ability to produce horsepower here. If you want to
> cite extremes, an Indy car engine produces 800+ hp from less than 250 cu/in.
> But the dang thing will only last for maybe 3 hours of intended use. I'm
> talking about the ability to produce horsepower reliably for extended
> periods of time.
exactly. that's what the honda engines do. produce power reliably for
extended periods. change the oil and filter and adjust the valves every
3000 miles or equivalent and they'll run forever at redline.
When I fly, I typically use throttle settings much higher
> than when I drive to the airport. If I drove my Nissan Maxima (3.0 liters -
> 157 hp) to the airport, or anywhere for that matter, at a constant 75% power
> setting, I'd be breaking every speed limit known to man.
i guess you never find yourself cruising down the highway in 3rd gear at 75 mph
because you liked the responsiveness in the top of the powerband? i do.
These engines were
> designed with this limitation in mind. Continuous use at 75% power for 2000
> hrs was not one of the design requirements for an auto engine. It simply
> isn't necessary. It was, however, at the top of the list when Lycoming and
> Continental sat down to draw up a design for the engines we typically fly
> behind today.
it doesn't matter if it wasn't the top priority or expected typical use; what
basis do you have to say the engines in question (in my example, honda engines)
_won't_ run at 100% power reliably for extended periods?
> I'm certainly not saying it can't be done by an auto engine. Please don't
> get me wrong. But before I get into my 6A with the love of my life (my
> wife) and head out where the emergency strips are few and far between, I'm
> going to be behind something that has proven to be capable of these demands.
> Again, if a reputable company were to run tests confirming that indeed a GM
> 4.3 V6 could run at 75-100% power for a duration far exceeding a reasonable
> TBO, then that would be different in my eyes. That would only leave the
> issue of the other equipment involved in the swap (ie. reduction drive,
> mounts, cooling, etc.) to scrutiny.
automobile engines are efficient and reliable. that is not in question. just
because lycosaurs have been in use for decades doesn't make them more reliable
than the products of honda/GM/ford/whoever's research over the same period.
big sales numbers allow (force, even) big R&D budgets.
the question is whether automobile engines can be adapted for aviation use
such that the entire FWF package is a reasonable combination of ease of
installation, reliability in all adaptations, efficient in-flight cooling and
low in-flight drag characteristics, low weight for the power, and affordable
cost.
i am not at _all_ worried about the reliability of the automobile engines
in aviation. (well, maybe chrysler corp. engines. i'd worry about those in
cars, though.) but the engine isn't the same as the FWF package.
-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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>We're not talking about ability to produce horsepower here. If you want to
>cite extremes, an Indy car engine produces 800+ hp from less than 250 cu/in.
>But the dang thing will only last for maybe 3 hours of intended use.
> . . . . . Continuous use at 75% power for 2000
>hrs was not one of the design requirements for an auto engine. It simply
>isn't necessary. It was, however, at the top of the list when Lycoming and
>Continental sat down to draw up a design for the engines we typically fly
>behind today.
There's another consideration that may have been discussed, beg your
pardon if I missed it. Consider the possiblity that a direct comparison
of any other engine to a contemporary engine may not be appropriate.
Suppose we bound the discussions on "reliablity" with a need for the machine
to wear out in an orderly fashion without catestrophic failures. If it
can be overhauled for a reasonable price, then the trade-offs can be
expressed in cost of ownership evaluation.
Recall that some of the early Rotax offerings touted a TBO of something
on the order of 400 hours . . . but could be overhauled in a weekend
with ordinary hand tools for $1,200 worth of parts. Hmmmm . . . $3/hr
engine reserves + 20 hours labor every 8 years (50 hours/year usage)
doesn't seem like too bad a deal to me.
It seems that the practical goals have to strive for a configuration
that tends to wear out without breaking and THEN see what the costs
of ownership are. A low TBO engine is not necessarily an unreliable
engine nor is it necessarily undesirable either.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Tedd McHenry wrote:
> Gregory R. Travis writes:
> >
> > I agree that the use of a derivative engine will not significantly
> > affect the total of building an RV-class machine.
>
> A typo here, I think. Did you mean to say "affect the total
> cost?"
You got it.
> Inaccurately, I'm sure! I really just mean the ability of the
> long block to live for, say, 2,000 hours at some reasonable
> power output.
Certainly true at some power output. The engines in both of my
cars each have well over 2,500 hours on them. But I think you'll
have some problem with the definition of "reasonable." Personally,
I don't think that what's reasonable in a car is reasonable in an aircraft.
> But I can't see anyone doubting that a
> 4.3-litre Chevy could put out 120 hp for 2,000 before it
> needed a rebuild. (Even with a few seconds of 160 hp once
> or twice an hour.)
Absolutely true. There is nothing about throwing an auto engine
in an airplane that somehow suddenly makes that engine unreliable. As
I pointed out, my car engines have each gone well over the magic 2,000
hour mark reliably. I see no reason to believe that if I designed an
airplane to use them, in the same duty pattern that they see in auto
use, that they wouldn't perform just as well in the sky as on the ground.
> The real issue, I think, is: can an auto engine that's as
> _light_ as a Lycoming put out 120 hp for 2,000 hours? I
> don't know of anyone who has demonstrated that, yet.
Again, you've hit the nail on the head. My car engines are absolutely
uncompetive with purpose-built aero engines on a weight and fuel
efficiency basis.
> o This engine had, I believe, three seasons of
> racing on it. That would mean about 75 hours,
> virtually all of it at WOT, and much of that
> at 100% power.
This is where people go wrong. Humbly I submit that even auto racing
does not demand much out of an engine in terms of time spent at or
close to maximum power. Large amounts of power in autos (street or track)
are used almost exclsively for acceleration only. And that acceleration
is measured in seconds, not the minutes used for a climb to altitude
in an aircraft.
You cannot (never say never, I know) build a car with acceptable accleration
criteria where the engine in that car is tasked at an appreciable percentage
of maximum horsepower in steady-state cruise. It's even worse in the racing
world where you MUST have neck-snapping acceleration ability. Such
acceleration demands a honkin' big engine but also drives the average
continuous power requirements DOWN.
In other words, the better your acceleration, the less power (as a percentage
of maximum) you demand, overall, from the engine. Kinda counter-intuitive,
eh?
The other mistake is equating WOT with 100% power. The only time you're at
100% power is when you're at WOT AND maximum RPM.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Greg sez...
>I think you're confusing about three separate engine projects :-)!
>
>One is the Toyota/Lexus V-8. The principle players in this game are
>Toyota, Hamilton Standard, and RAM. Toyota brought the basic engine
>and the bucks. Ham Stand. developed the FADEC (Full Authority Digital
>Engine Control), and RAM, down in Waco, is doing much of the airframe
>fitting and flight tests.
>
>The engine with the broken crank that you refer to is, I believe, the
>Orenda MacLaren V-8 engine. Stillborne for twenty years now I think this
>engine may FINALLY be coming 'round the corner.
>
>The Rutan airframe project that I'm most familiar with is the Rutan
>testbed/proof-of-concept for the Williams FJX-2 turbofan. He may have
>had something to do with the Toyota V-8 as well, I can't remember off
>the top of my head.
Maybe *4* different projects....
Burt and his bunch did the development on the Pond Racer with 2 Nissan
derived V-6s as an attempt to race with the WWII iron at Reno. The Nissan
based engines were fueled with methanol and purported to produce 1000HP per
side (for a few minutes). OOOOOOOOOOOOOH! 1000 HP in an RV. Now that's
CLIMB performance.
I had to mention RVs to keep this on the list, right?
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike & Shirley Hiscock" <shiscock(at)fox.nstn.ca> |
| Subject: | fuel line material? |
I just about to start installing the fuel lines in my -4.
Does anyone use other materials aside from the Al supplied by vans?
What are the type of fittings that go on the tubing? I have seen the
plastic ones in Spruce. They say that they're gas safe, would these work?
Are there other options?
Does you have any words of wisdom before I start?
Thanks in advance
mike hiscock
7 yrs and counting
shiscock(at)fox.nstn.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Free RV photos to good home] |
Rudy Albachten wrote:
snipped
> Charlie - I could give these photos a home.
Rudy,
Thanks for the offer, but I've chosen 2 RV-6A builders to host Ed's
photos. Ed also is building (has built) an RV-6A. Look for them soon at:
http://www.aftershock.org/mitch/rv.htm
and
http//www.flash.net/~donmack
Charlie Kuss
a camera handy in case of crate
damage - need to document. Mine came with external breakage to the
crates, but no damage to parts. Check over carefully before signoff. If
damaged, note on documentation before signing. I'd recommend having a
helper beyond the trucker available to help with the unloading. Note -
the Fulton group has an annual RV Forum each September; worth attending.
Best wishes!
Lawrence Greeno greenrv(at)juno.com
EAA Chapter 44 Rochester, NY
Working on Wings
You wrote:
>I am a new RV 6 Builder - I have the Ep kit completed and the wing kit
>left
>the factory to day, for a 14 day trip to Jericho L.I. I am looking
>for some
>RV Builders or Owners in the North East.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kerrjb <Kerrjb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
<<
Inquiry: Does anyone have any information on the fuel consumption of the
rotary engines compared to the recips. I have always been interested in
rotarys but have been under the impression that they used considerably more
fuel for a given horsepower. Hope I am mistaken. Can someone offer some
enlightenment? >>
Loyd,
Everett Hatch and Van flew to RV4's side by side from take off to landing
with one of them powered by apowersport rotary (180 HP) and the other a
Lycoming 180 Hp. The block to block fuel was the same if my memory serves me
correctly. Maybe Scott McDaniels would ask Van since it's been a long time and
I wasn't there. The rotary does have a higher specific fuel consumption
(gph/Hp) than a Lycoming but they attributed the fuel consumed during the trip
to the lighter weight of the Powersport installation.
If you are serious about using a rotary, I would suggest you contact Tracy
Crook and get his book on his experience. His email is:
71175.606(at)compuserve.com
Bernie Kerr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engine questions |
> ----------
> From: Mike Wills[SMTP:willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:32
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: engine questions
>
>
> Oddly enough a lot of boat engines (and some stationary generators that
> I
> have seen also) are based on ???? You guessed it - an automotive
> engine.
> Take yourself on down to the local OMC dealer and look at the engines
> there
> which are derived from essentially stock small block and big block
> chevy's,
> not to mention the Volvo series of boat engines.
> Dont know why you have chosen to exclude speed boats from your
> comments.
> If anything I would think that they would provide the most severe test
> of
> all. I would think the problems associated with driveshaft/gearbox
> torsionals (which are usually highlighted in any discussion of auto
> engines
> in aircraft) would be most severe in a planing boat hull which
> transitions
> coninuously from max load to no load as the planing hull leaves the
> water.
> Are you going to tell me that a boat pulling a skier (or 2) along the
> water
> at 40 - 50 knots doesnt demand a significant amount of power? If so you
> are
> boating with the wrong crowd; you guys cant be having any fun. While
> boating
> with my buddy in his 454 Chevy powered ski boat we regularly demand
> every
> ounce of power that engine can crank out. While it may be true that
> these
> engines were not designed for this use, in practice they work.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse)
> willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
Mike is right, the johnson 150 on our ski boat is the most reliable
motor I have ever owned. the power it has to pull up 6 ( YES 6 )
skiers without trying very hard is impressive. I hope the O-320
is just as reliable.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Weight |
>That's a good question. Has anyone weighed their nearly completed project
>before and after painting?
My paint job weighed exactly 30 lbs. on my RV-6.
Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
>Would it be better to clear powdercoat the part first, then
>silkscreen over the top?
>Since powdercoating is basicly powder that is melted by post heating in
>an oven/kiln, it would depend on the nature and heat tolarance of the
>silkscreen material. I believe the heat range involved is 300+ degrees
>F. You may be forced to silkscreen after powdercoating
>
When my parts were powdercoated, I already had them primed and they had to
remove that before they powdercoated. Might be best if you contacted your
local powdercoater and ask them. You may have to powdercoat first.
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>exactly. that's what the honda engines do. produce power reliably for
>extended periods. change the oil and filter and adjust the valves every
>3000 miles or equivalent and they'll run forever at redline.
>it doesn't matter if it wasn't the top priority or expected typical use; what
>basis do you have to say the engines in question (in my example, honda
>engines) _won't_ run at 100% power reliably for extended periods?
>the question is whether automobile engines can be adapted for aviation use
>such that the entire FWF package is a reasonable combination of ease of
>installation, reliability in all adaptations, efficient in-flight cooling and
>low in-flight drag characteristics, low weight for the power, and affordable
>cost.
