RV-Archive.digest.vol-dv
December 11, 1997 - December 14, 1997
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countersink |
HinkleyC(at)fca.gov wrote:
> 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.
I wouldn't use this technique on the control surfaces, especially near
the TE. If you use a hard whack, you'll end up with a circular outline
of the dimple die around the dimple. It's much better to use several
light taps. You'll still hear the sound change when the dimple is
correctly formed.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Clark <CLARKTM(at)ifc.hsd.utc.com> |
| Subject: | RV List:Engine disassembly -Reply |
FYI, I believe the wide deck 0-320's and 0-360's need a special set of
plates that are mounted on each side on certain cylinder studs and then
the case is jacked apart. I think the case through studs are a light press
fit.
T. Clark RV-8 tail & PA-12 on floats
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Proof of auto engine reliability |
Jon Jelford wrote:
>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.
>
We'd all like to be convinced; to see proof of auto engine & conversion
reliability. But who will take the risk do the testing necessary?
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Powder Coating |
| From: | bob.char.reeves(at)juno.com (Robert L Reeves) |
Has anyone had experience long term with a Powder Coated fuselage? I'm
getting ready to have my Bearhawk fuselage coated, and wondered if there
is anything I should know beforehand. The Company that I'm gona have do
it, also does the sand blasting to prepare it. I sure hope they get in
all the nooks and crannies and have it clean before its coated. Any
advise would be welcome.
Bob Reeves
Building Bearhawk, Flying RV-4
Hidden River Airport,
Sarasota, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James K. Hurd" <hurd(at)riolink.com> |
When clamped in place on my 604 and lower longeron, this rather hefty,
pre-cut gusset appears to need some trimming in order to fit the two
longerons which it bisects. One trim will require removal of 1/2 inch
at the forward, 602 bend, tapering back.
My experience with the kit thus far is that a pre-formed piece like the
6101 is usually pretty close to right-on. I've double-checked all
measurements including the not-s'posed-to-be-plumb 604 specs. Same
problem both sides. Thought I would check with someone who's been there
before I cut. The gussets are not reversed R & L. Nothing in the
Archives on this. Thanks in advance for help.
Jim 6A fuselage So. N.M.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
>
> 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
Damn, where were all of these good ideas 4 years ago when I was
building the airframe.
Craig Hiers
RV-4 N143CH
Tallahassee, FL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Another consideration for the auto engine advocates which I havent seen
mentioned in this long drawn out thread is that of resale value. If you put
that Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, etc... in your RV, and decide sometime in the
future that you need/want to sell, you may not be able to. At the very least
you will lose a lot of money. On the other hand, there will always be a
market for an RV equipped with a Lyc, even if its a tired old Lyc that needs
overhauled. I've built/owned a number of what I considered to be well built,
fun hot rods. Ive taken a beating on each and every one of them when I went
to sell them, usually selling for far less than my parts investment, let
alone labor.
Assume you are fortunate enough to find a buyer for that Chevy, Mazda,
etc... powered RV, hows that new owner going to maintain it? He didnt build
it so he cant qualify for a repairmans cert to maintain it. Is the A&P at
the local FBO going to work on it? Are you going to do it for him? Of course
you could say its not your problem because its not yours anymore.
Just another reason to stay away from an auto conversion if cost is your
only reason for wanting one in the first place. I know it looks like I cant
decide which side of this debate to take, just trying to fairly weigh the
pro's and con's of both options.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done, saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>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: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
Hi Jim,
I was just there about a month ago. I observed what you have described.
I made some cardboard templates and it looked like it was going to take
some trimming before it would fit. I called Van's and was reassured by
one of the fellows that trimming was OK and that everybody's F-6101 was
not alike because each was hand-fit. I used a Vixen file and did a lot
of try-fitting with clamps until it looked like the picture in the
plans. Then I drilled it.
Give Van's a call for general advice on this and also to feel good about
fitting the part. Although the person I talked to did not say so
directly, I got the idea that it was important that the piece be there
to tie everything together, but its exact shape could be what ever fit
best.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
Still trying to hold floppy bulkheads still so I can drill them to
flimsy J-stringers.
-----Original Message-----
<<<<>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VS strobe was Help with Nutplates |
Charlie Kuss wrote:
> 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
>
Charlie
It is very close on the RV-4, so I think removing it would be very hard.
I would go with the white rear position lights on the wing tips,
this would also eliminate running a wire to the rear of the plane,
if anything went wrong with wire! it sure is tight in the back of
the fuselage.On the other hand if a wire goes bad in the wing
you can just pull another wire through. I put in one extra wire
in each wing and a string, to pull another wire through if I
had to.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Mike Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
Everthing Mike said is true, got my O320 from Bart via Eustace Bowhay.
The quality is first rate, and the price is right.
If you want to engineer and problem solve a chevy, mazda or what ever
thats great. Some day someone will come up with a system that is
simple, cost effective, and safe. Not everyone has the time to deal
with the changes you are going to have to make with alternative
power.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of auto engine reliability |
Here's my take on auto engines.
If you do the math you'll find that 2000 hours on a car engine will
yield fairly close to 100,000 miles. Thats a good benchmark. Both are
near the times when we begin to question reliability. The problem is,
the car engine went that distance at 20-30% power. The Lycoming does it
at 70-75%. This is the equivilant of running your Ford Taurus
continously at 100+ mph. Does anyone really think it will make it?
If you can find 9 out of 10 test engines that have met this goal and
come even close to the weight:horsepower of my 0-360 and can honestly be
made operational for even the same as I paid for my Lycoming, then you
will have a customer.
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
writes: offer the 'alternative engine'
Mike:
Very good post. Could you list the parts that he puts in new & the ones
that are used on condition. You don't need a cor?
Don Jordan~~RV6A wings~~ Arlington, Tx~~donspawn(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Mike Wills wrote;
> Another consideration for the auto engine advocates which I havent seen
> mentioned in this long drawn out thread is that of resale value.
A very good point too. I may be "willing" mine, however. During the period in
which I actively fly it, I expect (hope?) to save enough in my Fidelity Mutual
Funds to:
sell the RV with no engine which reduces my liability & RV's price
put the engine in my pickup
sell the rest of the parts to either another builder, a racing type, or
an antique collector
I worked out a sort of life cycle cost of my RV project against my Debonair and
the RV is astonishingly cheaper. Of course, I counted my time at zero. Now
that I am well into it, I find I am getting benefits I had not planned on. The
building is much more fun and exciting than I would ever have thought.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil wrote:
> Another consideration for the auto engine advocates which I havent seen
> mentioned in this long drawn out thread is that of resale value. If you put
> that Chevy, Mazda, Toyota, etc... in your RV, and decide sometime in the
> future that you need/want to sell, you may not be able to.
Ummmm.... in twenty years time, you may not be able to sell your
Lyc-powered RV either. And yes, I do plan to be flying for another 20
years.
> On the other hand, there will always be a
> market for an RV equipped with a Lyc, even if its a tired old Lyc that
> needs overhauled.
My thoughts rotate (heh!) round a Mazda 13B which is bolted to a
subframe which bolts to a standard Dynafocal mount. Is there any problem
with this, BTW? In which case, if there were a big difference in resale
value it would be feasible to pull the rotary out, insert an almost-dead
Lyc (or Renault or Zoche maybe?), and sell it (after flying off 25
hours, I guess). Or point out that option to the new owner as something
he could do if he prefers hugely expensive engine repair bills.
> I've built/owned a number of what I considered to be well built,
> fun hot rods. Ive taken a beating on each and every one of them when I went
> to sell them, usually selling for far less than my parts investment, let
> alone labor.
Yup. Same applies to homebuilt aircraft I reckon. Even/especially those
with Lycs in them. Since you're going to take a beating anyway, why make
it a big beating?
> Assume you are fortunate enough to find a buyer for that Chevy, Mazda,
> etc... powered RV, hows that new owner going to maintain it? He didnt build
> it so he cant qualify for a repairmans cert to maintain it. Is the A&P at
> the local FBO going to work on it? Are you going to do it for him?
This applies to the airframe. The engine, OTOH, he can take to his local
garage or speed shop for overhaul.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Royce Craven <roycec(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
Hi Kyle,
My D.I. picked up on this (made me drill them out at they were holding the
wing ribs to the spar :-( )
The problem is as simple as the solution. The hole in the rivet puller it
too big. i.e. the rivet shaft will pull the top of the rivet near the hole
into the rivet puller. Thereby tearing the top of the rivet.
The solution. A small piece of .063 al with a hole a close fit to the rivet
shaft. Put the rivet in the hole, place the .063 over the rivet and pull the
rivet as normal.
You may need another piece of .063 al (or thicker) with a hole close to the
edge for thoes tough to reach rivets.
Royce (staring at the enginge-in-a-box) Craven
>
>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: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
I rebuilt my O-320 and did balance it. I used new Superior cylinders and
considered having them bench "flowed." I disassemble the new cylinders
at a friends shop. I was going to let him send them out at $250 a
cylinder to have them flowed. The ports were MUCH smoother than the
standard Lycoming cylinders. He talked me into saving my money. (He
rebuilds Aircraft Engines for a living and have many of the winning
Lancair IV hop-ups to his credit.) I did not go above what Lycoming
calls high compression pistons. (Standard 160 hp, 8.5:1) I do not want
the higher CHT that the high compression (10:1) pistons bring. The
higher CHT and pressures does increase fuel efficiency and power but it
does cost in engine wear. (Lower top end life.) It also will require
that the carburetor be re-jetted to get more fuel to the engine. Jerry
Scott in Chino know what needs to be done with the 10:1 pistons to make
the engine run reliability.