Ahhhh, *MY* subject! As a experienced mechanic (Master ASE certified in
addition to my A&P IA) with 20 years of Honda specialty experience under my
belt (What, you think that Aviation pays the bills?) I've actually built
Honda engines for aircraft use. I built an aluminum block (and head) 4
cylinder Honda car engine to use in a BD-5. The engine itself (everything
bathed in oil) was never a problem. The systems were continual headaches.
This is arguably one of the most complex installations ever done by any
homebuilder. Consider that the 1237cc Honda engine had a rated output per
the factory manual of 55 HP. After it was installed *SUBMERGED* in the
fuselage with a Turbocharger, liquid cooled by submerged radiator, with
timing belt reduction drive running a 4' prop drive shaft through an
anti-torsional dampner assembly, and using a mixture adjustable aircraft
carb. (MA-3), it ran well and produced 100+ HP, and weighed about 200#.
Top speed was ~235mph. The Cost? ((((((SHUDDER)))))) Lets just say that
it could be duplicated on the 2nd and 3rd units at about $7,000 per. Would
a Lycosaurus have been an alternative? Nope. Won't fit. What were the
downsides? Howabout 500 hour TBO? Yup, we've already pulled it out and
redone it. What wore out? Piston/ring/cylinder wear was high, exhaust
valve and seat erosion was much too high. Cost to OH? $500. (New
pistons, rings, valves, gaskets and machine work.) I never expected 2000
TBO. I knew that the engine was being subjected to *MUCH* higher stress
though the pressure and temps of the turbo. My 20 years of car experience
did lead me to make good decisions about which parts to use (compression
ratio, etc) and no failures occurred of internal engine parts. They wore
out faster than in the cars, but they didn't break!
Since 100 HP is too litle to have fun with in an RV, my experience wouldn't
enable me to sell "RV ready" Honda engines. I'm not opposed to auto
conversions in aircraft, and a nice aluminum block and head Honda V-6 might
work quite well in a larger homebuilt. As to what PSRU and systems to mate
to it, the engineering would start all over again and probably consume the
cost of an average *NEW* Lycoming before it was pretty well debugged.
Would such an engine run 2000 before TBO? Who knows, but I suspect not.
If 10 RVers got together to share development costs could they come out
cheaper in the long run? Maybe, but who ever saw 10 homebuilders do
anything the same way?
How does this directly impact the RV list? Auto conversions are flying in
increasing numbers. Will they out perform their LyConental counter parts
in Cost, Weight, Complexity, Reliability, or rated output? As a weighted
average, probably not. Will they beat them in one or more categories?
That seems not only likely, but may have been done a few times already.
Would an RV with a clean auto conversion draw a bigger crowd at a flyin if
the cowl were removed? Unquestionably. Does the BD-5 draw a big crowd
because of the Honda engine? People just can not believe it has the same
block, head, crank, rods, etc. as the car they bought for their teenager to
drive. They are stunned and amazed. Is all the interest at flyins part of
the pay back for the costs and work expended to do the conversion? Hell
yes. And this may be part of the true draw of auto conversions. The
amazement and admiration of your fellow aircraft enthusiasts at your
ability to do something that they thought was impossible.
Now lets hear from others who have actually flown a homebuilt with an auto
conversion which would be suitable for RV installation. (~150-180 HP,
280-340# weight all up, etc.)
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming ignitions |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Gene
I asked the Lycoming Rep. at Sun & Fun this very same Question. He
couldn't give me an answer. He thought mabey (he was guessing here) that
it had something to do with reduced vibration.
Regards,
Bill RV-4 N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: insignias- chatter |
<< How 'bout
someone coming up with a Van's Air Force paint scheme? It could be an
easy, before the real paint job, and use primer grey, raw aluminum, with
say, bright yellow star and checkered rudder. Those 24 hr. sign shops can
make it up in vinyl for not much $. >>
OK- how about this: Use some sort of grey primer on the cowl (I'd recommend
#545 grey from US paints- epoxy type) and other fiberglass parts. This is a
good sandable type primer. Ya gotta put something on 'em anyway. You will need
something fwd of the windshield to stop the glare. The 545 would work here,
too, over US Paints base primer (also epoxy).
As it so happens, I have a pattern for a rudder checkerboard, too. ;-) I think
the shop I use (owned by a -6 driver) charges ~$50 or so for the peel-n-stick
pattern. Roll up & ship in a tube?
You could spray the whole airframe with vari-prime, and put a couple of red
stars on it in the right places...
Then again: Lyle Hefel has come up with a nifty VAF paint job already (white
over red), but it's a final thing, not an interim fix. Looks good.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Free RV photos to good home]] |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------57D14BF62DAB
Sorry Don,
I forgot the colon in your web site address. It should be:
http://www.flash.net/~donmack
--------------57D14BF62DAB
by mole with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:17:13 -0500
From: Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: [Fwd: Free RV photos to good home]
Rudy Albachten wrote:
snipped
> Charlie - I could give these photos a home.
Rudy,
Thanks for the offer, but I've chosen 2 RV-6A builders to host Ed's
photos. Ed also is building (has built) an RV-6A. Look for them soon at:
http://www.aftershock.org/mitch/rv.htm
and
http//www.flash.net/~donmack
Charlie Kuss
--------------57D14BF62DAB--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
<<
>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
>>
Don't forget the difference gained by a basic VFR panel with no strobes vs.
three GPS, and full IFR with leather upholstery, dual cup holders, carpeting,
extra sound insulation, and on and on and on.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lothar Klingmuller <lothark(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flight Testing |
>
>>You are taking the correct approach in flight testing that to few people
>>do. At the time a builder/test pilot signs off his airplane to remove
I would suggest to add weights at increments rather than going for the full
load firtst time.
This idea came from an old timer busch pilot who flew gold concentrates out
of the busch in Alaska. He added a sack each run to "feel" his limit. I
think he ended up 2.7 X gross weight until she (Piper Cub) got too 'muchy'.
After that he had the upper limit and adjusted his weight according to the
weather and conditions of runways.
No I am not suggesting his methodology! Just addding weight by lets say 30
lbs bags.
Safe and happy landings -ALWAYS!
Lothar|| Denver, CO || plumbing new PILOT SHED (~carriagehouse)||
loocking for RV- 6 JIG |||
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Sensenich balancing |
I'm reading that some of us would "buy a Sensenich and take it to the balance
shop".
Really? A brand new $$$$ prop from a long established manufacturer?
Please expand on this.
Bob
Working on other end but curious
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countershink |
Hi Vince,
Sounds like you're really enjoying this, good for you. I'd appreciate a bit
more detail, though, if you've the time. How about expanding on this in a
step-by-step how-to.
Looking forward to seeing something
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Longest I know of is a Mazda 13B installed in Jim Mayfield's 2 seat
autogyro which he uses for training over in Arizona. His first engine went
to approx 1050 hours before overhaul for excessive oil consumption. The
engine was serviced with new oil seals, no machine work, at a cost of approx
$800, and put back into service. Last I heard that engine was again over
1000 hours and still running strong. The Ross PSRU is geared at 2.87:1 and
reportedly has over 2500 hours on it without problems. Because of the gear
ratio chosen, the engine regularly sees over 7000RPM at takeoff power, and
6500 - 7000 RPM in cruise.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>The real issue, I think, is: can an auto engine that's as
>_light_ as a Lycoming put out 120 hp for 2,000 hours? I
>don't know of anyone who has demonstrated that, yet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GallienM(at)epenergy.com |
| Subject: | Sensenich balancing |
On small airplanes it's a good idea to have your prop balanced.
You would be amazed how much smoother it is. I had it done on my plane
and it made a difference you felt. A local prop shop sent a guy out
with a machine which basically consisted of a hand held Xenon strobe
tube and a briefcase sized analyzer which created paper plots. This
process indicated where to place the weight on the prop backplate. He
also did a tach verify at 3 different RPM settings. The cost was $150.
The whole thing is done with you prop on the engine. It is much more
accurate.
Matt
Gallien Jr.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qmax LLC [SMTP:QmaxLLC(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 10:51 AM
> To: Rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Sensenich balancing
>
>
> I'm reading that some of us would "buy a Sensenich and take it to the
> balance
> shop".
>
> Really? A brand new $$$$ prop from a long established manufacturer?
>
> Please expand on this.
>
> Bob
> Working on other end but curious
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:3 Blade Prop? and EVERY other subject |
<<
Yup, Mine does the exact same thing. >>
Does what? Don't forget to highlight some small, pertinent portion of the
letter to which you're replying prior to to clicking on the Reply key.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Static system question |
Listers:
I am working on the interior of my fuselage and need
to take care of my static system. I decided to make
my own static ports so I could have them perfectly
flush on the skin. Besides, I enjoy getting to spend
some time on a lathe! I also ran a piece of the
left over pitot aluminum tubing through the cockpit
area.
My question: is the size of the static line critical?
I bought some 1/4" I.D. tubing because it fit over
the aluminum tube. When I asked some local EAAers
how big the hole the static port had to be, I was
told the cross sectional area should match the static
line diameter to avoid turbulent flow. I can't
imagine needing a 1/4" static port.
What size of hole results from using Van's kit? What
size of tubing does Van supply? (How about wall
thickness of this tubing?) Will I create a problem
for myself by using say a #30 hole connected to the
1/4" tubing?
Thanks for your help.
Doug Medema, RV-6A, making the seat structure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Auto Engine Installations |
>Al,
I>The Rutan airframe project that I'm most familiar with is the Rutan
>testbed/proof-of-concept for the Williams FJX-2 turbofan. He may have
>had something to do with the Toyota V-8 as well, I can't remember off
>the top of my head.
>greg
Greg,
I do remember reading (about 3-4 yrs. ago or more) in one of the Aviation
Mags about Rutan testing a "Toyota" engine in a special plastic plane he
built in Mojave. It was configured a lot like the new Cirrus. (Standard
design-->tail in rear). I may be wrong in this but I think he called it
the Catbird. (I'm not referring to that weird two boom thing he's been
flying lately. They had a picture taken through a chain link fence of the
airplane. They were speculating a little bit about the engine but they knew
it was a Toyota. Anyway, I knew you would have some input on the Toyota. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Zercher <ez(at)sensenich.com> |
| Subject: | Sensenich balancing |
>On small airplanes it's a good idea to have your prop balanced.
>You would be amazed how much smoother it is. I had it done on my plane
>and it made a difference you felt. A local prop shop sent a guy out
>with a machine which basically consisted of a hand held Xenon strobe
>tube and a briefcase sized analyzer which created paper plots. This
>process indicated where to place the weight on the prop backplate. He
>also did a tach verify at 3 different RPM settings. The cost was $150.
>The whole thing is done with you prop on the engine. It is much more
>accurate.
>Matt Gallien Jr.
Matt is correct. I believe the balance reference was to have the engine/propeller
combination dynamically balanced. All Sensenich propellers are statically balanced
before and after they are painted. Having any aluminum propeller dynamically
balanced with your Lycoming/Continental engine will normally give you a
smoother ride. Most propeller shops have this equipment and quite a number of
FBO's will have it also.
Ed Zercher
Sensenich Propeller Mfg. Co.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)" <JonesB(at)geon.com> |
| Subject: | fuel line material? |
Mike,
I wouldn't use anything other than aluminum aircraft tubing fittings and
stainless braid reinforced hose (in the cowl) for fuel! I know of a
Harmon Rocket/RV-4 that cought fire and burned up after emergncy landing
supposedly due to plastic tubing/fittings in fuel service. Even boats
have more stringent (USCG) requirements for fuel lines and fittings than
automobiles, and autos don't have plastic fittings (that I am aware of).
My $0.02, but I wouldn't fly in a plane with less.
Bryan Jones
JONESB(at)GEON.COM
These are my opinions and not those of my employer.
> I just about to start installing the fuel lines in my -4.
>
> Does anyone use other materials aside from the Al supplied by vans?
>
> What are the type of fittings that go on the tubing? I have seen the
> plastic ones in Spruce. They say that they're gas safe, would these
> work?
> Are there other options?
>
> Does you have any words of wisdom before I start?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> mike hiscock
> 7 yrs and counting
> shiscock(at)fox.nstn.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevin lane" <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | build your own engine? |
I have been reading a book on alternative engines derived from CONTACT!
articles. I never realized that you can have not only cranks and cams
custom made, but blocks as well. What I wonder is why hasn't anyone
modified say a 350 to match the stroke and torque of a Lycoming? If you're
building an engine from scratch why make it peak out at the high rpms
requiring a PSRU? It seems like all the parts are available. What point
am I missing? kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary kozinski <KOZINSKI(at)symbol.com> |
| Subject: | Static system question/answer |
Doug was questions the size of the static port hole...
Doug: I think your EAA friends were thinking of the pitot port rather than the
static port. The static port is usually located in the aft cabin side area out
of turbulent air. The hole only needs to be large enough to provide air into
the line. In most cases the holes are only about 1/16 inch. Cleveland Tool
makes a nice flush mount port if you don't want to make something yourself.
Another thing to look out for is to be sure you don't have a low point in this
line (especially if your building a taildragger -6). A friend caught this
on mine before I had everything completed. Any rigid tubing will work.
Gary RV-6 20038 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Chevy V6 Inst ..-What 100% power means |
Hi,
Greg Travis says:
>The other mistake is equating WOT with 100% power. The only time you're at
>100% power is when you're at WOT AND maximum RPM.
This is not right is it, Greg? I can run my Debonair at WOT and max RPM at
7500 feet but that isn't 100%. Normally aspirated at 7500 is usually considered
to be 75% isn't it?
Or I can rev my car to max RPM and WOT but with no load, surely that is not 100%
power?
Seems like WOT, just barely able to reach rated max RPM and at barometer at
29.92 might be close.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A20driver <A20driver(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | RV-4 wings for sale |
Claudio Tonnini of Purple Passion fame, flew from NJ to Cape Horn twice, has a
pair of std. RV-4 wings for sale. They were replaced on the PP by a set of
long-
range wings which have 2 tanks in each wing. Wings in excellent condition..
Might
save somebody a lot of work and time.His phone # is 1-800-582-3125..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Torque Seal |
Regarding using nail polish (or Torque-Seal), does anyone know whether
the chemicals in either do any damage to the plastic in the lock nut
that it is being used on??
thanks.
Paul M. Bilodeau
pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com
732-957-6611
RV-6A Empennage
Building Horizontal Stabilizer.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bjnash(at)connectnet.com (BJ Nash) |
| Subject: | FS: Looking for Lyc 0-360 engines/parts?? |
Check with my friend, Doug at 918-543-3389 (Phone/Fax, Tulsa area).
He's got some stuff to sell cheap!
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: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Chevy V6 Inst ..-What 100% power means |
On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Greg Travis says:
>
> >The other mistake is equating WOT with 100% power. The only time you're at
> >100% power is when you're at WOT AND maximum RPM.
>
> This is not right is it, Greg? I can run my Debonair at WOT and max RPM at
> 7500 feet but that isn't 100%. Normally aspirated at 7500 is usually
> considered to be 75% isn't it?
Argh, you caught me. Hal's absolutely right. I left those out a) because
I didn't want to confuse the issue and b) because it's still a true
statement without them. While being at WOT and max RPM* in themselves are no
guarantee of 100% power, you cannot be at full power unless you have
at least WOT and max RPM*. In other words, WOT and max RPM* are necessary,
but not sufficient, critera for full power.
>
> Or I can rev my car to max RPM and WOT but with no load, surely that is
> not 100% power?
I don't think you can. I don't know of any cars, save those with governors,
that will do WOT with no load without going past max RPM* and throwing
parts out the hood.
> Seems like WOT, just barely able to reach rated max RPM* and at barometer at
> 29.92 might be close.
A stab at the full criteria would be:
1. WOT
2. maximum horsepower RPM*
3. standard conditions (i.e. 29.92" and 59F, 0% humidity)
4. specified induction (i.e. not restrictive or supercharged)
5. specified timing
6. specified exhaust
7. specified oil viscosity
8. specified operating temp
*maximum horsepower RPM may not be equivalent to the engine's maximum RPM
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)" <JonesB(at)geon.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
Brian,
I'm with you here... I have one wing trimmed and one not (saw the
detail picture AFTER I built the first wing). Now I have to figure out
how I can neatly trim the first wing skin. Fortunately, this is one of
only a few instructional problems I have experienced with my RV-8. Good
luck with yours...
Bryan Jones
RV-8, No. 313
Starting my fuse AND just found a killer deal on an O-320!
Note: These are my opinions and not those of my employer.
... Just WHY this little drawing was put
> HERE is beyond me! But, I'm still not sure if it's telling me to trim
> away the top sheet, or the bottom..and how far forward? Will the two
> rivets that go through the skins at the spar flange go through both
> skins AND the flange, or, just ONE of the skins, with the other
> (bottom
> skin?) trimmed away to just inside the spar flange? Geeze...I hope I'm
>
> getting the point across here. I'm even confusing myself! I think
> Christmas stress is getting a firm hold on me already... :(
>
> Adios!
>
> Brian Denk
> RV-8 #379
> fitting wing skins
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com |
| Subject: | Re: build your own engine? |
Kevin,
The debate over auto vs GA engines centers on this very issue.
Auto engines by their basic design are not efficient at the low
speeds of GA engines. Perhaps the basic design parameter
difference between these engine types is RPM and it is
significant. GA engines are slow turning, high displacement
machines so they can be directly coupled to a prop, which in our
case, is limited to 2700 rpm or so. Turn a Lyc. at 6000 rpm and
you get a bomb since the inertia of those huge pistons will tear
it apart. If you start out designing an engine for 2700 rpm,
you will get a high displacement engine with a large piston
diameter for torque. (Remember that HP=Torque*rpm*constant). In
other words, it will look less like a Chevy and more like a Lyc.
The idea is to adapt the auto engine through a PRSU so you don't
have to go through reengineering the whole machine.
Chris
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.COM
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: RV-List: build your own engine?
Date: 12/9/97 11:23 AM
...What I wonder is why hasn't anyone modified say a 350 to match the
stroke and torque of a Lycoming? If you're building an engine from scratch
why make it peak out at the high rpms requiring a PSRU? It seems like all
the parts are available. What point am I missing? kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Miller" <rgmiller(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countershink |
kevin lane wrote:
>
> >
> >
> I built a foot actuated sledge hammer addition to my C-frame and achieved
> very consistent dimples while also freeing up both hands to hold the skins.
> I also rigged up an old laser pointer to help locate the lower dimple die
> and speed things up.
I am interested in your drawings and plans. Please e-mail me the details.
Robert Miller
rgmiller(at)sprintmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question |
----------
> From: Doug Medema <dougm@physio-control.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Static system question
> Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:56 AM
>
.... I was
> told the cross sectional area should match the static
> line diameter to avoid turbulent flow. I can't
> imagine needing a 1/4" static port.
There is no flow, only pressure equalization. Little (0.030 inch) holes
are fine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
----------
> From: Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; smcdaniels(at)juno.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions
> Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:16 PM
>
>
> Yes, as pressure falls so does the boiling point. So the higher you go
> the less you need to heat the oil to strip moisture. In a hard vacuum
> even the oil will boil ( its called vacuum distillation).
>
Question: What is average crankcase pressure and how does it vary with
altitude?
Persyk's Theory of Oil De-watering: Water comes out of engine oil at normal
oil temperatures mainly by the process of evaporation, not boiling. The
rate of evaporation increases VERY rapidly with temperature because it is
an exponential dependence [ rate proportional to exp{-(W/kT)}, where exp is
the exponential function, W is a small energy value related to the
intermolecular attraction, k is Boltzmann's constant and T is absolute
temperature]. Forgive all the math -- it just means that evaporation rate
increases very rapidly with slight increases in temperature, up to the
boiling point, which represents the fastest rate. Even frozen water, a/k/a
ice, "evaporates", albeit slowly, although we call the solid-to-gas
transition "sublimation". I believe you can have virtually water-free
engine oil while maintaining your oil temp below the boiling point of water
at whatever pressure exists within the crankcase.
I rest my case, but would sure like some support from any lister who
recalls kinetic theory.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage (& wasting time arguing Physics when I could be
building!)
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Torque Seal |
The plastic in a nylock nut is not surprisingly nylon, a little acetone
solvent won't harm it, so long as it dries out rapidly. If you are
really worried keep it clear of the insert and just put a dab on the
flats and surface it is mounted to.
----------
From: pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com[SMTP:pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 4:41
Subject: RE: RV-List:Torque Seal
Regarding using nail polish (or Torque-Seal), does anyone know whether
the chemicals in either do any damage to the plastic in the lock nut
that it is being used on??
thanks.
Paul M. Bilodeau
pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com
732-957-6611
RV-6A Empennage
Building Horizontal Stabilizer.....
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerry thornton <jthorn(at)sbt.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Winter Oil Temps |
________________________________________________________________________________
dipstick when I finish flying my skyhawk. I feel this lets some (every
little bit helps) additional moisture to escape.
Jerry T.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Static system question |
Who did you ask? Turbulent flow in a signal line!
My suggestion would be seven holes about 1/16" diameter in a hexagonal
pattern about 1/4" diameter. This will give you the clear area needed
for quick response while keeping the insects out. Check out a Piper
Lance's static port when you get a chance. Water ingress can be handled
by drilling a 1/16 or smaller hole at the system low point. If the area
of the hole is less than 5% of the clear area the error will be less
than 1%. NASA have a publication on the subject.
----------
From: dougm@physio-control.com[SMTP:dougm@physio-control.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 3:56
Subject: RV-List: Static system question
Listers:
I am working on the interior of my fuselage and need
to take care of my static system. I decided to make
my own static ports so I could have them perfectly
flush on the skin. Besides, I enjoy getting to spend
some time on a lathe! I also ran a piece of the
left over pitot aluminum tubing through the cockpit
area.
My question: is the size of the static line critical?
I bought some 1/4" I.D. tubing because it fit over
the aluminum tube. When I asked some local EAAers
how big the hole the static port had to be, I was
told the cross sectional area should match the static
line diameter to avoid turbulent flow. I can't
imagine needing a 1/4" static port.
What size of hole results from using Van's kit? What
size of tubing does Van supply? (How about wall
thickness of this tubing?) Will I create a problem
for myself by using say a #30 hole connected to the
1/4" tubing?
Thanks for your help.
Doug Medema, RV-6A, making the seat structure.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Hawkins <jah(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countershink |
Hi Kevin,
How can I get a copy of the plans for your dimpler?
Thanks,
Jeff Hawkins
RV-8 #80563
Suwanee, GA
>
>>
>>
>> Observations:
>> The countersink removed the least aluminum wherever the Avery squeezer
>had
>> been used.
>> Next came the Avery C-Frame dimpling tool.
>> The most material removed was from the Pop Rivet Dimpled holes and those
>I
>> made a mistake on.
>>
>> Most mistakes came from inadequate 'whacking' of the C-Frame tool. But
>> excessive 'whacking' on the C-Frame tool is hazardous to very expensive
>> dimple dies. So another reason for the combo method.
>
>I built a foot actuated sledge hammer addition to my C-frame and achieved
>very consistent dimples while also freeing up both hands to hold the skins.
> I also rigged up an old laser pointer to help locate the lower dimple die
>and speed things up. Go ahead and laugh, but I'm flying after 2 1/2 yrs.
>of construction. I have drawings for plans, maybe two hrs. to construct.
> kevin 6A
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | build your own engine? |
It costs money. Big money.
If you own a machine shop and are a little bored go for it, but for the
sake of the less technically aware please design it with care, test it
thoroughly and document everything before selling it to the poor sods
who have to fly it.
If you are going to start from scratch try designing for a shaft speed
of around 1800 RPM and 120HP, you should blow the 180HP planes out of
the sky due to the increase in propeller efficiency.
----------
From: kevin lane[SMTP:n3773(at)worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 5:23
Subject: RV-List: build your own engine?
I have been reading a book on alternative engines derived from CONTACT!
articles. I never realized that you can have not only cranks and cams
custom made, but blocks as well. What I wonder is why hasn't anyone
modified say a 350 to match the stroke and torque of a Lycoming? If
you're
building an engine from scratch why make it peak out at the high rpms
requiring a PSRU? It seems like all the parts are available. What
point
am I missing? kevin
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: build your own engine? |
The point you are missing, Kevin, is time. You need some 1940 books - when auto
engines turned slower and owners fussed over them more.
Improvements in materials, lubricants, precision manufacturing processes,
quality management and so on permit greater reliability and fuel economy by
running at higher RPMs. Remember the formula for HP is PLAN where the PLAN is
four parameters multiplied. P is pressure in the combustion chamber, N is RPM,
L is length of piston stroke and A is area on top the piston. So, L*A is cubic
volume - there used to be this saying among MG racers, "The only substitute for
cubic inches is rectangular dollars." What is substituted is more "N". Better
fuels made it possible to up "P".
You need a big bunch of expertise to "build your own" engine. If you want auto
power, which does have some limitations, I'd suggest buying a package or finding
a knowledgeable assistant.
Hal Kempthorne Happy Holidays to all!
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
>
> I have been reading a book on alternative engines derived from CONTACT!
> articles. I never realized that you can have not only cranks and cams
> custom made, but blocks as well. What I wonder is why hasn't anyone
> modified say a 350 to match the stroke and torque of a Lycoming? If you're
> building an engine from scratch why make it peak out at the high rpms
> requiring a PSRU? It seems like all the parts are available. What point
> am I missing? kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | fuel line material? |
Fire wall forward I would go stainless steel with fire retardant rubber
hosing.