If you are rebuilding the engine, the only mod that Lycoming does not
recommend that I do think is a must have is to balance it. My engine is
SMOOTH. My hangar partner overhauled and balanced the O-360 in his T-18.
The teacher at Mt. SAC (30+ years GA experience) said he wasted his
money. When the engine was run in the test cell, the teacher changed his
mind and said that he never say a Lycoming run so smooth.
I am using the BEST value exhaust on the market. (Larry Vetterman / High
Country cross-over Exhaust ) If you buy the "Speed with Economy" book by
Passler (spelling), he describes the tests he did with his Mustang II to
evaluate the exhaust system effects on performance. He said that the 4
straight pips gave him the most efficiency but he cross over gave the
most power and speed. The new 4 tuned into one exhausts out should give
the best theoretical performance. They were not available when I built
my -6. I understand that they cost more. Maybe someone who has flown
both can comment.
Gary A. Sobek
FAA A & P
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
>
>
><< 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: | GHLX34A(at)prodigy.com (MR GEORGE T KILISHEK) |
| Subject: | Riveting the tanks |
I've been making a mess of my left wing tank...(snip)... Is there
some kind of trick I'm
missing?
Thanks,
-Mike
Mike: It is a messy job at best, but with care can come out looking
great. (1) First of all, don't even think about bucking & riveting
the fuel tank by yourself...can't be done by normally configured
humans. (2) Next, keep everything clean. Wipe rivet set and
(especially) the bucking bar as often as it takes.(3) You can speed
up the job by inserting all of the rivets in one row all at a time:
the Proseal will keep them in place while you're driving other rivets.
(4) Have two rags saturated in MEK (or other carcinogen of your
choice)...one for you and one for your bucker, and use them often.
(5) We got into a rhythm: ready...set...go...wipe...move down one...
ready...set...go...etc. (6) Make sure that the rivets are the
correct length (sounds obvious, but I can't tell you how often some
unnamed dummies have carelessly inserted one that's too long - bends
'em over very reliably.
Keep your chin up and don't give up. There's nothing on an airplane
that can't be fixed.
George
#80006
Finishing left wing & tank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Goeddel <tgoeddel(at)mail.monmouth.com> |
| Subject: | Re: F-6101 Gusset |
Jim,
>When clamped in place on my 604 and lower longeron, this rather hefty,
>pre-cut gusset appears to need some trimming in order to fit the two
...
I definitely needed to trim my F-6101 gusset to get it to fit, and I know
I've heard of others needing to trim it as well. I don't recall exactly how
much I had to wack off, but I think it was on the order of 1/4" or so at one
end.
Tom Goeddel
RV-6a (almost ready to skin the fuse...)
tgoeddel(at)monmouth.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)MCI2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 bent firewall / controls |
Doug,
I built the elevator controls last week, and had the same interference
problem with the weldment. I used a round file to relieve the yoke right
in the weld area, and, to get the needed clearance, filed through the weld.
I probably will re-weld this area, even though it is only 10% of the weld
circumference, since the discontinuity might unacceptably accelerate
fatigue (unlikely, given the relatively low stress).
Also worth mentioning, with the weldment 1/8" from 604 for full aft stick,
the stick in mine is essentially vertical when the elevator is in the
neutral position. The manual states a 10 degree aft slant or something
like that for neutral. After some thought, I believe that the weldment is
the only possible explanation.
Larry mentioned that the forward pushrod interferes with the floor in his.
This I can't imagine, especially under the flap housing. Wouldn't the
floor rub only after the entire top of the hole through 605 is relieved? I
did have to enlarge the hole through the 605 bulkhead a bit, though. I
also carved a notch about an inch deep into the web of the 607 bulkhead, to
allow installation of the forward pushrod.
Someone mentioned that they bent the pushrod a little. I can think of at
least three good reasons not to: 1) there are other ways to solve the
problem, 2) if the jam nuts come loose and the pushrod rotates, it would
interfere twice as badly as before bending, and 3) Van would, for good
reasons, lose sleep knowing you did it.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove MN
6A finishing kit shipping this week!
> 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?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mitch Robbins" <robm(at)am2.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fluid Dynamic Drag |
I have a copy and consider it one of the most valuable parts of my misc.
design books collection despite its about 1950 publication date. Sorry, I'm
not willing to part with it. If you're looking for coefficients or data for
a specific shape, I will certainly scan and email the curves you want.
Mitch Robbins
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)MCI2000.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 8:19 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fluid Dynamic Drag
>
>Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of Hoerner's "Fluid Dynamic
>Drag"? I have been unsuccessful in several attempts the past couple years.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex Peterson
>6A finishing (almost) kit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joshua <jtitus(at)IBM.Net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fluid Dynamic Drag |
A good source for books on the web is
www.amazon.com
Here's what I found after a search on Hoerner:
"Fluid Dynamic Drag
by Sighard F. Hoerner
Our Price: $95.00
Availability: This title usually ships within 4-6 weeks.
Hardcover
Published by Hoerner Fluid Dynamics
Publication date: June 1965
ISBN: 9991194444"
You can order directly from them if you like.
-Joshua
>Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of Hoerner's "Fluid Dynamic
>Drag"? I have been unsuccessful in several attempts the past couple years.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex Peterson
>6A finishing (almost) kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <rv(at)tppal.com> |
Hello, I am starting the research on what tools to buy, and would like some
advice. Should I buy the RV tool kits from Avery? Is there anything that I
should add or take out? I am building a -6a Quickbuild....
thanks..
Paul Besing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VS strobe was Help with Nut plates |
<348EB906.60F3(at)sprintmail.com>
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
>
>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?
>
Hi Charlie,
I have not flown this RV-4.5 at night yet, however had the same set up on
my RV-6 and flew it in the dark once( I don't do a lot of night flying).
It didn't bother me as i recall. The strobe needs to be at the back of
the VS, then the front part being higher blocks the light from hitting
the canopy directly. The VS tip needn't be removable. The strobe is held
up in place by an L shaped bracket of .040 attached to the VS rear spar (
just the lamp and socket, the glass lens is permanently bonded in place).
If it ever needs service, the rudder would have to be removed, not a
particularly big deal. I have never had one go bad and it runs all the
time
I have seen a number of RV's with this set up (strobe on VS)
As far as the rudder bottom goes, it doesn't have to be removable to
service the tail light . This can be done from outside. Leave an extra
6-8 in. of wire in there so it can be pulled out to work on the rear of
the socket if necessary.
Regards, Bill N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie <RV6junkie(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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. >>
I might be interested in your Posa carb. I'm looking for a throttle body that
can double as a back-up carb for a electronic ignition I'm working on. The
Posa should work well.
Gary Corde
RV-67 N211GC - NJ
RV6junkie(at)aol.com
come into play concerning how often they are run, engine oil
changes, amount of power flown at, etc. However, someone that works at a
rebuild shop should be able to tell us what the average life has been over
a year or two. In other words, if every engine coming in for rebuild, TOH,
etc. for the last two years could be averaged, what would the actual life
be? I am aware that a new or reman that is taken care of carefully,
maintenence performed at regular intervals and flown regularly should
easily go to TBO. However, I wonder how many actually do?
And a last question to the auto mechanics on the list. What is actually
harder on the auto engine going to 100K miles between rebuilds, Interstate
driving or City driving? With most auto engines actually acheiving 100K
easily with little maintenence these days and about half the milege (or
more) being acheived in the city, how can we expect this to influence our
decision for alternative power. Should the relatively steady flying RPM be
better than or worse than the typical driving the engines actually see
currently? Your opinions would be appreciated. Maybe you see engines come
in for rebuild that are out of company cars that travel the interstates and
can compare to what you see out of regular, daily type family vehicles. I
know I turned in my company car after 20 months and at 100K last year and
never did any maintenence. About 80% of the miles were put on the odom on
the highway though.
Happy Holidays,
Charles
N609CG
Chevy powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derek Reed <dreed(at)cdsnet.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.
> I had the same thing.Found the hole in the nose piece of the tool
> was oversize for the size of the mandrel[rivet stem?] there are
> different size nose pieces for different size rivets.An oversize hole
> allows the soft rivet material to extrude upwards, hence the burr.
Touch up the burr with a Dremel,carefully.
> Third, is there a good way to clean up the jagged ones I've already
> set?
>
>
>
> --
all observers.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlass(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Robert Acker wrote:
> Just FYI...when you tell Word 97 to save a file in '95 format, it *does
> not* save it as a Word '95 file. Instead, it is saved as a *.rtf (rich
> text format) file.
> Rob (RV-6Q).
You need to download and run Wrd6ex32.exe from www.microsoft.com. This
will fix the bug so the document is saved correctly in Word6/95 .doc
format.
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| 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. >>
As Leo Davies has reminded me before, "One man's pedantry is another man's
scholarship". I also admire accuracy and sticking to the facts.
Carry on,
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loren D. Jones" <Loren(at)LorenJones.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Oil Temps |
Are there any ramifications from the standpoint of the oil pump?
-----Original Message-----
From: John Darby <johnd@our-town.com>
Date: Sunday, December 07, 1997 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Winter Oil Temps
>
>
>
>>If so, I want to know, because I think it easier to install a plate,
>>sliding cover, etc to increase the temps rather than try to cool it down
>>if it is too high. I live in West Texas and I think I may need all the
>>cooling I can get.
>>
>Wes;
>
>If it's any help to you, my a/c was one that ran too cool on the oil temp.
>I had the cooler mounted on the air shroud just behind and above the left
>rear cly. After experimenting with duct tape over it to get the temp up to
>what it should be, I eventually put a valve in the line, just where the
line
>goes into the cooler. Then a simple bowden cable to the cockpit and I
could
>adjust the valve. It worked for me and gave me complete control over the
>oil temp. The valve was one of stainless steel and a handle that
controlled
>from full open to full closed with only a 90 degree movement. It was rated
>for 400 degrees and 250 pounds. Got it at the local hardware store.