Just my personal taste......
----------
From: Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)[SMTP:JonesB(at)geon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 4:28
Subject: RE: RV-List: fuel line material?
Mike,
I wouldn't use anything other than aluminum aircraft tubing fittings
and
stainless braid reinforced hose (in the cowl) for fuel! I know of a
Harmon Rocket/RV-4 that cought fire and burned up after emergncy
landing
supposedly due to plastic tubing/fittings in fuel service. Even boats
have more stringent (USCG) requirements for fuel lines and fittings
than
automobiles, and autos don't have plastic fittings (that I am aware
of).
My $0.02, but I wouldn't fly in a plane with less.
Bryan Jones
JONESB(at)GEON.COM
These are my opinions and not those of my employer.
> I just about to start installing the fuel lines in my -4.
>
> Does anyone use other materials aside from the Al supplied by vans?
>
> What are the type of fittings that go on the tubing? I have seen the
> plastic ones in Spruce. They say that they're gas safe, would these
> work?
> Are there other options?
>
> Does you have any words of wisdom before I start?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> mike hiscock
> 7 yrs and counting
> shiscock(at)fox.nstn.ca
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
Hi Joe
So I am finding out - ther are RV people on Long Island not many but they are
cropping up.
Home Number 516-433-5696
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Bob Steward made a good contribution!
Another point is that auto engines are changing constantly for the better. They
are getting lighter too.
hal
> How does this directly impact the RV list? Auto conversions are flying in
> increasing numbers. Will they out perform their LyConental counterparts
> in Cost, Weight, Complexity, Reliability, or rated output? As a weighted
> average, probably not. Will they beat them in one or more categories?
> That seems not only likely, but may have been done a few times already.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuel line material? |
Mike & Shirley Hiscock wrote:
>
>
> I just about to start installing the fuel lines in my -4.
>
> Does anyone use other materials aside from the Al supplied by vans?
>
> What are the type of fittings that go on the tubing? I have seen the
> plastic ones in Spruce. They say that they're gas safe, would these work?
> Are there other options?
>
> Does you have any words of wisdom before I start?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> mike hiscock
> 7 yrs and counting
> shiscock(at)fox.nstn.ca
Mike
It was such a pain in the a## to put the alu lines in, I went to all
stainless steel braided hose. The Aeroquip hose and fittings cost
a lot more but I think it was worth it.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timbo" <htim(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 wings for sale |
I would like more info on the " 2 tanks in each wing ". Sounds like a good
mod.
----------
> From: A20driver <A20driver(at)aol.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: RV-4 wings for sale
> Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:27 AM
>
>
> Claudio Tonnini of Purple Passion fame, flew from NJ to Cape Horn twice,
has a
> pair of std. RV-4 wings for sale. They were replaced on the PP by a set
of
> long-
> range wings which have 2 tanks in each wing. Wings in excellent
condition..
> Might
> save somebody a lot of work and time.His phone # is 1-800-582-3125..
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Angiulo <mikeang(at)MICROSOFT.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
> ... Just WHY this little drawing was put
> > HERE is beyond me! But, I'm still not sure if it's telling me to trim
> > away the top sheet, or the bottom..and how far forward? Will the two
> > rivets that go through the skins at the spar flange go through both
> > skins AND the flange, or, just ONE of the skins, with the other
> > (bottom
> > skin?) trimmed away to just inside the spar flange? Geeze...I hope I'm
>
>
>
I looked at this on the plans and ignored it. I hope I didn't do something
really bad here but it just looked pretty insignificant. So there will be a
seam. Is this just cosmetic? Why does it seem silly to me?
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marc DeGirolamo <mdee(at)dlcwest.com> |
I am wondering if there is anyone building or flying an RV in the Key
Biscayne area of Florida...? Please reply off the list.
Marc DeGirolamo
mdee(at)dlcwest.com
RV-4 making the rudder go wiggle waggle
Saskatoon. Sk.Canada
Marc DeGirolamo
RV-4
Saskatoon,SK.
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
Gary kozinski wrote:
>
>
> Doug was questions the size of the static port hole...
>
> Doug: I think your EAA friends were thinking of the pitot port rather than the
static port. The static port is usually located in the aft
cabin side area out
>
> Gary RV-6 20038 finishing
>
> Gary Could you elaborate on why there should be no low spots in the static
line. Mine is just strung from bulkhead to bulkhead so I know it
has low spots in it.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
>> Gary Could you elaborate on why there should be no low spots in the static
>line. Mine is just strung from bulkhead to bulkhead so I know it
>has low spots in it.
>Craig Hiers
Low spots can trap water which may freeze at altitude causing a static
blockage.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy J. Pflanzer" <rpflanze(at)iquest.net> |
I'm giving some consideration to painting my firewall. The old hot rod
builder in me
wants to do it but I'm hesitant given the high temperatures, etc. under the
cowl.
Has anyone else painted theirs? What has been your experience? Thanks.
Randy Pflanzer
RV-6 N417G Wiring Instrument Panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: build your own engine? |
> You need a big bunch of expertise to "build your own" engine. If you
> want auto power, which does have some limitations, I'd suggest buying
> a package or finding a knowledgeable assistant.
How difficult would it be to build your own Rotary engine? I hear that they
are so much simpler.... Can one be built with a big rotor for more
displacement at a slower RPM, eliminating the PSRU?
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
I have used powder coating on several pieces with great results. The
process used involves a couple of acid baths and a water flush to clean
all impurities from the parts. An electrically charged paint in powder
form is sprayed onto the part which is then cooked in an oven at high
temps. All paint and primers the were on the part will be removed by
this process so you will need to silkscreen after powder coating.
I how this helps.
Doug
RV6 - working on a skinned fuselage in the contol stick area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
> > Could you elaborate on why there should be no low spots in the static
> line. Mine is just strung from bulkhead to bulkhead so I know it
> has low spots in it.
>
> Craig Hiers
>
>Ther should be no low spots for water to become trapped in. Flying in a
driving rain storm could find water getting into the static system -
hence on reason for two ports in the system.
Doug Murray RV6 fuselage built - contol sticks almost in.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert D. Gibbons" <planenuts(at)theonramp.net> |
I am not very knowledgable on the subject of powder coating and heat
treating/tempering but.... I read a few years ago about two guys who
had their aluminum SCUBA tanks powder coated for appearance and when
they were filled both exploded. It seems that the heating associated
with the powder coating process affected the strength of the aluminum.
So the point Bob? I would suggest caution if contemplating using this
process on any structure related (aluminum) parts of our RVs. Surely
there's a metalurgist on the list. Is this a problem?
Bob Gibbons
#80067
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JDaniel343 <JDaniel343(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: POH for RV aircraft |
Could someone please post Scott Gesele's www address for retrieving the POH as
mentioned earlier in the RV-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
Dennis Persyk
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
The key is partial or vapour pressure. The water or other contaminant
will try to maintain this pressure so if you have air blowing through
displacing the vapour more of the contaminant will boil off to replace
the lost vapour, if the total pressure is reduced similarly more liquid
evaporates. The complication is the affinity of the water for the oil,
which is low (brake fluid is another matter). A set of steam tables
(which I don't have to hand at the moment) would give a better estimate
of what the partial (or vapour) pressure is for water at 80C but it
would be substantial.
----------
From: Dennis Persyk[SMTP:dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:14
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions
----------
> From: Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; smcdaniels(at)juno.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions
> Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:16 PM
>
>
> Yes, as pressure falls so does the boiling point. So the higher you
go
> the less you need to heat the oil to strip moisture. In a hard vacuum
> even the oil will boil ( its called vacuum distillation).
>
Question: What is average crankcase pressure and how does it vary
with
altitude?
Persyk's Theory of Oil De-watering: Water comes out of engine oil at
normal
oil temperatures mainly by the process of evaporation, not boiling.
The
rate of evaporation increases VERY rapidly with temperature because it
is
an exponential dependence [ rate proportional to exp{-(W/kT)}, where
exp is
the exponential function, W is a small energy value related to the
intermolecular attraction, k is Boltzmann's constant and T is absolute
temperature]. Forgive all the math -- it just means that evaporation
rate
increases very rapidly with slight increases in temperature, up to the
boiling point, which represents the fastest rate. Even frozen water,
a/k/a
ice, "evaporates", albeit slowly, although we call the solid-to-gas
transition "sublimation". I believe you can have virtually water-free
engine oil while maintaining your oil temp below the boiling point of
water
at whatever pressure exists within the crankcase.
I rest my case, but would sure like some support from any lister who
recalls kinetic theory.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage (& wasting time arguing Physics when I could
be
building!)
Barrington, IL
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
>
><< 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. :-) >>
>
>They regularly put out well in excess of that in marine use, and Mercruisers
>are Vortec V-6's
>
>Regards Merle
>
How many hours of continuous use at 180 hp do they sustain? That boat would
be flying!!! Either that or towing the Queen Mary...... :-)
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
>it doesn't matter if it wasn't the top priority or expected typical use; what
>basis do you have to say the engines in question (in my example, honda engines)
>_won't_ run at 100% power reliably for extended periods?
I clearly stated that I'm not saying they can't, but it has to be proven to
me first. Yard your CRX engine out (a fine engine, I may add -good power,
lightweight), put it on a dyno and run it at rated peak hp RPM at full
throttle at sea level and tell me how long it lasts. I'm not saying it will
die instantly, nor do I feel it will last forever. But I'm not seeing these
kinds of test results discussed on this issue. People are arguing over
whether it will work or not. I have no doubt that a Geo Metro 1.0 liter
engine could swing a prop and successfully power an aircraft of some kind.
But for how long?
Oil changes and valve adjusts are definitely a must. All reliability bets
are off without them. They are not, however, insurance that a catastrophic
failure won't occur. Issues such as metal fatigue can be totally unrelated
to lubrication. A weak grain structure in the center of your Honda
crankshaft would be unaffected by your religious oil changes, and may hold
up to your spirited street driving habits (the only way to get around town
IMO) as long as the rest of the engine. But wind that baby up at full load
and keep it there for a while and that weak grain begins to fatigue and
cause adjacent areas to have to bear the load that it can no longer handle,
causing increased stress on those areas to the point that they fail, too.
The whole thing snowballs on a microscopic level until the load can no
longer be beared by the remaining intact material and BANG!!! You run over
your crankshaft. Again, I am not saying that this WILL happen. But is
anyone subjecting these auto conversions to these types of tests?
When you drive down the freeway in 3rd at 75 mph, your engine is enduring a
lot of rotational and reciprocating stresses, but very little torsional
stress on the crank because your net power output is no more than if you
were in 5th gear at that speed. Just enough to keep your car at 75 mph.
When you hop the throttle in short blips, the peak power is there because
you're in the rpm range for peak power. But for how long? Not very long
unless pulling a huge hill. Soon you'll have to shift or the rotational and
reciprocating stresses will exceed the strength of the internal parts (ie.
rods, pistons, valve springs, etc.), not to mention you'll be way off the
power curve before long.
I'm not against auto conversions. I just need to be convinced of their
ability to fill the shoes of an aircraft engine with a reasonable safety
margin left over and at a cost and performance level that make it worth the
effort and risk.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Jigging vert stab
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
Don't the static ports either side of the fuselage simply balance the
pressure differences due to non-asymmetric conditions for example when
the aircraft is in yaw and due prop wash?
Doug Gray
----------
. Flying in a
.driving rain storm could find water getting into the static system -
.hence on reason for two ports in the system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
>
> I always loosen the oil dipstick when I finish flying my skyhawk. I feel
this lets >some (every little bit helps) additional moisture to escape.
>
>Jerry T.
Jerry, I also believe this lets it IN too! Unless you close it when your
engine cools) Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <larry(at)bowen.com> |
| Subject: | POH Downloading Problems |
FWIW, I was able to download the 97 version, (with graphics) with no problem.
I'm using Win95 & Office 97.
It looks great! Thanks for sharing.
Larry
larry(at)bowen.com
On Saturday, December 06, 1997 6:35 PM, Scott Gesele [SMTP:scottg(at)icsnet.com] wrote:
>
> 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: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Static system question/answer |
In one word: water.
Your airspeed indicator works on around 5" water column, water in the
line reduces the available pressure to operate the instruments
therefore it could read either high or low depending on where the water
is.
----------
From: Craig Hiers[SMTP:craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:01
Subject: Re: RV-List: Static system question/answer
Gary kozinski wrote:
>
>
> Doug was questions the size of the static port hole...
>
> Doug: I think your EAA friends were thinking of the pitot port
rather than the static port. The static port is usually located in the
aft
cabin side area out
>
> Gary RV-6 20038 finishing
>
> Gary Could you elaborate on why there should be no low spots in the
static
line. Mine is just strung from bulkhead to bulkhead so I know it
has low spots in it.
Craig Hiers
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Powder Coating |
>
>I am not very knowledgable on the subject of powder coating and heat
>treating/tempering but.... I read a few years ago about two guys who
>had their aluminum SCUBA tanks powder coated for appearance and when
>they were filled both exploded. It seems that the heating associated
>with the powder coating process affected the strength of the aluminum.
>So the point Bob? I would suggest caution if contemplating using this
>process on any structure related (aluminum) parts of our RVs. Surely
>there's a metalurgist on the list. Is this a problem?
>
>Bob Gibbons
>#80067
Bob,
As a certified SCUBA tank inspector (yes I went to 16 Hrs. of class for the
certification) I don't think this is a problem for us. You see SCUBA tanks
are tempered aluminum and the heat in the powder coating process removes
the tempering (Distempers? :-) and thus weakens the aluminum or restores it
to it's softer state. Then when you crank 3000psi into it look out, I've
seen the damage! Unless you are pressurizing your RV I don't think it's
anything to worry about. ;-) Just don't do the wing spars or anything
structural that's aluminum! On the other hand if it's steel it's usually
good for relaxing the stresses if there's a weld in it. Other problem is it
can cover cracks. See archives. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countershink |
kevin lane wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Observations:
> > The countersink removed the least aluminum wherever the Avery squeezer
> had
> > been used.
> > Next came the Avery C-Frame dimpling tool.
> > The most material removed was from the Pop Rivet Dimpled holes and those
> I
> > made a mistake on.
> >
> > Most mistakes came from inadequate 'whacking' of the C-Frame tool. But
> > excessive 'whacking' on the C-Frame tool is hazardous to very expensive
> > dimple dies. So another reason for the combo method.
>
> I built a foot actuated sledge hammer addition to my C-frame and achieved
> very consistent dimples while also freeing up both hands to hold the skins.
> I also rigged up an old laser pointer to help locate the lower dimple die
> and speed things up. Go ahead and laugh, but I'm flying after 2 1/2 yrs.
> of construction. I have drawings for plans, maybe two hrs. to construct.
> kevin 6A
>
I think it's great idea. Wish I had thought of it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with Nutplates |
<< how crazy I should go with nutplates in this area. I have no
lights in the tail at all, but who knows at some point down the line,
and I already know I want to put them the the VS tip, what about the
rudder and HS tips? >>
I wouldn't put the strobe in VS tip because it reflects off the wings at
night. To my knowledge no lights should go in the HS or Elev tips. If you
enclose your position lights in the wing tip leading edge fixtures you are
going to need a tail position light and the rudder is the place for it. Even
so, you don't need to remove the rudder bottom or tip.
IMO it is best to attach all the empennage tips and rudder bottom permanently.
I did it using 3M 2216 with microballoons and some pop rivets to hold them
during cure. You can't see where the metal ends and the FRP begins after
painting and this epoxy has the ability to flex and not crack due to
differential thermal expansion.
Now, for the wing tips and the empennage root fairing, I put them on using
6-32 screws into nutplates on 2" centers. Looks good.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WmSH <WmSH(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | -8 Wing Const Videos |
Hi everyone,
My name is Bill Hickman, I'm new to the list, and would like to introduce
myself. My family and I got the $30K free ride form Jim Cone and his wife
Bev (great folks) in Oct '97 and am a confirmed RV addict now. I'm in the Air
Force and awaiting assignment news, hopefully Thursday, and if all goes as
planned will order the -6A empennage kit in Jan 98. At the request of my 9
year old, he wants to sit up front, I changed my mind from the original plan
to build the -8A. I am currently collecting the required tools and arranging
the workshop in my garage.
Since I have jumped off the fence and decided to build the -6A, I have the
Orndorff
-8 wing construction videos for sale (viewed once). $35 (or make an offer)
and I will pay the shipping.
We look forward to using this excellent resource to avoid mistakes over the
next few years. Thanks Matt for the list. I have many reservations about
undertaking such a task as a first time builder, but I'm doing it anyway!
Bill Hickman
-6A preview plans
wmsh(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anthony Self" <CHEVY_TRUCK(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
. 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.
I have seen auto engines used in sawmills, oil rigs, the logging industry for
loading and processing logs, pumps, boats, several aircraft, winches,
generators, ski lifts, welders, etc. I've never heard of an aircraft engine
being used anywhere else until now. Why is that? I think it's the expensive
nature of Lycs.There's no reason I can see to limit auto engines to land based
systems. To me, it seems, the critics shouldn't attack the Vortec engine
itself, just the PSRU. This is really the only quesionable part of an auto
system to me. If I buy one of Belted Air's PSRU, I plan on disassembling it
and having a friend, who has been a machinist for the past 20 years, really
inspect it for design flaws. Maybe, I'll work with him to design my own if I
don't like the looks of the BAP unit. I have responded to the auto critics
too many times lately, so I'll try to just ignore the negativity generated
lately. We all have choices and there is a lot of room on the list to discuss
EVERY topic. Let us just talk about Chevy's, or any alternative, and we'll pay
the price ourselves, if there is one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Torque Seal |
<< Regarding using nail polish (or Torque-Seal), does anyone know whether
the chemicals in either do any damage to the plastic in the lock nut
that it is being used on?? >>
I believe the plastic in the nylock is nylon 6/6 and it should not be damaged
by exposure to the little acetone in toe nail polish or torque seal. Despite
it being one of the earliest plastics, it has surprisingly good
characteristics, one of which is excellent chemical resistance.
This is essentially the same nylon that most tie wraps and such are
constructed of, so you could do your own test quite easily. I think you'll
find that the nylon is undamaged by acetone or MEK (an even stronger ketone
solvent).
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
Anthony Self wrote:
>
>
> . 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.
>
> I have seen auto engines used in sawmills, oil rigs, the logging industry for
> loading and processing logs, pumps, boats, several aircraft, winches,
> generators, ski lifts, welders, etc. I've never heard of an aircraft engine
> being used anywhere else until now. Why is that? I think it's the expensive
> nature of Lycs.
I think it's because there are more auto engines.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144 <KBoatri144(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Van's publications mention that they have a 168 hp 0-320 in the new RV-8.
When I asked about this, they said they had the engine hotted-up a little.
Anyway, since I'm planning on using an 0-320 in my -6, does anyone have some
good estimates (dyno data would be even better...) of horsepower gains and
costs on various engine hop-up mods such as high compression pistons,
balancing of components, flow work on the heads, electronic ignition options,
or other potential "mild" upgrades? Also, other than the electronic ignition
and higher compression pistons, which mods would give better specific fuel
consumpton?
As I'm interested in all the pieces staying together for a while, I'd prefer
to generate power within the recommended RPM limits from Lycoming. Also, I
have no interest in turbo-normalizing or other really expensive stuff. I
expect to do my own engine work, so I'm not worried about certification
problems.
I realize this opens a whole barrel of monkeys, but it can't be worse (IMHO)
than the perpetual thread on auto conversions.
Kyle Boatright
Rv-6 Ad Infinitum
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144 <KBoatri144(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Pop Rivet Problems |
I'm having consistency problems with flush pop rivets. Some break off
cleanly, while others leave a jagged burr around the hole in the center of the
rivet.
First, does this suggest that I'm doing something wrong with my technique?
Second, if the problem is in the rivets, is there a source of flush pop rivets
which break off more cleanly?
Third, is there a good way to clean up the jagged ones I've already set?
Obviously, I don't want to get to agressive in this effort, as I may weaken
the rivets.
Thanks for the input.
Kyle Boatright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
>In one word: water.
>Your airspeed indicator works on around 5" water column
Allen:
If I understand you , the airspeed is going from zero to +5 inches of
water (pressue)
& pushing against the static pressure from the static line. My cert plane
has two lines from the fuselage routed to a low point in the baggage area
( that gets checked/drained each annual) . The line then goes to all the
static instruments.
If you get water in the low point, does it evaperate or wait till
inspection time. Looks like the factory would have put the static ports =
to the low point. Never thought of it , but does water enter the
airspeed indicator from the ram side?
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Winter Oil Temps |
If you really want dry oil try a light nitrogen purge through the
dipstick immediately after shutdown until the engine is cold. This
should sweep any volatiles out of the engine as well.
Water enters the engine via either the intake, the combustion process
or from condensation from the ambient air.
While the engine's running they boil off but when cold they condense
and pool in the oil.
O.K. so money is no object and this discussion is getting a little
silly.
----------
From: Al Mojzisik[SMTP:prober(at)iwaynet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:22
Subject: Re: RV-List: Winter Oil Temps
>
> I always loosen the oil dipstick when I finish flying my skyhawk. I
feel
this lets >some (every little bit helps) additional moisture to escape.
>
>Jerry T.
Jerry, I also believe this lets it IN too! Unless you close it when
your
engine cools) Al
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
Brian Denk wrote:
>
>
> I noted a small drawing on the wing jig detail sheet showing where one
> of the wing skins needs to be trimmed away to result in a butt-joint at
> the rear spar with the other skin. Just WHY this little drawing was put
> HERE is beyond me! But, I'm still not sure if it's telling me to trim
> away the top sheet, or the bottom..and how far forward?
Brian
This is usually done on the overlap of the inboard and outboard top skins where
they overhang the rear spar. The reason for trimming the skin is so that the
there is a continuous trailing edge in the top skin that looks better and will
scratch the flap less. On my 6 the inboard .032 skin is on the bottom and the .025
is on the top. I trimmed the .032 skin starting about 1/4 inch from behind the
rear spar on one wing and had a brain fart on the other wing and trimmed it even
with the spar. (no big deal) I left about 1/32 gap between the two skins after
trimming. When you are done you will have a very nice butt joint on the trailing
edge of your top skins. I also trimmed the bottom skins just because it looks
better.
Gary Zilik
RV-6A s/n 22993
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anthony Self" <CHEVY_TRUCK(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
. 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.
I have seen auto engines used in sawmills, oil rigs, the logging industry for
loading and processing logs, pumps, boats, several aircraft, winches,
generators, ski lifts, welders, etc. I've never heard of an aircraft engine
being used anywhere else until now. Why is that? I think it's the expensive
nature of Lycs.There's no reason I can see to limit auto engines to land based
systems. To me, it seems, the critics shouldn't attack the Vortec engine
itself, just the PSRU. This is really the only quesionable part of an auto
system to me. If I buy one of Belted Air's PSRU, I plan on disassembling it
and having a friend, who has been a machinist for the past 20 years, really
inspect it for design flaws. Maybe, I'll work with him to design my own if I
don't like the looks of the BAP unit. I have responded to the auto critics
too many times lately, so I'll try to just ignore the negativity generated
lately. We all have choices and there is a lot of room on the list to discuss
EVERY topic. Let us just talk about Chevy's, or any alternative, and we'll pay
the price ourselves, if there is one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Brian,
The reason for relieving one of the skins is so that their isn't
a step (sharp corner) in the skin line where the flap will rub once it is
installed.
You relieve the skin that is underneath and leave the top one
whole. You start the cut just aft of the rear spar flange so that both
skins still are caught by all rivets in the spar.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
<348CF565.63D7(at)ix.netcom.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
No Don I think he was correct with his first explanation.
I have the same prop and it does the same thing.
I don't believe it is the initial power surge because I can sit with the
brakes locked at full throttle and show a RPM higher than I will have
through the initial climb out. The RPM begins to reduce at about 40 mph
indicated and the increases again slightly when reaching best ROC speed.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: instrument panel |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Bruce,
You should build it the way it is shown in the plans.
The photo's are of the original prototype version and a change was made
after its completion.
By tilting the firewall Fwd. it makes it intersect with the top skin and
top cowling at a 90 deg. angle. If it is not at 90 deg at this point it
makes it very difficult to mount the hinge and make it work well for
attaching the cowling (it's more complicated than that but also more
difficult to describe in words).
The firewall stainless is rather soft and can be bent by hand easily.
Clamp a board or a piece of scrap angle along the bend line and work it
by hand.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
My RV4 is 22-- . In my construction manual it states that the use of the CS4
rivet is an acceptable alternative to the AN426 for riveting the entire bottom
skin. I have seen a number of RVs done this way including a beutiful RV6 that
I believe sold for more than 80000$. Several of these had accumulated alot of
time and I could see no working or loosness in the installed CS4 rivets. I
believe that Van will concurr that the CS4 is okay for the wing bottom. The
initiator of this thread should go to the source----Van.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Apples |
The major questions relate to sustained power delivery.
If the engine you use has been inspected to aircraft standard:
Crank, cam, and other steel parts magnafluxed, aluminium parts crack
tested, oil system checked to ensure correct functioning at maximum
load, Oil pump volume increased to ensure adequate lubrication is
delivered at 3800RPM, cooling system etch cleaned and passivated to
prevent fouling and ensure best performance, ancillaries checked
similarly, second ignition system fitted for security, and all other
critical systems duplicated or fail safe. This should catch any errors
at the factory.