>I thought it was much easier than a sliding door etc.
>John Darby
>Stephenville TX
>johnd@our-town.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
The reason for the burr around the stem is because you are using a pop rivet
tool with the wrong pulling mandrel. You need to get a mandrel that is just
big enough to fit the pulling stem. If it is not exactly the right size, it
will pull some of the rivet head up into the mandrel leaving a rough edge. If
you can't find a mandrel the right size, get a small piece of aluminum or a
washer with a hole in it exactly the same size as the pulling stem and put
that over the stem before inserting it into the mandrel for pulling. That
will leave a perfectly flat head. To get rid of the rought edges on the
rivets, take a Scotchbrite Roloc pad mounted on a die grinder and buff the
heads smooth.
Holy smoke, I miss being the editor of my newsletter already. This is just
the kind of info that I tried to provide. Kevin Lowery has sent the first
issue that he has edited to the printers and will send them out soon. Be sure
to renew Van's Air Force, Tir-State Wing Newsletter with Kevin if you want to
continue to get these kinds of good tips for just $5.00 per year. His address
is 1032 Picardy Lane, St. Charles, MO 63301.
Jim Cone, retired editor
RV-6A flying
jamescone(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
| From: | fitton(at)juno.com (Robert D Fitton) |
A search of the archives for information regarding rear-seat rudder
pedals for the RV-4 has been unrewarding. The description in Van's
accessory catalog is too vague to be of use. This raises the question:
Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
cockpit of a -4? My primary concern is safety in the event the
front-seater becomes incapacitated. Are pedals used much by the
back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
If anyone has a solution for the back seat they can recommend, I'd really
like to hear about it. Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
effort, I's like to hear that, as well. If you wish, I can be contacted
off-list at fitton(at)vegas.infi.net.
Thank you.
Bob Fitton
RV-4 components done including the canopy. Installing systems. More
questions to follow...
un, the carburetor was removed and the oil drained and replaced with
inhibiting oil. Theoretically it's ready to be stored for up to a year, but
I'd like to see it fly sooner than that.
Continued availability at this price was dependant on availability of
suitable crankshafts. When the supply of used cranks is gone, new cranks
will be used and the price will go up. But you'd have a new crank instead
of used.
There was no extra charge for crating, and it was shipped Consolidated
Freightways, freight collect. The plywood and 2x4 crate was very
substantial - it was very obvious they'd shipped an engine or two before.
You could have parked a bus on the box without hurting anything.
I got exactly what I asked for, and excellent service. If you're
requirements differ, Aero Sport will build the engine to your specs. O360s
were also available at a higher, but still very competitive price.
I thought finding a suitable engine for my RV would be the hardest part of
the project - I know I spent more time worrying about it than any other
thing. Turns out it wasn't so hard after all.
- Mike
hartmann(at)sound.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)traveller.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VS strobe & rudder bottom fairing was Help with Nutplates |
Frank van der Hulst wrote:
>
> 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.
If you would like to see a rudder tip that is completed using the method
described above, a photo is included in my rudder log:
http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6/rud_log.html
This method results in a really nice installation.
Sam Buchanan
sbuc(at)traveller.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative power |
>And a last question to the auto mechanics on the list. What is actually
>harder on the auto engine going to 100K miles between rebuilds, Interstate
>driving or City driving?
>Charles
>N609CG
>Chevy powered
The hiway miles are much easier on the engine than the city miles. In fact
it is a used car sales ploy to tell you that the car has a lot of "highway
miles" on it if it is late model with excess mileage.
If you consider that at 70 mph most engines are running ~3,000 RPM then
(3,000 RPM x 60 minutes / 70 MPH) = 2,571 Revolutions Per Mile to coin a
new term.
In the city with stop and go traffic and waiting around at traffic lights
for 2-3 minutes per cycle only to stop again at the next light... All this
at 700-1,000 RPM you have a lot more revolutions per mile. Why is this
important? Certain items (like timing belts) seem to have a finite life
that is measured in revolutions of the crank. The farther you go for each
revolution the longer distance your belt lasts. Power output doesn't seem
to be the issue, just crank revolutions. So if you're whizzing down the
highway at 70 MPH (2571 revs per mile) your belt lasts much longer than
those who putt-putt around town at low speeds often stopping. They waste
lots of crank revolutions sitting still.
I realize that this is not "pure science", and is just based on my 20 years
experience with Honda timing belts, but those who drive "highway miles" go
greater distance on the engines than those who go slow in the city.
Making this RV list relevant, the same thing should be said about flying.
If one had identical engines in identical airframes with one C/S prop and
one wood prop, the plane with the C/S prop flying at lower RPM (2350
RPM?)and higher MP should give better service than the one with the 2800
RPM wood prop.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more dimpling hints (was foot actuated dimpler) |
| From: | bstobbe(at)juno.com (Bruce D Stobbe) |
writes:
snip
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that's a neat idea! I couldv'e used it back in the
million-dimples-in-the-skins days with the quick dimpling technique I
used. I didn't care for the C-frame tool either - too slow to reposition
the skin after each dimple and difficult for a one person operation. I
did something many of you will cringe at, but it works just fine IMO. I
mounted the male dimple die in a reinforced spot in my workbench, and the
female die in a steel holder which was about 1-1/2 inches square and 3/8
thick (large enough to hold the die and keep your hands out of the way).
Two sheets of 3/16 thick lexan (or whatever else you may have lying
around) on either side of the male die mounted in the bench evens out the
height difference between the die and the workbench surface. Now you can
slide the skin over the male die, which is slightly higher than the lexan
sheets (lift it so you don't scratch it), place the female die in place
with the holder and hit with a hammer (note: the stem of the female die
protrudes thru the holder and this is what you whack with the hammer). I
found that 2-whacks did the trick. Believe it or not, it's not difficult
to hold the female die straight and I bet I can produce dimples that are
equal in quality to any other method, even the tap-tap-tap technique (I
know this 'cause I ran several tests before using it on real airplane
parts).
Try it if you don't believe me. OTOH, sometimes it is difficult to find
the male die when you are moving a large sheet around. If I had thought
of Kevin's idea of using a laser pointer to indicate the position of the
die, well, I really could have flown through the dimpling process.
Bruce Stobbe
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Splitting the case halves on Lycoming |
>FYI, I believe the wide deck 0-320's and 0-360's need a special set of
>plates that are mounted on each side on certain cylinder studs and then
>the case is jacked apart. I think the case through studs are a light press
>fit.
>T. Clark RV-8 tail & PA-12 on floats
You are correct. Attempts to pull the case halves apart with other means
will end up with damaged cases. There are special tools to do this job,
and you should use them. Also, I usually find at least 2 or 3 bolts
holding the cases together when I visit friends shops to "help" with their
engine projects. Look *REAL* close and check behind the cam pully for the
bolt that everyone misses.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 wing skin overlap at rear spar |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
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
Good Idea. Another way I have done this in other places is to use a thin
piece of stainless. Its thin enough to slip into tight spots and then
you can watch for the sparks to know when you are deep enough if you use
a small cutting disc in your dremel or die grinder.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 bent firewall / controls |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
Doug,
I don't have any plans at home so its hard for me to check what
you have mentioned about your parts, and no I haven't heard of the
interference problem you have.
The best thing I can suggest (because it's a lot easier than
trying to type back and forth) is to call the office and ask for Tom. He
takes care of investigating possible part problems.
E-mail me again if you aren't able to find out anything from him.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| 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
Mike,
You have just stated exactly what has been on my mind all week. I am an
auto technician and see alot of new electronic ignition and injection
technology every year. Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No carb ice,
automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of other
uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and change
the world.... :-)
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
>>
>>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
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>><< 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: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
>
>
><< How many hours of continuous use at 180 hp do they sustain? That boat
>would
> be flying!!! Either that or towing the Queen Mary...... :-) >>
>It takes a lot more HP to keep a boat moving at 35 MPH than it does to keep a
>car moving at 70 MPH due to the friction you must overcome in the water .In a
>car whan you let off the gas it takes quite awhile for the thing to slow down,
>but in a boat ,as soon as you chop the throttle that puppy STOPS.
>That's the reason hydrofoil type boats are so much faster than thr ones that
>"drag" the hull through the water.
>If the boat engine is rated at 225 HP at 4,000 RPM, a large portion of it's
>life is going to be spent at at least 75% of that value(168HP), and I think
>the Vortec V-6 Mercruisers are rated at 225 HP
>
This is a good point. I think the boat industry's experience with the
Vortec will be the most applicable to aviation as far as the power curve
goes. I will not even begin to profess to know much about boats at all. My
dad on the other hand, is a Mercruiser certified Master Tech with umpteen
years experience in the field. While I was pursuing a career in the auto
technical field, he was deeply involved in the boating industry as he had
been during my growing up years. I happened to ask him last night, as a
matter of fact, what he thought of the 4.3 Vortec as it has been applied to
the marine industry over the years. He said it is one of the more
bullet-proof power plants he has worked with. This marine experience I
think is key to the aviation applicability. I'm still a Lyc guy and always
will be, but it appears that the 4.3 Vortec engine seems up to the task.
BTW, my dad also said that most of their Mercruiser failures were in the
outdrive...... aka PSRU. Food for thought.
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
I am just completing my 6 tail now but have not got the kit yet, so I'm
not that experienced. I am building the normal tail and going with the
quickbuild for the rest of the stuff. I went with the Avery basic and
extended tool kits. I think it is a good basic value for your money.