Further this assumes that the designer has left a large enough fatigue
margin for you to play with at the higher power level.
You may then have an engine worthy of being bolted to the front of your
plane.
This is the whole argument, after this is done will it still be cheaper
ie. more bang for the buck?
Please remember failed experiments are rarely reported, particularly if
they kill the experimenter.
----------
From: Anthony Self[SMTP:CHEVY_TRUCK(at)classic.msn.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 12:19
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Apples
. 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.
I have seen auto engines used in sawmills, oil rigs, the logging
industry for
loading and processing logs, pumps, boats, several aircraft, winches,
generators, ski lifts, welders, etc. I've never heard of an aircraft
engine
being used anywhere else until now. Why is that? I think it's the
expensive
nature of Lycs.There's no reason I can see to limit auto engines to
land based
systems. To me, it seems, the critics shouldn't attack the Vortec
engine
itself, just the PSRU. This is really the only quesionable part of an
auto
system to me. If I buy one of Belted Air's PSRU, I plan on
disassembling it
and having a friend, who has been a machinist for the past 20 years,
really
inspect it for design flaws. Maybe, I'll work with him to design my own
if I
don't like the looks of the BAP unit. I have responded to the auto
critics
too many times lately, so I'll try to just ignore the negativity
generated
lately. We all have choices and there is a lot of room on the list to
discuss
EVERY topic. Let us just talk about Chevy's, or any alternative, and
we'll pay
the price ourselves, if there is one.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Kyle,
The engine in the yellow RV-8 was overhauled (and slightly modified by)
Everet Hatch.
I believe the primary work he did was induction flow clean-up to the
induction portion of the sump and the cylinders, and installed higher
compression pistons with rings custom fitted with end gaps at the minimum
possible.
The engine is operated at normal RPM's only. The 168 HP is what was
produced on Everet's Dyno during the initial run in.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
KBoatri144 wrote:
>
>
> I'm having consistency problems with flush pop rivets. Some break off
> cleanly, while others leave a jagged burr around the hole in the center of the
> rivet.
>
> First, does this suggest that I'm doing something wrong with my technique?
>
> Second, if the problem is in the rivets, is there a source of flush pop rivets
> which break off more cleanly?
>
> Third, is there a good way to clean up the jagged ones I've already set?
>
Most of the time I have found that the nose of the riveter is slightly
too big and causes a off center pull on the 'nail'. Not too much can be
done about this. A ragged rivet can be cleaned up with the small Scotch
Brite wheels on a die grinder. For a cleaner finished look I prefer
filling the open center hole with an epoxy.
Doug - RV6 control sticks are almost in.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system question/answer |
Never thought of it , but does water enter the
> airspeed indicator from the ram side?
>
craft. Usually you will find a small water drain hole (about .030") at
the bottom of the bend behind the pitot tube ram air port. I am not sure
how Van plans to deal with this on the stock pitot tube called for on
his plans as there is no drain hole.
Doug M. RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Static system question/answer |
Yes, it does.
To avoid this being a problem ideally the low point of the system
should be the pitot and static ports. That way any ingested moisture
will drain. Industrial systems are rigged this way or alternatively
have a low pressure purge to expel the condensate or filled permanently
with liquid. The alternative is to put a drain in to allow the moisture
to escape.
I suspect the low point drain is supposed to be checked before each
flight but has sufficient volume for it not to be a problem, it may
also have a small drain hole to permit it to self drain, I have seen
this detailed in some aircraft instrument textbooks. Since the volume
is very small the actual ingestion would also be very low except in
extremely bad weather or marine operations. A vertical run of equal
to the free volume of the instrument should prevent ingestion in most
circumstances as the water will then just run free (assuming the tube
is large enough to avoid capillary effects). As for evaporation that
will depend on the temperature, if it's sub zero you may have to wait a
while. See the notes on water in your engine ( under winter oil temps).
NASA have a paper detailing the construction of a pitot that vents
water at the rear through a small hole at the rear. Do a search for
"Pitot".
----------
From: donspawn(at)juno.com[SMTP:donspawn(at)juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:57
Subject: Re: RV-List: Static system question/answer
Allen:
If I understand you , the airspeed is going from zero to +5 inches of
water (pressue)
& pushing against the static pressure from the static line. My cert
plane
has two lines from the fuselage routed to a low point in the baggage
area
( that gets checked/drained each annual) . The line then goes to all
the
static instruments.
If you get water in the low point, does it evaperate or wait till
inspection time. Looks like the factory would have put the static ports
=
to the low point. Never thought of it , but does water enter the
airspeed indicator from the ram side?
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
These mods might also improve the fuel economy slightly by reducing
induction losses but fuel mixing may need to be watched if the
induction system turbulence is significantly reduced.
----------
From: smcdaniels(at)juno.com[SMTP:smcdaniels(at)juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 4:18
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Kyle,
The engine in the yellow RV-8 was overhauled (and slightly modified by)
Everet Hatch.
I believe the primary work he did was induction flow clean-up to the
induction portion of the sump and the cylinders, and installed higher
compression pistons with rings custom fitted with end gaps at the
minimum
possible.
The engine is operated at normal RPM's only. The 168 HP is what was
produced on Everet's Dyno during the initial run in.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
-
-+
-
-+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Weight |
I have a resident RV-6a weighed before and after paint.......also 30
pounds.
Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q punching holes in the firewall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pbennett(at)zip.com.au |
| Subject: | Re: 3 Blade Prop? |
>
> Please excuse me for being pedantic but we may as well get the
> terminology right.
On the contrary Alan, please continue to be pedantic. I have followed
your posts with interest and commend you for backing up your opinions
with factual information. Thanks for your contributions. How about a
one para summary to the list of your qualifications and experience?
Peter Bennett
Sydney Australia
RV6 doing the fiddly bits before engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< The rivet in question is not steel. It is a Monel head/shank with a steel
mandrel. Don't believe everything you read and let's be careful with our
facts here. >>
Now that's an entirely different story. The Monel rivet is deffinitely
stronger in shear than is the softer aluminum, and, if I'm not mistaken, only
slightly heavier.
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?) |
I have a Mazda 13b Rotary in my RV-6A. I have not flown it yet so hesitate
to make any claims about fuel consumption until I get in in the air.
However, I do have approx 20 hrs on it on a test stand. My initial
attempts to arrive at a fuel comsumption figure indicates it fall short of a
good automobile recriporcating engine, but does better than an Aircraft
engine. Early Rotaries did do poorly on fuel consumption, had problems with
rotary seals, and other teething problems long over come. Unfortunately,
Mazda brough the rotary power cars out during the middle of the long ago
fuel crisis - talk about bad timing. A lot of those first impressions are
still out there.
Ed
----------
From: SAVOY INTL
Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation(rotary's?)
Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 10:43PM
of
of basic rotary design. Lycoming spent about $15 million (in today's
dollars) to try and make one for General Aviation and Continental developed
a whole line of roptarys for RPV applications. If the market hadn't
totally collapsed by 1986 we might be flying behind certified rotaries
now.
Inquiry: Does anyone have any information on the fuel consumption of the
rotary engines compared to the recips. I have always been interested in
rotarys but have been under the impression that they used considerably more
fuel for a given horsepower. Hope I am mistaken. Can someone offer some
enlightenment?
Lloyd Morris
RV-6
Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
<< Also, other than the electronic ignition
and higher compression pistons, which mods would give better specific fuel
consumpton? >>
On the exhaust side, if you can scavenge the exhaust gases better you allow
for a "purer" mixture to enter the cylinders. So, by using an efficient, tuned
lenght exhaust system you can increase BSFC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick E. Kelley" <webmstr(at)kalitta.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
KBoatri144 wrote:
>
> I'm having consistency problems with flush pop rivets. Some break off
> cleanly, while others leave a jagged burr around the hole in the center of the
> rivet.
>
> First, does this suggest that I'm doing something wrong with my technique?
>
> Second, if the problem is in the rivets, is there a source of flush pop rivets
> which break off more cleanly?
>
> Third, is there a good way to clean up the jagged ones I've already set?
> Obviously, I don't want to get to agressive in this effort, as I may weaken
> the rivets.
The tool should fit rather snug around the shaft of the pop rivet. If
not, a little of the head tends to get pulled into the tool, creating
the burr. My tool came with several heads, but somehow none seem to fit
the rivets I've gotten. However, I found that I can clean them up with
a rivet shaver. As always, practice on scrap; it's not hard to do and
you may find yourself tempted to clean up some of your driven rivets.
Just be sure to not remove more material than the standards allow. I
forget the AC number, sorry.
PatK - RV-6A - hoping Santa brings a digital camera so I can get better
pics.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Help with Nutplates |
Gary, I used nutplates and screws for the top of the vertical stabalizer in
order to get at the strobe light installation (if needed) and also the wing
tips where I have landing lights, nav lights, and antennas in the fiberglass
wingtip. Elsewhere I simply pop riveted the tips on.
Ed
----------
From: Fesenbek, Gary
Subject: RV-List: Help with Nutplates
Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 8:24AM
I am getting ready to put all my fiberglass tips on the tail and was
wondering how crazy I should go with nutplates in this area. I have no
lights in the tail at all, but who knows at some point down the line,
and I already know I want to put them the the VS tip, what about the
rudder and HS tips? At the very minimum it should be good for
inspection assuming I cut some holes in the end flanges to look in.
Gary Fesenbek, RV-6AQ, 170 hp Lycosaurus, Weedeater APU
Fiberglass work on the tail. QB in the mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cabe" <robert.cabe(at)usaa.com> |
| Subject: | instrument panel |
The slight bend in the stainless firewall is not a problem. When you
install the two supporting members the firewall will assume the correct
bend.
One additional comment. The center support (I think it's f-643) may be an
inch short. Mine was. I called Vans. The person I spoke to wasn't aware
of the part that would not fit. Apparently they made the change to the new
firewall design and did not change the center support member. They said
"Just rivet an extension to the part." Lousy answer but it worked. They
went on to say that their engineering department didn't communicate very
well with the production department. I would have expected better from
Vans.
Good luck,
Bob Cabe
---
"The opinions expressed herein are solely the author's
and are not necessarily the opinions of USAA."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carroll Bird <catbird(at)taylortel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
KBoatri144 wrote:
>
>
> I'm having consistency problems with flush pop rivets. Some break off
> cleanly, while others leave a jagged burr around the hole in the center of the
> rivet.
>
>
>
Kyle: There is a way to eliminate this problem. I made a small
.75 X .75 piece of steel about .063 thick. with a hole in the center
just the size of the nail in the pop rivet, I think it was a #43 if I
remember right. Anyway the idea is to get the hole as near to the nail
size as you can. You put the rivet in the hole, slide the piece of steel
over the nail (mandrel) then pull the rivet with the tool. This close
hole will keep any aluminum from coming up in the tool fitting. Don't
deburr the steel piece. this just gives the aluminum in the rivet
somewhere to go.
BTW this was not an original idea, it was passed on to me by Bob
Avery of Avery Tool.
Hope this helps --- Carroll Bird Buffalo Gap, TX. RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | RV-6 bent firewall / controls |
Scott,
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, you posted that the firewall should have a bend
forward and told how it can be accomplished. I have pondered that
portion of my plans for a while now and am still confused.If I am
reading the plans right on page 31 it shows a bend forward in the
firewall and part #F646 rivets to it. However my F646 parts are not like
the ones shown on page 30. I have the 90 degree angle on the top rear
corner but not on the front upper corner shown in the plans. The part
supplied has an angle in it that will allow the part F646 to fit into
place without bending the firewall. (Kit #22499) Which way am I to build
this assembly? I am finding this area not too well illistrated in the
plans for a tip up canopy. Has Van supplied better drawings lately?
Question #2 The construction manual states that the adjustment for the
elevator control push tubes will allow #WD610 (center control stick
bellcrank) lower arm to be approx. 1/8" from the F604 bulkhead when the
elevator is full up. However the F689 push tube bearing end binds in the
WD610 when there is still a good inch to go. It appears as though Van
should have drilled the attach hole further away from the tube portion
of the arm. Has anyone else run into this problem?
Thanks for your help.
Doug Murray RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<<
Huckbolts of Monel are commonly used in aluminum aircraft structures. I
don't
have my galvanic table here at home so I can't comment except to say that I
know of no prohibition against using Monel in contact with aluminum. My
original comment was regarding only the relative strength difference between
the 7/64" monel rivet vs the AN426-3 aluminum rivet in single shear.
>>
Aluminum will corrode in contact with monel very nicely thank you. Think of
the combination as a battery cause that is what it is. But in the real world
there are things to consider. In the case of airplane pop rivets, you have
things going for you. One,the aluminum has a very much greater surface than
the pop rivet. From an energy standpoint, it is a small driver pushing
around a big driven. Doesn't get very far very fast. Added to that, the
aluminum and monel will usually passivate if the corrosion conditions aren't
severe. The passivation is a thin layer of tightly adhering oxide that
seperates the two metals. If the corrosion conditions are severe,then the
oxide can crack and allow corrosion. You have to be careful with pop rivet
selection in boats.
Gene Francis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
>> I'm having consistency problems with flush pop rivets. Some break off
>> cleanly, while others leave a jagged burr around the hole in the center
of >>the rivet.
>
> Kyle: There is a way to eliminate this problem. I made a small
>.75 X .75 piece of steel about .063 thick. with a hole in the center
>just the size of the nail in the pop rivet, I think it was a #43 if I
>remember right. Anyway the idea is to get the hole as near to the nail
>size as you can. You put the rivet in the hole, slide the piece of steel
>over the nail (mandrel) then pull the rivet with the tool. This close
>hole will keep any aluminum from coming up in the tool fitting. Don't
>deburr the steel piece. this just gives the aluminum in the rivet
>somewhere to go.
> BTW this was not an original idea, it was passed on to me by Bob
>Avery of Avery Tool.
>
> Hope this helps --- Carroll Bird Buffalo Gap, TX. RV-4
About 25 years ago in a BD newsletter they had the suggestion of drilling a
hole in a stiff bladed putty knife to do exactly as Carroll suggests above.
The putty knife has the advantage of having a handle and being large
enough to not be easily lost in the shop.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
Consider the following corrosion scenario:
Engines setting around doing nothing
Warmer during the day than night. The air molecules have more energy so they
move around more ( expand).
Air inside the engine expands a little bit and escapes the crankcase
Night comes and temperatures drop.
Engine inhales because the inside air contracts.
a little bit of moisture (water vapor) is in that incoming air
It is cooler now and the air can't hold onto all the moisture. The excess
water condenses on the insides of that engine just setting there doing
nothing.
Being heavier than oil, the water(liquid) settles to the bottom of where ever
it is.
Next day the engine exhales again but some of the water is trapped under some
oil.
Repeat cycle for as many days as you don't fly.
Moral of story:
Get out there and heat up those engines enough to boil the water off. But
they need to temperature stabilize right down to the tail pipe. Can't do that
on the ground. You got to go fly it.
Gene Francis, (sometimes a corrosion engineer)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VS strobe was Help with Nutplates |
Vanremog wrote:
> I wouldn't put the strobe in VS tip because it reflects off the wings at
> night. To my knowledge no lights should go in the HS or Elev tips.
I'm considering doing this. I saw Bill Davis' RV-4.5 at the Treasure
Coast RV fly in, this past weekend. How about it Bill, does the strobe
bother you? I was told by another attendee, that he had seen an
installation where the VS cap was replaced with plexiglass and the
strobe was mounted internally. Has anyone out there done this? Any
problems or suggestions?
> IMO it is best to attach all the empennage tips and rudder bottom permanently.
> I did it using 3M 2216 with microballoons and some pop rivets to hold them
> during cure. You can't see where the metal ends and the FRP begins after
> painting and this epoxy has the ability to flex and not crack due to
> differential thermal expansion.
I was going to use nutplates to install my rudder bottom fairing because
I'm installing a rudder light. Last night (till midnight) I helped Jody
Edwards fit his VS & rudder to his RV-4. Seeing how close the tailwheel
arm is to the front of the fairing, leads me to think that engineering a
removable rudder bottom may be more work than it's worth. Any comments?
Thanks for the installation tip Gary.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 elevators
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 bent firewall / controls |
| From: | n5lp <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
>
> Question #2 The construction manual states that the adjustment for the
>elevator control push tubes will allow #WD610 (center control stick
>bellcrank) lower arm to be approx. 1/8" from the F604 bulkhead when the
>elevator is full up. However the F689 push tube bearing end binds in the
>WD610 when there is still a good inch to go. It appears as though Van
>should have drilled the attach hole further away from the tube portion
>of the arm. Has anyone else run into this problem?
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Doug Murray RV6
>
I sure ran into that problem, but it was only one of about 5
interferences I had in my elevator control system. To solve that one I
ground the slot at the top. I also had an interference at the front
bulkhead hole. I hogged the hole out bigger.
I'm still working on a slight interference where the forward pushrod rubs
on the floor under the electric flap mechanism. I think I'm going to
have to cut a hole in that portion of the floor (hidden by the electric
flap covers).
Par for the course!
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
Pacer N8025D
RV-6QME N441LP Reserved
Under floor details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
You correctly said:
> ----------
> From: Dennis Persyk[SMTP:dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net]
>Even frozen water, a/k/a ice, "evaporates", albeit slowly,
although we call >the solid-to-gas transition "sublimation".
i.e. "freezer burn"
KJ
6a emp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps more questions |
> ----------
>From: Gibson Allan[SMTP:Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au]
>A set of steam tables (which I don't have to hand at the
moment) would give a better estimate
>of what the partial (or vapour) pressure is for water at 80C
but it would be substantial.
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, pg. D-168:
Vapor pressure of water at 80 degC - 355.1mmHg (760mmHg
= 1 atm or 14.696 psia)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bum flyer <Bumflyer(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
In a message dated 12/10/97 12:46:09 AM, you wrote:
>Brian,
> The reason for relieving one of the skins is so that their isn't
>a step (sharp corner) in the skin line where the flap will rub once it is
>installed.
> You relieve the skin that is underneath and leave the top one
>whole. You start the cut just aft of the rear spar flange so that both
>skins still are caught by all rivets in the spar.
>
>
>Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
>
For those of you out there who have already riveted, I discovered a way to do
this after the fact.
With some very careful sighting and ruler alignment you can draw a good cut
line on the bottom of the underneath skin. This is the fore and aft line
which is where the two skins will meet after the cut. You then get under the
wing and use a dremel with cut off wheel to slice it on the line. To avoid
scoring the upper skin just slide a piece of .032 scrap between the skins
while cutting. This will serve as a backing for the wheel and prevent it
cutting on the top skin. How ever far forward you are able to get with the
wheel will dictate where the inboard to outboard cut will be made, the same
way. You won't be able to cut right next to the spar but it will still look
great and solve the scraping, scratching problem which you don't want.
Trust me you will all feel much better if you do it according to the plans.
If you don't have a dremel yet then go buy one. It is the very best way to
make un rippled cuts in aluminum sheet anyway.
D. Walsh (I got a million ways to correct screw ups. Necessity is the mother
of invention)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:Torque Seal |
>Regarding using nail polish (or Torque-Seal), does anyone know whether
>the chemicals in either do any damage to the plastic in the lock nut
>that it is being used on??
Hey, Paul: the torque seal or polish needs to go on the base of the nut and
whatever it is torqued up against; i.e., not on the nylon part of the nut.
So, it wouldn't matter if it affects the nylon, which I don't think it would.
Michael
N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent S. Himsl" <himsl(at)mail.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countersink |
>>
>> Most mistakes came from inadequate 'whacking' of the C-Frame tool. But
>> excessive 'whacking' on the C-Frame tool is hazardous to very expensive
>> dimple dies. So another reason for the combo method.
>
>I built a foot actuated sledge hammer addition to my C-frame and achieved
>very consistent dimples while also freeing up both hands to hold the skins.
> I also rigged up an old laser pointer to help locate the lower dimple die
>and speed things up. Go ahead and laugh, but I'm flying after 2 1/2 yrs.
>of construction. I have drawings for plans, maybe two hrs. to construct.
> kevin 6A
>
Hello Kevin,
Yes I would appreciate more info as I have been some what disappointed with
my results using the C-Frame tool.
Thanks,
Vince
RV8-Tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TPhilpin <TPhilpin(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: -8 Wing Const Videos |
<< WmSH(at)AOL.COM (WmSH) >>
Hi Bill,
I am interested in the videos if still avaialable. Just ordered the tail
kit.
Call or email and I will send you a bank check or money order.
Thanks,
Tony Philpin
172 Chamberlain Highway
Kensington, CT 06037
860-829-5833
TPhilpin(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HinkleyC(at)fca.gov |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countersink |
* * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
Vince,
We worked through several pieces of scrap before we found a suitable way to
use the C-Frame tool. We ended up using a 13oz ballpeen hammer and two
whacks. The first whack is a light whack just to seat the dimple die, the
second whack is about twice the force as the first one. What you are
looking for is a change in tone, when the dimple is formed correctly the
tone will not change no matter how hard you whack it and the dimple does
not change.
We found that it did not take much force to make the dimple, you can
actually hear the difference in tone when the dimple is formed. When the
dimple is formed, additional whacking just stretches the alum. The best
way we found to figure out what works was to cut several 1" wide strips
from the scrap bundle and drill #41 holes 1" apart. Take one strip and do
it lightly, just enough to make the dimple, take another and whack it
several times after the tone changes, make sure you do the hole strip, 6-8
inches. Then hold them up, the one you whacked to death will look like the
ocean, all wavy, then just imagine how wavy a 30" piece of alum will look.
Curtis Hinkley
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
Yes I would appreciate more info as I have been some what disappointed
with my results using the C-Frame tool.
Thanks,
Vince
RV8-Tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
>
> These mods might also improve the fuel economy slightly by
> reducing induction losses but fuel mixing may need to be watched if
> the induction system turbulence is significantly reduced.
True! Some people forget that a glass-smooth intake manifold is actually bad,
reducing the evenness of the fuel atomization.
A really smooth exhaust port is good though, I'm given to understand.
(Looking at my .sig) I wonder if I'm setting any records for the
longest-running wannabe on the list.
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)" <JonesB(at)geon.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Can you add any comment on determination of proper exhaust pipe lengths;
1, 2 or 4 exhaust outlets, etc... I have an O-320 and would like to
squeeze a few more horsepower out of it (10 or so). Talking with John
at Kerville, the "yellow" RV-8 had helicopter pistons installed for
added compression. This is all I know about the engine, but it brings
up the question of how much "hopping-up" can these engines take without
significantly reducing their TBO or safety. Any info on this issue
would be appreciated. I hope we can get as much interest on this issue
as was spent on the auto engines.
Bryan Jones
JONESB(at)GEON.COM
These are my opinions not my employers.
> << Also, other than the electronic ignition
> and higher compression pistons, which mods would give better specific
> fuel
> consumpton? >>
> On the exhaust side, if you can scavenge the exhaust gases better you
> allow
> for a "purer" mixture to enter the cylinders. So, by using an
> efficient, tuned
> lenght exhaust system you can increase BSFC.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countersink |
> We ended up using a 13oz ballpeen hammer and two
>whacks. The first whack is a light whack just to seat the dimple die, the
>second whack is about twice the force as the first one.
A homemade wooden mallet (about 16 oz.) will give you a softer "whack". It
is also easier on the tooling.
asp!) ever so
slightly. That was all it took to eliminate the interference.
Mark
RV-6; flying.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Hartmann <hartmann(at)sound.net> |
I'd like to offer the 'alternative engine' guys an alternative engine that
is well suited to the RVs and is far cheaper than any of the so-called
automotive conversions available to date. My engine just arrived yesterday
from Aero Sport Power in Kamloops BC, Canada. If the way it looks or the
way Aero Sport treated me is any indication of what to expect from the
engine I won't be disappointed.
An O-320-D2A modified with 7/16 prop bushings, completely overhauled, and
complete with new mags and harness, starter, alternater, fuel pump, etc was
$11,500 US outright. Customs brokerage of $100 and shipping to the central
US of $207 brought the total in-my-garage cost to $11,807. The only things
not included are exhaust, prop, oil cooler, and baffles. This is
considerably less than the quotes I got from the Subaru and Mazda guys, and
less than I think you Chevy guys are likely to spend by the time you fly.
Aero Sport Power is a division of Pro Aero Engines Inc of Kamloops BC
Canada. Bart LaLonde is the manager, an RV-8 builder, and is one of the
finest people I've ever dealt with. If you are still searching for an
engine, I recommend Aero Sport Power very highly.
Aero Sport Power
(Div of Pro Aero Engines, Inc)
2965 Airport Drive
Kamloops, BC V2B 7WB
PH (205) 376-1223
Ask for Bart LaLonde
Happy building
-Mike
hartmann(at)sound.net
http://www.sound.net/~hartmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Powder Coating |
<< I would suggest caution if contemplating using this
process on any structure related (aluminum) parts of our RVs >>
Van uses 2024 aluminum alloy in the skin and several other places. 2024 is a
heat treated alloy that looses a significant % of strength if it is exposed to
temperatures over 350F for more that a couple of hours. Without getting into
the thermo-damits too deeply, it is a time at a temperature situation. For
every 18 degres F( 10 C) there is a doubling of rates of reaction. That
includes almost any chemical reaction. Includes water evaporation, for
instance. The rates for softening of 2024 gets fairly fast at 350 F. It
actualy softens at room temperature but slow rates--no one has lived that long
yet. The softening is called over-aging. There are large books written on
this subject but the jist is that it is a bad thing to heat 2024 aluminum
above 350F.