Before buying this kit though you need to ask yourself a few questions.
Are you going to be happy hand squeezing or do you want a pneumatic
squeezer or both? Partly because I am building this on a tight budget I
went with the hand squeezer. People told me that the -4s would be too
hard to squeeze with the hand squeezer and they were right for the first
10 or so. After that I just got used to it. I squeezed the whole rear
flange for the HS in a single evening and was quite a bit sore the next
day. Another point is the drill that is included in the kit. I also
got a rechargeable drill and opted to use it instead. However the air
drill is lighter and easier on you after drilling what seems like
hundreds of holes a night, also I do from time to time forget to put the
spare battery in the charger and wind up with no other way to drill.
Other than the basic kit, some supplemental stuff that I bought were
extra bucking bars (from the Yard) the edge forming tool from Avery for
completing the control surface overlapping bend(lapped joint) and also I
don't recall if the pop rivet tool is included with the kit or not. I
would recommend a spare set of dimple dies 3/32 & 1/8 inch and the pop
rivet dimple dies (probably 3/32nd only for the work I have done so
far). I would also consider getting the non-chattering countersink bit,
but be careful, you can drill a hole to china with one of these.
If you shop around though, you may find some things a bit cheaper, but
you will no doubt pay the extra on the shipping. I have ordered from
both Avery and Cleveland Tools and am very happy with their service. By
the by, you can often get ahold of someone at Cleveland on Saturday and
Sunday. This may get you first in the queue for the next Monday's
shipment.
Certainly consider purchasing all your power tools (if any) from Harbor
Freight. I have a band saw, drill press, 2 inch sander, grinder and a
vise on the cute little rolling table that was in one of the EAA
construction manuals.
I am sure you will find someone farther along to give you more
assistance, but any help I can give I would be glad to. Welcome to RV
world!
Gary Fesenbek, Roanoke, VA
@#$#@ plastic tail parts
6AQ empenage
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing [SMTP:rv(at)tppal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:05 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Tools
Hello, I am starting the research on what tools to buy, and
would like some
advice. Should I buy the RV tool kits from Avery? Is there
anything that I
should add or take out? I am building a -6a Quickbuild....
thanks..
Paul Besing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <harje(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
>I am using the BEST value exhaust on the market. (Larry Vetterman / High
>Country cross-over Exhaust ) If you buy the "Speed with Economy" book by
>Passler (spelling), he describes the tests he did with his Mustang II to
>evaluate the exhaust system effects on performance. He said that the 4
>straight pips gave him the most efficiency but he cross over gave the
>most power and speed. The new 4 tuned into one exhausts out should give
>the best theoretical performance.
Everett Hatch during his seminar at Arlington, Oregon Fly-in, stated
essenially the same thing. He showed me some test results at his shop when
I took my engine to him from a dyno test run on an O-320, as my engine is an
O-320, that backed the results above comparing the 4 pipe and the crossover.
He also showed me that either system would be close to the other. The big
difference he convinced me was the breathing of the engine as the safest and
most cost effective performance improvement. So I had him do just that
during my overhaul. The dyno results will be in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Hatch also said that Lycs were excellent engines and hard to
beat, the problem being the airplane manufacture (and pilot) expects to much
from all brands of engines. And thereby stress the metals to there design
limits, which sometime is past the day to day quality limits. The short time
that I have been back it piston types that was my feeling also. But I had
no researched reason to beleive that. I couldn't recall but a very few
engine related problems in the mid '40s and '50s when I was envolved in
light aircraft with piston engines. When I started flying the big round
engines, DC-4s, DC-6s and Connies there seemed to be lots of engine
problems. These engine had lots of demands made on them. So Mr. Hatch's
statement to me seemed to fit todays problem.
Of course that doesn't answer the out and out robbery when it comes
to the comparative cost these days. I never worried about replacing an
engine in the '40s & '50s and I was a heck of lot poorer then now.
When ever get on this subject the only cure for me is to go open the
door and yell "I'm mad as heck and I'm not going to take it any more". I
feel much better after that.
The best Holidays ever to you and yours.
Denny RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Reiff <Reiff(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
Robert D Fitton wrote:
>
> A search of the archives for information regarding rear-seat rudder
> pedals for the RV-4 has been unrewarding. The description in Van's
> accessory catalog is too vague to be of use. This raises the question:
> Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
> cockpit of a -4? My primary concern is safety in the event the
> front-seater becomes incapacitated. Are pedals used much by the
> back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
>
> If anyone has a solution for the back seat they can recommend, I'd really
> like to hear about it. Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
> effort, I's like to hear that, as well. If you wish, I can be contacted
> off-list
Any responses to this..please do post them to the list as I am wondering
the same thing.
Bob Reiff
RV4 building fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick E. Kelley" <webmstr(at)kalitta.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VS strobe was Help with Nutplates |
Craig Hiers wrote:
>
> Charlie
> It is very close on the RV-4, so I think removing it would be very hard.
> I would go with the white rear position lights on the wing tips,
> this would also eliminate running a wire to the rear of the plane,
> if anything went wrong with wire! it sure is tight in the back of
> the fuselage.On the other hand if a wire goes bad in the wing
> you can just pull another wire through. I put in one extra wire
> in each wing and a string, to pull another wire through if I
> had to.
It is less tight in the wings than the fuselage? You could (and should)
use the string method to pull a replacement wire through the fuselage.
The best reason I have heard not to put a light in the tail is to save
weight for balance reason; that's a long moment so even the weight of
the light assembly can be significant. I would expect that the guys
with the 360 and C/S prop would welcome a light back there. However, I
think the wingtip lights actually add overall weight (as I recall, the
white light requires a separate wire, so you have two wire runs and
lights instead of one to the tail). Both methods work fine, use the one
that suits.
PatK - RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of auto engine reliability |
<< If you can find 9 out of 10 test engines that have met this goal and
come even close to the weight:horsepower of my 0-360 and can honestly be
made operational for even the same as I paid for my Lycoming, then you
will have a customer. >>
By the same token if you can find 9 out of 10 that HAVEN'T then you will
convince me that it is not viable
Regards Merle (don't tell me it won't work prove it) Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.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? >>
"Porting" is the process of optimizing the intake and exhaust ports in the
cylinder heads. You use a grinder to reshape the ports for optimal flow.
"Polishing" is simply that polishing the port to allow smoother flow into and
out of the head.
"Relieving" is in some cases grinding the block or in others grinding the
heads to relieve the area around the valves, again to increase flow.
Without being an expert in the FAR's I would imagine that as long as you use
the stock parts, modifications of this nature would be perfectly ok on a
certificated aircraft.
One word of caution however, these operations are not something you just want
to blindly jump into, because the shape of the combustion chamber and portscan
play a big part in the power output and just because you make them larger it
may not be better. You need a "flow bench to verify that what you are doing is
helping.
Hope this helps
Regards, Merle (I know a lot more about engines than airframes) Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)" <JonesB(at)geon.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I believe some of the complication with "automotive type" engine control
systems involves the exhaust oxygen sensor. The automotive type
(platinum if I recall correctly) are incompatible with leaded fuel
systems. In addition to temp, wouldn't it be nice to control combustion
through exhaust O2 monitoring. Or better yet, an automatic feedback
control system. Keep thinking; there has to be a better way.
Bryan Jones
JONESB(at)GEON.COM
These are my opinions not my employer's.
> Mike,
>
> You have just stated exactly what has been on my mind all week. I am
> an
> auto technician and see alot of new electronic ignition and injection
> technology every year. Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No
> carb ice,
> automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
> altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of
> other
> uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and
> change
> the world.... :-)
>
> Jon Elford
> RV 6A #25201
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>Mike,
>
Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No carb ice,
>automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
>altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of other
>uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and change
>the world.... :-)
>
>Jon Elford
>RV 6A #25201
Jon,
I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could be
made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics who
call it a lycosaur. After all, the chevy engine that has received so much
bandwidth here is derived from a design that originated in the early
fifties. The only thing that makes it a "modern high tech engine" is the
electronic controls bolted to it.
Keep in mind that EFI in an aircraft engine can be much simpler than that
installed in an auto. No concerns with off idle throttle response,
driveability, EPA guidelines, etc... RPM, MAP, and possibly EGT and throttle
position should be sufficient inputs to an ECU to run an aircraft EFI
system. If there is nothing on the market when the time comes for me I will
attempt to design something myself. My fuel tanks are already plumbed with
return lines.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loren D. Jones" <Loren(at)LorenJones.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How High? World Record |
>
>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.
<
When can we expect the RV adaptation? :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of auto engine reliability |
Rvbldr3170 wrote:
>
> By the same token if you can find 9 out of 10 that HAVEN'T then you will convince
me that it is not viable
>
> Regards Merle (don't tell me it won't work prove it) Miller
>
Can we find 10 engines that have even gone through the test?
(Don't tell me it WILL work; prove that)
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV List:Engine disassembly |
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Stephen C. MacInnis wrote:
>
> 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?
First, make sure you've removed ALL the bolts and nuts. There is a row of
fasteners under the oil pan (you've almost certainly got those) as
well as a fastener or two inside the accessory case. There is a partially
hidden one right up by the camshaft gear.
Second, you should really use a case splitter. This can quite easily be
made in the garage out of some 1/4" plate steel, a threaded collar,
a 1/2 " threaded screw and some angle iron.
Drill the plate so that it fits over the cylinder mounting studs on any
particular cylinder. Drill the center of the plate to accept the
threaded collar and weld the collar to the plate.
Screw the threaded screw through the collar and place the angle iron between
the screw and the crankshaft. Protect the crankshaft throws with clean wood
or a suitable replacement. Use the angle iron to allow the threaded screw
to bear against the wood - you could probably make something fancy here.
Alternately use your tool on the #2 and #4 cylinder mounts and leverage the
case halves apart.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mlfred <Mlfred(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
<< Robert D Fitton wrote:
>
> A search of the archives for information regarding rear-seat rudder
> pedals for the RV-4 has been unrewarding. The description in Van's
> accessory catalog is too vague to be of use. This raises the question:
> Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
> cockpit of a -4? My primary concern is safety in the event the
> front-seater becomes incapacitated. Are pedals used much by the
> back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
>
> If anyone has a solution for the back seat they can recommend, I'd really
> like to hear about it. Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
> effort, I's like to hear that, as well. If you wish, I can be contacted
> off-list
Any responses to this..please do post them to the list as I am wondering
the same thing.
Bob Reiff
RV4 building fuselage.
>>
Looking at Lyle Hefel's modified -4 at S-n-F & OSH: he had installed the peds
onto the #4 bulkhead, hanging style, and using a block similiar to the flap
bar UHMW blocks, only smaller. I think the peds attached to the main cable
with a piggy-back cable, swaged onto the main cable. This appeared to be a bit
more elegant than the factory setup, as they were more unobtrusive during
normal ops. There isn't a lot of room in this ship for this option.
The rudder isn't used much during most normal maneuvers, but pilot
incapacitation would make 'em handy. You'll need a throttle, too, and maybe a
mixture (to kill the engine on roll-out- no brakes, you know...)
For those of you building your -4 fuses: I have a series of other mods to
improve the appearance and servicability of the a/c. No, you won't need a
540...Email me off the list.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carroll Bird <catbird(at)taylortel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
Robert D Fitton wrote:
>
>
> Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
> cockpit of a -4? Are pedals used much by the
> back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
I have flown with a friend in the back seat of his -4 many times. He is
good enough to let me fly the plane in the air this way. I even took off
the other day with his guidance. I do use these rear seat pedals very
much. I think that I could land this craft from the back seat if I had
to.
> Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
> effort, I's like to hear that, as well.
I put them in mine.
I called Bill Benedict about this about a year ago. He sent me the
prints on these things. I ordered some 4130 tubing from Wicks and welded
them up. I also put a throttle control in the rear seat. No trim. No
mixture.
Carroll Bird, Buffalo Gap, TX
I still have these prints. Send me a self addressed envelope and I
will send you a copy if you want them.
Send to Carroll Bird, PO Box 662, Buffalo Gap, TX 79508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Mike Wills wrote:
>
> 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??
I think that you will find that EFI yields no performance benefit over
mechanical (continuous) injection in aircraft use. This is irrespective
of whether you are using an aircraft engine or a derivative (i.e. auto)
engine.
The control over timing and amount which EFI makes possible is useful only
for low power and (especially) idle operation. It's also very helpful
during transient periods (i.e. a moving throttle).
But none of those conditions dominate in aircraft application. I would
strongly suggest that those looking at fuel injection for aircraft application
consider a mechanical CIS system. As I said, the electronic, sequential,
systems impose a significant complexity penalty with little or no
performance benefit when used in aircraft applications.
There are a number of vendors of mechanical CIS systems, both certified
(i.e. the Bendix or Continental systems), and uncertified (Ellison, Airflow
dynamics, Bosch, etc.).
As for electronic timing, I agree. This is probably THE single most fruitful
area for bringing ancient dinosaur engines kicking and screaming into the
late 1970s :-). Again, retrofit options abound both in certified (LASAR)
and uncertified (Savier et al) versions.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dougweil(at)pressenter.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
Bob and fellow listers:
The mention of rear rudder pedals on the -4 reminds me of a very simple and
neat arrangement I saw on Lyle Hefel's beautiful RV-4. This was a very
simple top hinged pedal arrangement (attaches to the F404 bulkhead). I
don't have any other details than a photo I took of it. But I'm sure Lyle
would be happy to supply the details. He lives in Dubuque, IA and his phone
is 319-583-4857.
Doug Weiler, MN Wing
Hudson, WI
dougweil(at)mail.pressenter.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D Fitton <fitton(at)juno.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 11:17 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals
>
>A search of the archives for information regarding rear-seat rudder
>pedals for the RV-4 has been unrewarding. The description in Van's
>accessory catalog is too vague to be of use. This raises the question:
>Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
>cockpit of a -4? My primary concern is safety in the event the
>front-seater becomes incapacitated. Are pedals used much by the
>back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
>
>If anyone has a solution for the back seat they can recommend, I'd really
>like to hear about it. Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
>effort, I's like to hear that, as well. If you wish, I can be contacted
>off-list at fitton(at)vegas.infi.net.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Bob Fitton
>RV-4 components done including the canopy. Installing systems. More
>questions to follow...
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of auto engine reliability |
<< We'd all like to be convinced; to see proof of auto engine & conversion
reliability. But who will take the risk do the testing necessary? >>
I will !!!!
Regards Merle (I ain't afraid of no auto engine) miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
I talked to Dave Anders about these in his -4 this past summer. I think he
did his own thing as far as the design goes. Dont have any details on that.
His "pedals" were actually posts with a threaded stud on the end (kind of
like a motorcycle peg) so they could be removed or installed easily as
required. In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that both he and his
wife are pilots, he said he rarely has them installed.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>Robert D Fitton wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
>> cockpit of a -4? Are pedals used much by the
>> back-seater in recreational aerobatics or is this a non-issue?
>> Or if the consensus is that they aren't worth the
>> effort, I's like to hear that, as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "I THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE" <PKIRKPATRICK(at)FAB9.intel.com> |
| Subject: | Has anyone made a Mazda 13B mount for the 6A |
Greetings fellow listers,
I was wondering if anyone on the list knows of a Mazda 13B install in a RV-6A?
I know there are some 4 and 6 installs out there but I have not heard of a 6A
installation. The way the 6A mount is designed for the lycoming I can't see a
way to modify it because the front gear leg attach is a integral part of the
ring which hold the engine. It doesn't look like a real big deal to redesign
the entire mount ( I have some good ME help ) but I thought I would ask here
first to to see if anyone has drawn first blood. If you are uncomfortable
responding on the list you can contact me personally.
Thanks,
Pat Kirkpatrick
RV-6A Fuse
home email "kufu(at)swcp.com"
(505) 892-4929
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gcomfo(at)tc3net.com (Gordon Comfort) |
| Subject: | Re: Fluid Dynamic Drag |
Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy of Hoerner's "Fluid Dynamic
> Drag"? I have been unsuccessful in several attempts the past couple years.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex Peterson
> 6A finishing (almost) kit.
Alex: amazon.com is a good bet for the Hoerner book. You might try
direct from Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, PO Box 65283. Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone: 360 576 3997. Also available is: Fluid-Dynamic Lift.
G. Comfort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gcomfo(at)tc3net.com (Gordon Comfort) |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
Robert D Fitton wrote:
>
>
>
> This raises the question:
> Is it desirable to install rudder pedals (without brakes) in the rear
> cockpit of a -4?
>
>Robert: I have Van's rear seat rudder pedals installed in my -4. They are per
plans including the folding feature which I never use. If you mean for someone
to be able to land and or taxi from the rear seat they are essential. If you,
as I once did, permit a rear seat pilot to perform a cloverleaf and a hammerhead
(with my assistance on the throttle) then you need them. The RV-4 can
get along nicely without much rudder in normal flight but if the aircraft is to
be maneuvered with any vigor from the rear seat by someone who knows what the
rudder is for, then include them.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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.
>>
The same principles apply to ANY piston driven internal combustion engine, so
you just need to know the design and operating parameters, and you can do much
to increase HP.
Regarding the exhaust pipe length- that is a function of displacement, RPM and
where you want to place the torque peak,(you can change it slightly by varying
the length)
The Formula 1 Race planes (Nemesis, Pushy Galore,etc.) run those continental
engines at much higher RPM than any of us do in our RV's (3500 or so)and Dave
Anders (RV-4) is running his O-360 at 2,950 RPM puttin' out 236 HP. The main
thing to remember is not to get into changing the basic configuration of the
engine, so things like cam changes, high compression pistons, fuel system
improvements, and ignition improvements are not going to negatively affect the
reliability to a great degree.
These engines (Lycomings) in part are so reliable because we are not trying to
extract large amounts of HP from them. Compare a 360 CID lycoming with a 262
(4.3 liter) CID chevy. I f you extract the same HP/cu.in from the Lycoming it
would be 273 HPand THEN you MIGHT have to worry about reliability.
just use common sense and you won't have a problem.
Regards, Merle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative power |
Unistar Computers wrote:
> >And a last question to the auto mechanics on the list. What is actually
> >harder on the auto engine going to 100K miles between rebuilds, Interstate
> >driving or City driving?
City driving is much harder on a car's engine and drivetrain. However,
these loads still do not come close to the 55%-75$ cruise power aircraft
see. The previously mentioned analogy to racing power boats is much
closer.
What most people fail to realize, is the intense forces that swinging a
6 foot propeller imparts on an engine. An excellent article from CONTACT
magazine will hopefully (if author's approval is received) be up on Greg
Travis' website soon.
I've been "boning up" on this subject. The auto engine with the most
promise, in my eyes, is the Mazda 13B. The systems are the "iffy" part
of this type of conversion. A number of planes flying, but none flown
long & HARD. Tracy Crooks has some time on his setup, but he flys the
plane very conservatively. Cruising 140 mph in an RV-4 is probably
40-48% power. That is not the same as 65-75% power. If I was in Tracy's
shoes, I would be equally conservative.