Same story for 6061 and 7000 series alloys except lower the temperatures
limits to 250 F. If I remember correctly I think SCUBA tanks are 6061
There are cheaper alloys available with better corrosion resistance and I
don't think Van would have used the expensive ones unless he needed the
strength.
Any specific questions, contact me at Cafgef @aol.com
Gene Francis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au wrote:
> Even in racing automotive engines rarely deliver full power, they are
> more likely to be limited by RPM than maximum power.
> Remember it only takes 10HP to hit 60MPH, therefore at 120MPH, 40HP
> would be about right.
Can we agree on some formulae for calculating horsepower being
delivered? For want of anything better, I propose the following
formulae. They were supplied by Paul Lamar, a noted
rec.aviation.homebuilt auto-engine opponent. Mr Lamar worked as an
aerodynamicist on IIRC Can-Am cars in the 60s.
'This is the horse power required for a car with a frontal area of
'25 sq feet and a Cd of .35
'The formula for tire rolling resistence came from Fluid-Dynamic Drag
'by Dr.-Ing Sighard Hoerner
Cd = .35
FA = 25
Weight = 3000
TirePress = 25
aerodrag = MPH ^ 2 * .0026 * FA * Cd
Kr = .005 + (.15 / TirePress) + (.000035 * MPH ^ 2 / TirePress)
rolldrag = Kr * Weight
totaldrag = aerodrag + rolldrag
HP = (totaldrag * MPH * 1.47) / 550
________________________________________________________________________________
which increases with the *cube* of the speed, not square. According to
these formulae, horsepower required to overcome drag = 20 at 60mph and
135 at 120mph. Note also that this is HP on the road, *after*
transmission losses (perhaps 20%?)
> This however leaves no margin for acceleration so
> a burst of 100HP may be required.
Nor for climbing a hill. Nor for punching into a 30mph headwind.
> By the way, I have a great respect
> for the Japanese as engine builders, if they ever make a V-8, that
> would definitely be worth a look at as their QA on automotive parts is
> up with some of the aircraft manufacturers.
Toyota is certifying a V8, I believe. But why is a V8 required? Why not
(for example) the Mitsubishi 3L V6? Or a rotary?
>> o 80,000+ km in a road-going car is probably about
>> 1,200 or 1,300 hours.
> P.S. with 80,000KM on the car the engine was probably well run in.
OK. So if it's well run in at 1200-1300 hours, what is it going to be at
2000 hours?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Hi all,
Bryan Jones wrote:
> This is all I know about the engine {in Van's RV8}, but it brings
> up the question of how much "hopping-up" can these engines take without
> significantly reducing their TBO or safety.
I've "tuned" quite a few British cars - they use that term for "hop up". At
first we just did the power increase things. Then, after dropping valves and
throwing rods, we began concentrating on reliability, by which I mean creating
something that doesn't break unexpectedly. We never really worried about
durability (TBO time).
We began with higher quality valves and springs as that was what seemed to fail
first. I think MG valves must have been made from mild steel. First, they
would stretch so that valve clearances would close up. Readjusting valves would
cure problem temporarily. But soon, bang! Valve jammed into piston if luckey
or worse, valve destroys piston which then no longer supports rod which flails
about destroying crank and sometimes even the iron block. A Porsche engine
after this trauma may have only the carbs left usuable as the case would
disintegrate. Porsche engines are horizontally opposed air cooled, you know.
The Lycoming could probably be made to breath better thru porting, polishing and
relieving and could have compression increased by machining jugs or changing
pistons. But what will be the result? The bottom end will see more stresses
and I don't know how much it can take. I'll bet there are racers who can help.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Happy Holidays
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
>
> I'd like to offer the 'alternative engine' guys an alternative engine
that
> is well suited to the RVs and is far cheaper than any of the so-called
> automotive conversions available to date. My engine just arrived
yesterday
> from Aero Sport Power in Kamloops BC, Canada....
> An O-320-D2A modified with 7/16 prop bushings, completely overhauled, and
> complete with new mags and harness, starter, alternater, fuel pump, etc
was
> $11,500 US outright.
Good to see someone else here *knows* there is a less expensive, and faster
installing, engine than an auto conversion. My Lycoming came from the same
place and I received the same type of service...all for less than the cost
of a used chevy core + new psru.
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Its often said in hot rodding that an engine doesnt know whos name is
stamped on the outside. They all respond to the same types of mods to some
degree, some more than others. Usually the typical hot rodder tricks drive
up the rpm at which peak horsepower occurs. Obviously not the direction you
want to go in a Lyc.
The huge improvement in performance in the auto industry over the past
decade has been driven primarily by electronic systems. Electronic ignition
for precise ignition timing, and electronic fuel injection for superior
mixture distribution and precise air/fuel ratio's. I hear a lot about
aftermarket ignitions for Lyc's but virtually nothing about EFI. Is anyone
doing this? It seems a natural to me if the system were designed for
aircraft use with redundancy for everything. No more leaning, no need for
carb heat, no more vapor lock/starting problems, improved power and economy,
and with the cost of modern electronics it should be relatively economical.
Sounds like a large untapped market to me. Comments??
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done, saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>Can you add any comment on determination of proper exhaust pipe lengths;
>1, 2 or 4 exhaust outlets, etc... I have an O-320 and would like to
>squeeze a few more horsepower out of it (10 or so). Talking with John
>at Kerville, the "yellow" RV-8 had helicopter pistons installed for
>added compression. This is all I know about the engine, but it brings
>up the question of how much "hopping-up" can these engines take without
>significantly reducing their TBO or safety. Any info on this issue
>would be appreciated. I hope we can get as much interest on this issue
>as was spent on the auto engines.
>
>Bryan Jones
>JONESB(at)GEON.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark D Hiatt" <ottopilot_msn(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
For those of us who were too busy drawing pictures of airplanes in study
hall and never got around to taking auto shop, what are "porting, polishing
and relieving", please? And also, do they affect the certification of the
engine? That is, if I hang this thing in a tree and all that's left is a
transponder and an engine, could I sell my ported, polished and relieved
engine to someone with a Skyhawk, or would it then be an
'experimental' -only engine?
--
Mark D Hiatt Visit us on the new MSN v2.5!
OttoPilot_MSN@msn.com http://Forums.msn.com/Aviation
Aviation Forum Manager, AvChat Mondays 10pm Eastern
The Microsoft Network
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Kempthorne <halk(at)sybase.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
>
> The Lycoming could probably be made to breath better thru porting,
> polishing and relieving... But what will be the result? The bottom end
> will see more stresses and I don't know how much it can take. I'll bet
> there are racers who can help.
>
> Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Happy Holidays
> halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Mike,
Congratulations on your purchase. Sounds like a very good deal. Ive also
heard very good things about mid time used engines (H2AD's) in the $5000 -
$7000 price range, I believe from this same source you mention. Impossible
to beat that price with a firewall forward package, in fact probably hard to
match with a do it yourself conversion. Tracy Crook's Mazda conversion cost
him around $5500.
Of course there are some folks who will still feel the need to do a
conversion simply because its different and they feel they may (highlight
the word may) be able to build a better mousetrap. This is why auto
conversions are not for everyone and cost, while a factor, should not be the
overriding factor in this decision.
BTW is your engine equiped with a governor (is it compatible with a c/s prop)?
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done,saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>I'd like to offer the 'alternative engine' guys an alternative engine that
>is well suited to the RVs and is far cheaper than any of the so-called
>automotive conversions available to date.
>An O-320-D2A modified with 7/16 prop bushings, completely overhauled, and
>complete with new mags and harness, starter, alternater, fuel pump, etc was
>$11,500 US outright. Customs brokerage of $100 and shipping to the central
>US of $207 brought the total in-my-garage cost to $11,807.
>Happy building
>
>-Mike
>hartmann(at)sound.net
>http://www.sound.net/~hartmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevin lane" <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | foot actuated dimpler plans (a.k.a. laser-guided sledge hammer |
dimpler!)
whoa-time for SASE everyone!
What I built originally was a simple pulley and sledge drop hammer system
after seeing a video of a 1333 A.D. water wheel-driven blacksmiths hammer
in Poland. The foot actuated part was real handy so I expanded on the idea
and replaced the pulleys with a cable which could easily be used to also
squeeze a hand squeezer. This was real slick for wing rib dimpling (with
squeezer in the vise) and repetitious riveting and much easier on the
hands. It wasn't pneumatic, but then I was building one airplane, not one
per week. I could easily achieve speeds of 25-30 dimples per minute using
the largest muscles (legs) for lifting or squeezing, and the most
agile(hands) for positioning. With an old laser pointer mounted to the
ceiling and pointed directly at the lower dimple die I solved the problem
of aligning the hole with the male die, just move the hole to the red dot.
The pulley system should take but an hour to build, the cable system a
bit
more, with minor welding, although that was just an easy way to attach
stuff. You'll need a clutch cable from a Honda Civic( no, not the wife's),
used are $20. The mtn. bike brake cables I first tried didn't hold up to
the rivet squeezing loads.
Hope this helps some of you finish faster. I'm tired of the squadrons
of
enemy Cessnas-like fish in a barrel! kevin -6A 44 hrs/54 days (I know,
I'm slipping, it's el nino's fault!)
SASE to:
kevin lane
1818 SE Elliott Ave
Portland, OR 97214
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV List:Engine disassembly |
| From: | stevemac1(at)juno.com (Stephen C. MacInnis) |
I am in the process of trying to split the case on a HIO-360 angle valve
engine. All the bolts/nuts are removed but the case won't budge. Tried
hitting a 2x4 with a sledge but it won't move. Anybody got any ideas?
Stevemac1(at)juno.com working on fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
Hey guys,
Sorry, this isn't about Chevy engines or anything.....
I was wondering what kind of props most people are opting for,
especially the RV-4 builders/flyers. Did you go with wood or metal?
Why? Is anybody using the Sensench 70CM metal prop? How has the 2600
rpm limit affected you, is it even a factor?
Don't I ask a lot of questions?
Thanks for any input!
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Network and System Administrator
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
Phone: 408-743-2224
Pager: 1-800-225-0256 Pin: 635776
Email: scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott A. Jordan" <SAJ_SLJ(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Duckworks or Olds Landing Lights? |
I am getting ready to order my -8 wings. Recently there was a thread
praising the ease of instalation and quality of the Duckworks landing
lights sold by Van's. Several months ago there was a thread that praised
the light output of the Olds system. So wich do I use? How is the
instalation and material qaulity of the olds system? How is the light
output of the Duckworks system? I would like to put a pulse light
recognition system in the aircaft, does this have any influence on the
choice?
Thanks
Scott A. Jordan
-8 #331
N733JJ reserved
tail complete, waiting for warm weather (or a new heated shop)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | VS strobe & rudder bottom fairing was Help with Nutplates |
> > I wouldn't put the strobe in VS tip because it reflects off the wings at
> > night. To my knowledge no lights should go in the HS or Elev tips.
Whilst talking RVs with an RV-4 builder, I mentioned that I was
considering mounting a strobe (or rotating beacon) in the VS tip. He
warned me to mount it near the *rear* of the VS, otherwise the flash of
the strobe will shine into the cockpit. I wouldn't expect to see any
direct reflection of a VS-mounted strobe off the wings.
> I was going to use nutplates to install my rudder bottom fairing because
> I'm installing a rudder light.
I'm still considering a rudder light myself. I have a 'with-light'
bottom fairing.
When I fitted my fairing, I cut it according to an article in Jim Cone's
newsletter. Basically, cut a 2" deep section out of the front of the
fairing, then slots from there for the rudder horns. A (slightly) useful
photo can be seen at
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4809/rv1b_014.jpg>. The
cut-out front section could have Al tongues added to be reinserted, or
completely replaced with Al sheet, curved to match. In either case, I'll
reattach it with nutplates. I intend to use a rudder light (or combined
white light & strobe) which will be removable through the hole it's
seated in, held in by screws and nutplates. The fairing can then be
permanently attached to the rudder with pop-rivets.
However! An RV-6 builder said NOT to install a tail light in the rudder,
especially if flying off grass strips. He reckoned that the bouncing and
vibration would wipe out the bulbs (and maybe lenses?) quite quickly.
Anyone out there have any experience with this -- is it a problem?
Frank.
December 08, 1997 - December 11, 1997
RV-Archive.digest.vol-du