Another interesting engine is made by DynaCam. This engine is
cerftified. Check out
http://www.nexuscity.com/DynaCam.nsf for more info.
The more I learn, the more I respect Lycoming. I would love to see good
alternatives prove themselves.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 elevators - Bummed because my wing kit won't be here till February
professional wrench spinner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop question |
>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?
>Scott VanArtsdalen
Scott,
Here is a "post from the past" concerning props. Check the archives for
more info.
Regards, Bob Skinner RV-6 385 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
******
I used a wood prop on my 150 hp RV-6 for 254 hours and have had the
Sensenich on for about 86 hours. Surprisingly, the top speed was the same.
My climb is a little better with the Sensenich which is surprising because
static with the Sensenich is 2,080 rpms and it was 2230 with the wood prop.
I wish the Static were better with the Sensenich but I've got the prop
pitched so that I don't exceed the 2600 rpm redline at cruise.
Sensenich is working on a FP metal prop for the 180 Lycoming. I don't
know the status. They have a web page at http://www.sensenich.com/
The wood prop is a little smoother but does not windmill as well as the
heavier metal prop. You do need to check torque, especially when first put
on. I like the wood props made out of many laminations such as the Warnke
(sometimes slow service), Props Inc. (the one I have) and Performance
Propellers. All three props are very pretty.
Some RVers feel that you should use a harmonic dampner on wood props to
dampen out firing pulses and save wear and tear on the engine. I used one
but couldn't really tell the difference with it on or off. This does not
mean that it doesn't contribute to more trouble free engine operation. One
thing I really believe in is dynamic balancing. I've had both props
balanced and it made a very big difference.
With the wood prop, I throttled back to 1900 rpms when flying in rain and
had no LE damage. I have lost the paint off the tips, though. It takes
very little rain to do this.
You might check the archives. There has been a lot of discussion on props
in the past.
Regards,
Bob Skinner RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
<< Keep in mind that EFI in an aircraft engine can be much simpler than that
installed in an auto. No concerns with off idle throttle response,
driveability, EPA guidelines, etc... RPM, MAP, and possibly EGT and throttle
position should be sufficient inputs to an ECU to run an aircraft EFI
system. If there is nothing on the market when the time comes for me I will
attempt to design something myself. My fuel tanks are already plumbed with
return lines.
>>
Remember the reliability issue the guys have been harping on? Well that is the
reason they all are afraid of EFI the "E" stands for electronic. and relies on
the electrical system to function . There is an alternative to this available
from Airflow Performance. It is a mechanical type fuel injection and if you
are wondering if it is safe Sean Tucker uses it in the 1-800-biplane. Don
Rivera is very knowledgeable and he will answer any questions about the units.
Regards , Merle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
<< just another reason to stay away from an auto conversion if cost is your
only reason for wanting one in the first place. I know it looks like I cant
decide which side of this debate to take, just trying to fairly weigh the
pro's and con's of both options. >>
I have said this same thing myself, because if it is cost driven you are gonna
end up frustrated that you can't get it done for the $4,000 some guy promised.
IF you CAN and will do the work yourself though, it is much less expensive,
but you have to remember you are becoming a designer not a builder, and the
liability increases both in terms of time spent and problems you must solve.
The main reason to build an airplane is a personal choice and YOU must decide
what and how YOU want to go about it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Mark D Hiatt wrote:
>
> 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?
"Porting and polishing" are techniques used to improve the volumetric
efficiency of the engine. Volumetric efficiency is, simply, the actual
amount of air drawn into the engine expressed as a ratio to the theoretical
amount of air that SHOULD have been drawn into the engine.
Engines will draw ("breath") less than their theoretical because of
restrictions in the intake and/or exhaust. Porting and polishing attempts
to address this by, generally, enlarging intake and exhaust
runners/manifolds, smoothing corners around which the gases have to go, etc.
This kind of work is something of an art. It is actually quite easy to
go from bad to much worse with improper porting and/or polishing - especially
on the intake side. Bigger is not always better, neither is smoother,
especially when either one interferes with turbulent mixing in the combustion
chamber (or manifold) and/or throws the "tuning" of the intake manifold off.
Just because the cylinder flows better on the bench is not a guarantee that
it will perform better on the engine.
It's also quite easy to weaken the engine structure through porting which,
almost by definition, implies that you're removing metal from the
engine.
The moral is: don't just let some kid with a pneumatic grinder go whizzing
away at your $1000 cylinders.
As for certification issues, this is a fairly grey area. Probably most
onerous is the restriction against producing more than +2.5% (or +5% for
later engines) of certified horsepower in order to remain "certified." In
other words, the certification requirements for the engine require that it
produce no MORE than 102.5% or 105% of its rated horsepower. This is for
all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is aircraft controllability.
It's also the reason why the engine manufacturers don't spend much time
thinking about improving their castings. They are simply concerned with
repeatability, not ultimate performance.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Davis" <jdavis1(at)ford.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Mike, You do not need a return line with EFI. We have been deleting them on
all our cars to help control fuel tank temp.(not an issue on an airplane).
Pumps supply based on demand.
Jon,
I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could be
made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics who
call it a lycosaur. After all, the chevy engine that has received so much
bandwidth here is derived from a design that originated in the early
fifties. The only thing that makes it a "modern high tech engine" is the
electronic controls bolted to it.
Keep in mind that EFI in an aircraft engine can be much simpler than that
installed in an auto. No concerns with off idle throttle response,
driveability, EPA guidelines, etc... RPM, MAP, and possibly EGT and throttle
position should be sufficient inputs to an ECU to run an aircraft EFI
system. If there is nothing on the market when the time comes for me I will
attempt to design something myself. My fuel tanks are already plumbed with
return lines.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
---End of forwarded mail from rv-list(at)matronics.com
--
Jeffrey S. Davis
Senior Research Engineer
Advance Vehicle Technology
Ford Motor Company
Phone (313)845-5224 Fax (313)845-4781
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lothar Klingmuller <lothark(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Multiple Messages |
Matt:
I thought I had gotten "softt" between the ears! (Did I not read this
message last night or the day before?)
Now I know. I am getting the same message at different times (even a day
later) in duplicates(~20 %), even triplicates(~5%).
Could this be on your side or is this my internet provider?
Safe and happy landings -ALWAYS!
Lothar|| Denver, CO || plumbing new PILOT SHED (~carriagehouse)||
loocking for RV- 6 JIG |||
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>
>I think that you will find that EFI yields no performance benefit over
>mechanical (continuous) injection in aircraft use. This is irrespective
>of whether you are using an aircraft engine or a derivative (i.e. auto)
>engine.
>
I would agree that a properly tuned mechanical injection system should
equal an EFI. The EFI can be more easily tuned. Actually tuning from the
pilots seat while the engine runs. Should even be possible to tune cylinders
individually to equalize EGTs in an EFI designed for this application.
I disagree with your statement as regards the Ellison throttle body
injection. I dont feel that system is comparable with EFI or mechanical port
injection systems.
>The control over timing and amount which EFI makes possible is useful only
>for low power and (especially) idle operation. It's also very helpful
>during transient periods (i.e. a moving throttle).
No comparison between EFI and the mechanical systems Ive tinkered with
(aftermarket racing systems, not aircraft systems) at start, idle, or part
throttle operation, EFI wins hands down. Up to you how important these
things are to you, but I would agree that the most important consideration
is cruise power. Ive spoken to quite a number of Bendix/Airflow/Ellison
owners who have experienced un-ending start up and tuning problems with
their systems. Some have reverted to carburetors in exasperation.
>
>But none of those conditions dominate in aircraft application. I would
>strongly suggest that those looking at fuel injection for aircraft application
>consider a mechanical CIS system. As I said, the electronic, sequential,
>systems impose a significant complexity penalty with little or no
>performance benefit when used in aircraft applications.
Why do you feel that an EFI system designed for aircraft use would need to
be overly complex? As you stated, the demands in an aircraft application are
lower than in an auto application.
>
>There are a number of vendors of mechanical CIS systems, both certified
>(i.e. the Bendix or Continental systems), and uncertified (Ellison, Airflow
>dynamics, Bosch, etc.).
The cost of an EFI system could be quite a bit less than the systems you
mention, assuming of course that there is a large enough market to absorb
development costs. The components needed are relatively cheap.
Mike wills
RV-4(wing done; saving for fuse)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
> Another interesting engine is made by DynaCam. This engine is cerftified.
But Certified in what? I think it came up a few years ago, and if I recall,
there are more aircraft flying Zoche Diesels than there are flying DynaCams.
(That's the one based on the torpedo engine, right?)
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Prado (Excell Data Corporation)" <v-jerryp(at)MICROSOFT.com> |
| Subject: | Proof of auto engine reliability |
Fellow cash-challenged RV builders in search of an engine solution:
I am curious as to why the Stratus Subaru 2.2 liter solution has not been
discussed. I noticed that Reiner (the owner of Stratus) anounced the
availability of his direct replacement solution for the rv6 series a few
months ago. Since he is a local call away, I've talked to him at length on
several occasions.
I would like to get some feedback from the list on this option so I will
bullet the particulars on it below:
* Engine mount - uses Van's supplied mount, Stratus supplies interface
supports that bolt directly to engine.
* Stratus has successfully marketed the 1.8 liter version for several
years in both kit and completed form.
* Avid Aircraft endorses use of Stratus engines in their planes.
* A prototype of the 2.2 version has been flying in the Stratus c150
for over a year.
* The SHO version (180+HP) sells for $12,000 for a complete FWF
package.
I don't have the technical specifics of the re-work involved but it is not
an off the shelf engine with a PSRU bolted on. I know the cam is reworked or
replaced and the porting is modified.
Any comments would be appreciated. Perhaps Stratus could provide a summary
for us.
Jerry Prado, RV6A-
about to order the ProSeal for the tanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
writes:
>search of the archives for information regarding rear-seat rudder
>pedals for the RV-4 has been unrewarding. The description in Van's
>Bob,
In my opinion, it's pointless to add rear rudder pedals unless you go the
whole route with throttle, mixture, and ignition switch. Could probably
get along without brakes. The rear stick is there just to give the rear
seater some feel about how the airplane flies.
Puting all that in would cost you more than 10 lb. Save the weight and
improve your airplanes performance.
Regards, Bill Davis N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
>
> > Another interesting engine is made by DynaCam. This engine is
cerftified.
>
> But Certified in what? I think it came up a few years ago, and if I
recall,
> there are more aircraft flying Zoche Diesels than there are flying
DynaCams.
> (That's the one based on the torpedo engine, right?)
At one time, one was installed in a Piper Arrow flying out of TOA. Neat
engine.
Rob (RV-6Q).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | spraying primer in cold wx |
I was thumbing through an RVator article on priming and it mentioned
something to the effect that all catalyzing epoxies require 60 deg F to
setup. Huh !!! Oh sh*t. I was planning a big priming session Saturday in
40 deg F wx. Am I outta luck until Spring?
I'm using the Dexter's two part epoxy from Spruce.
thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Mike Wills wrote:
>
> >
> >I think that you will find that EFI yields no performance benefit over
> >mechanical (continuous) injection in aircraft use. This is irrespective
> >of whether you are using an aircraft engine or a derivative (i.e. auto)
> >engine.
> >
>
> I would agree that a properly tuned mechanical injection system should
> equal an EFI. The EFI can be more easily tuned. Actually tuning from the
> pilots seat while the engine runs. Should even be possible to tune cylinders
> individually to equalize EGTs in an EFI designed for this application.
I think you need to qualify what you mean by "more easily tuned" as I
think that's a function of who's doing the tuning.
"Easily Tuned" for Joe RV-builer means, I suspect, no more than a mixture
knob (if even that). "Easily Tuned" by someone like you means "easily
tweaked" which might mean something like a mixture knob for each cylinder.
For the majority of flyers out there I don't think they need or want to
be flying the dynomometer. That kind of work should have been done by
the manufacturer of the EFI system prior to selling it.
In that vein, I think a CIS system can be set up to equal EFI performance
with regard to EGT and balanced fuel flow. Look at what the people at
GAMI have done in this regard. The end result, for the pilot, is still
just a single mixture knob.
> I disagree with your statement as regards the Ellison throttle body
> injection. I dont feel that system is comparable with EFI or mechanical port
> injection systems.
I agree with you here. I shouldn't have thrown it in.
> No comparison between EFI and the mechanical systems Ive tinkered with
> (aftermarket racing systems, not aircraft systems) at start, idle, or part
> throttle operation, EFI wins hands down. Up to you how important these
> things are to you, but I would agree that the most important consideration
> is cruise power. Ive spoken to quite a number of Bendix/Airflow/Ellison
> owners who have experienced un-ending start up and tuning problems with
> their systems. Some have reverted to carburetors in exasperation.
And it's interesting, from the point of view of the technologist, that
the hard-starting characteristics is largely a function of their complexity.
For instance, the certified Bendix system is significantly more sophisticated
than the certified Continental system. Yet it's the former's sophistication
(namely the attempt to measure airflow via impact tubes) that leads directly
to its poor performance at start (when airflow is low to nonexistent).
> Why do you feel that an EFI system designed for aircraft use would need to
> be overly complex? As you stated, the demands in an aircraft application are
> lower than in an auto application.
You are right that there are degrees of complexity. When I look under the
hood of a car equipped with the latest Bosch motronic, with more sensors and
failure modes than I have neurons, I get kind of depressed. But such a
system could be radically simplified. But at what point does it lose the
characteristic of computer control and become simply a "fuel by wire" version
of a mechanical injection system? And, if so, what's the point?
I don't like wires controlling vital engine functions in a high-vibration,
high heat, environment like you find under an airplane cowl. But that may
just be my problem.
> The cost of an EFI system could be quite a bit less than the systems you
> mention, assuming of course that there is a large enough market to absorb
> development costs. The components needed are relatively cheap.
Perhaps but after all the trials and tribulations I see the guys going
through on the homebrew DIY EFI mailing list I think there may be more
to it than meets the eye.
But I'm all up for experimenting!
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
Jon Elford writes:
>
> >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. :-)
Playing with Bowling's engine horsepower program
(http://devserve.cebaf.gov/~bowling/roughhp.html) indicates that
the Aurora engine would put out 160 HP at about 3600 RPM. That's
not working very hard--about 64 percent of the engine's potential
(it is "rated" 250 HP @ 5600 RPM). Given that actual cruise
conditions would be only 120 HP (at altitude), the engine would
be working at about 48 percent of its potential.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
| Subject: | spraying primer in cold wx |
I am using an epoxy primer that I got from Aircraft Spruce. I read on
the side of the can that you should consider using accelerator when the
temp is below 60F if I recall. I have a heated garage/paintbooth that I
paint in and try to keep the temp about 65 degrees. If I plan ahead and
leave the part for a couple of days you can't get the paint off with an
Uzi. The alclad parts must be roughed up or else you can scratch the
paint off with a fingernail.
Hope this helps.
Gary, RV6AQ, empenage
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walsh [SMTP:walsh@matrix-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 3:36 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: spraying primer in cold wx
I was thumbing through an RVator article on priming and it
mentioned
something to the effect that all catalyzing epoxies require 60
deg F to
setup. Huh !!! Oh sh*t. I was planning a big priming session
Saturday in
40 deg F wx. Am I outta luck until Spring?
I'm using the Dexter's two part epoxy from Spruce.
thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Carroll <carroll(at)geology.wisc.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: spraying primer in cold wx |
>I was thumbing through an RVator article on priming and it mentioned
>something to the effect that all catalyzing epoxies require 60 deg F to
>setup.
I don't know about Dexter, but the Polyfiber 2-part epoxy I'm using can be
used down to 35 according to the instructions. I've done it, and it seems
to work fine (perhaps dries more slowly though). I take it back inside to
cure at warmer temperatures (about 60). It seems to take about a week to
fully cure, after which its pretty bullet-proof.
Alan
Alan Carroll
RV-8 #80177 (Wings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Proof of auto engine reliability |
Jerry Prado writes:
>
> I am curious as to why the Stratus Subaru 2.2 liter solution has not been
> discussed.
I've heard of this engine, but don't know much about it.
Can you post an address or web site for Stratus?
I guess I've pretty much positioned myself as an auto engine
advocate, but my personal feeling is that it's asking a lot
of a 2.2 litre engine to put out 180 HP (for aircraft use).
I think 2/3 of a horsepower per cubic inch is a reasonable
maximum for an auto engine in an aircraft. The Stratus
engine would be putting out about 1.34 HP per cubic inch,
which is working pretty hard. I could see it as a 125 HP
engine for an RV3, though.
I had a Subaru (EA81 engine) that I put 240,000 km on
(150,000 miles). It's a pretty solid engine. The cam belts
seem to need replacement slightly sooner than on other OHC
engines. Could have something to do with the boxer layout.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
The sensor is Alumina with a spluttered platinum electrode ( to resist
the heat), its output is dependant on temperature and the difference in
concentration of air between the inside and outside of the sensor. Lead
fouls the surface blocking the contact of oxygen with the sensor and
also shorts out the voltage developed.
----------
From: Jones, Bryan D. (LPT)[SMTP:JonesB(at)geon.com]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 1997 12:13
To: 'rv-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
I believe some of the complication with "automotive type" engine
control
systems involves the exhaust oxygen sensor. The automotive type
(platinum if I recall correctly) are incompatible with leaded
fuel
systems. In addition to temp, wouldn't it be nice to control
combustion
through exhaust O2 monitoring. Or better yet, an automatic
feedback
control system. Keep thinking; there has to be a better way.
Bryan Jones
JONESB(at)GEON.COM
These are my opinions not my employer's.
> Mike,
>
> You have just stated exactly what has been on my mind all
week. I am
> an
> auto technician and see alot of new electronic ignition and
injection
> technology every year. Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff.
No
> carb ice,
> automatic leaning control (a function of manifold
pressure-less air at
> altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a
host of
> other
> uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's
brainstorm and
> change
> the world.... :-)
>
> Jon Elford
> RV 6A #25201
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard TREANOR <rtreanor(at)ci.sunnyvale.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Question: Yikes! Primer |
I finally have my shop ready and with the arrival of a back-ordered hand
squeezer from Avery next week I'll be ready to start building my
empennage.
Now down to the question... Reading a thread on priming from the
archives I ran across a recent post regarding Sherwin Williams GBP-988
primer. The sender included some product data in their post, which
included the note "Do not apply over MET-L-MATE or similar conversion
coatings". Can anyone help me here? Is this note referring to a specific
product or something like Alodine in general?
My plan was to Etch, Alodine and prime (with S-W GBP-988). I don't
want to get into the hassles and health risks associated with handling
the epoxy primers.
Thanks in advance.
Rich Treanor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Having converted an Mazda 13B for an RV-6A installation, I have some first
hand knowledge of what is involved. I agree - don't do because you think
your are going to save a lot of money - because its doubtful that if you do
it correctly, that you will. I think you have to consider your motivation
for an "alternative" engine consideration. You will spend more money than
you think and I take no issue with those who state you could get an
overhauled aircraft 320-360 for the same amount of money. I estimate I have
approx $8K in the mazda conversion.
But, I guess I fall in the "gearhead" category, I took it on because: 1.
I like the challenge, 2. I believe there will be no progress without
someone taking some risk, 3. believe that eventually the cumulation of
knowledge/experience over a number of installations will drive toward an
"acceptable cost-effective" solution eventually OR will clearly show that
"auto" conversions are not the way to go. Hey, someone has to do it to
eventually arrive at the "answer" if there is one. I took the mazda 13B
route after careful consideration and do not regret the effort or results
thus far. It is clearly not for every one, and I would be the last to
suggest it is. I consider myself very conservative about risk, but believe
that any risk is inversely proportional to the thought, time, money and
available technology use to lower the risk. I just find it hard to imagine
than in 2050, we will still be flying the same lycomings that we do today.
But, it may certainly be the case.
Ed
AndersonE(at)bah.com
----------
From: Rvbldr3170
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engines for RVs
Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 2:12PM
<< just another reason to stay away from an auto conversion if cost is your
only reason for wanting one in the first place. I know it looks like I cant
decide which side of this debate to take, just trying to fairly weigh the
pro's and con's of both options. >>
I have said this same thing myself, because if it is cost driven you are
gonna
end up frustrated that you can't get it done for the $4,000 some guy
promised.
IF you CAN and will do the work yourself though, it is much less expensive,
but you have to remember you are becoming a designer not a builder, and the
liability increases both in terms of time spent and problems you must solve.
The main reason to build an airplane is a personal choice and YOU must
decide
what and how YOU want to go about it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Sweemwr" <teetime(at)flinthills.com> |
What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of auto engine reliability |
v-jerryp(at)MICROSOFT.com wrote:
> I am curious as to why the Stratus Subaru 2.2 liter solution has not been
> discussed.
I personally think that pulling 180hp out of a 2.2L (135 cu in) engine
is likely to be too stressful on the engine. High RPMs and/or internal
pressures will be needed. After all, it's about half the capacity of the
4.3L Vortec we've been discussing.
I think I already mentioned a development effort here in NZ to use a
Subaru Imprezza rally car engine in an RV. Not sure if that's flying yet
or not.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I agree with Jeffrey. I have an EFI on a Mazda 13B in an RV-6A. I really
did not want to run a excess fuel return line to each tank with the
switching, etc. So, after giving it some thought, I designed a smaller
"header" tank 3"x2"x8" mounted on the firewall. Fuel comes into the header
tank from the wing tanks. I have two EFI High pressure fuel pumps each with
its own separate pluming to the header tank. The pumps extract fuel from
the header tank and feed it to the injector's fuel rail. Unused/excess fuel
is fed back to the header tank. Any fuel injected into the engine creates a
partial vacuum in the header tank which in turn draws fuel from the wing
tank. The partial vacuum is sufficient to draw fuel 2 feet vertically from
a marine fuel tank I placed on the ground when the engine was operating on
the test stand. The vacuum is sufficient to almost suck the tank flat when
I once that once I forgot to open the fuel vent on the plastic marine fuel
tank - so PLENTY of "suction" to pull fuel from the wing tanks. Also VERY
important to ensure wing tanks ALWAYS has an unrestricted vent to
atmosphere - other wise the strong "suction" could cause the wing tank to
collapse or at least pull the wing skin in between the ribs. In any case, I
am sure there are other alternatives, but that is one that has worked for
me.
Ed
andersone(at)bah.com
----------
From: Jeffrey Davis
Subject: (Fwd) RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 2:20PM
Mike, You do not need a return line with EFI. We have been deleting them on
all our cars to help control fuel tank temp.(not an issue on an airplane).
Pumps supply based on demand.
Jon,
I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could be
made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics who
call it a lycosaur. After all, the chevy engine that has received so much
bandwidth here is derived from a design that originated in the early
fifties. The only thing that makes it a "modern high tech engine" is the
electronic controls bolted to it.
Keep in mind that EFI in an aircraft engine can be much simpler than that
installed in an auto. No concerns with off idle throttle response,
driveability, EPA guidelines, etc... RPM, MAP, and possibly EGT and throttle
position should be sufficient inputs to an ECU to run an aircraft EFI
system. If there is nothing on the market when the time comes for me I will
attempt to design something myself. My fuel tanks are already plumbed with
return lines.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
---End of forwarded mail from rv-list(at)matronics.com
--
Jeffrey S. Davis
Senior Research Engineer
Advance Vehicle Technology
Ford Motor Company
Phone (313)845-5224 Fax (313)845-4781
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
>What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
>
>
Most light aircraft have vacuum driven A/H's and D/G's in conjunction with
an electric T/C. There are two main reasons for this:
1. The lost of either the electric or vacuum system will not disable all
gyros. It is impossible to control an aircraft in the soup with all gyros inop.
2. The electric A/H's and D/G's are very, very expensive.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
I had exactly the same problem! The hole in the nose piece was about 0.015
inch larger in diameter than the rivet mandrel. The rivet head was being
extruded into the nose piece, leaving a sharp little nub.
I bought some nose pieces for the next size smaller mandrel, and drilled
them out with successively larger number drills until I had a good slip fit
on the mandrel. No more nubs on the popped heads!
The Avex rivets that Van supplies are designed with mandrels that break
below the head. Unfortunately they often break below the shear line,
reducing shear strength, but I'm sure that was factored into the safety
margin calculations. However, the 3/32 flat head pop rivets from Avery
break at or above the top of the head, and are very difficult to file down.
I've tried all kinds of custom nose pieces and can't get them to break
consistently without leaving some mandrel protruding. I like the Avery
ones because they take #40 holes, but I'm sticking to the Avex because they
break without mandrel protrusion.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington IL
----------
> From: KBoatri144 <KBoatri144(at)aol.com>
> To: RV-List(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Pop Rivet Problems
> Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 10:47 PM
>
>
> 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
So, are 747's at risk being all electric or do they have vacuum sytems?
hal
>
> >What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
> >
> >
>
> Most light aircraft have vacuum driven A/H's and D/G's in conjunction with
> an electric T/C. There are two main reasons for this:
>
> 1. The lost of either the electric or vacuum system will not disable all
> gyros. It is impossible to control an aircraft in the soup with all gyros
inop.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)netins.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
> I just find it hard to imagine
>than in 2050, we will still be flying the same lycomings that we do today.
> But, it may certainly be the case.
>
I doubt if Mr. Douglas Thought the US Gov't would be buying refurbed DC-3's
at the turn of the Century or Mr. Beech thought we would still be
flying -18's In 1997, But every night a Beech goes over my house at 8:15 PM
loaded with UPS freight. I predict that we will, infact still be flying
LyContasouris engines in 2050. I will go even farther, I predict we will
still be flying 450 P&W's. I also predict we will be flying personal Jets.
I can't wait! Who knows we might even be flying Vortec 4.3L. I know a guy
flying a Pietenpol with a model A engine and another with a Corvair.
Till then, I love my Lycoming. And I also have the utmost respect for those
of you who choose otherwise, As long as everyone realizes what you are
doing. We must be careful. Their are no promises that we can continue to
do this forever.
Some editorial if you will indulge me:
I spent the last few days with FAA deputy administrator Barry Valentine at
the Int'l Council of Airshows Conv. in LAS. He believes were it not that
John Denver was without a Medical Cert, we would be fighting the political
battle of our lives. Not that it has anything to do withit but it diverted
the media attention and placed some apparent blame on Mr.. Denver.
The first time someone dumps a homebuilt in a schoolyard we are going to be
in real big trouble. The buearacrats inside the belt way are answering to
the press and when some one puts a mike in front of their mouth and asks,
"You mean to tell me that anyone can build anything they feel like, stick a
lawnmower motor on the front of it and fly it over a schoolground or a
stadium?"
When that question is asked the answer will not be, "It is their right as an
American."
I have seen some very professional well thoughtout auto conversions, and I
think that they have merit. These project would have cost as much or nearly
so as a Lyc. and performed no better. I have also seen some where the
objective was not to learn but to save money. Some of these have no
business flying.
My thoughts are to those of you who are willing to spend time, effort, risk,
and money expanding this area more power to you. Just stay away from
stadiums and schoolyards. To those who are trying to save money, you won't.
Your $ per hour will be higher. You will spend more time fooling and less
time flying. And please don't do anything stupid. The Constitution does
not promise us anything about homebuilt airplanes.
One more aside, I was talking at ICAS to a friend who went to Germany to
train a PBY Catalina pilot, The landing fee was $800 US for every landing,
touch and goes included. Think about it. Then make sure you send a check to
your Senator and Congressman in the next election so when the FAA proposes
stupid things like that here he will remember who you are when you when you
write him.
My apologies for the long post.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)petroblend.com
http://www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6A QB - I only have 35 degrees elevator |
| From: | n5lp <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
>
>My elevator lever arms hit the horizontal sheet metal "deck" at the rear
>of them
>and sheet metal on HS at the front. This limits total movement to less
>than the
>55 degrees that docs say it should be.
>
>Have I done something wrong or is this just another "doesn't quite fit"
>situation? I could notch the sheet metal but....
>
I don't know if you have done anything wrong, but I had to trim a lot of
the sheet metal to get the specified movement range. Like I said before;
seems to be "par for the course."
>linkage for the elevators and I see that the "lives of my loved ones and
>myself"
>hang on some pretty small single things. Kinda delicate bellcranks
>running on a
>single 3/16 bolt thru sheet metal members etc. At least one elevator has
>failed
>on an overspeeded RV. Has anyone modified this particular control system?
>
The latest RVator cleared that one up. Van determined the elevator
pushrod failed during, not previous to the crash. He also did some
testing with dowels jammed between the elevator balance and horizontal
stabilizer that determined a large dowel can be easily sheared with
moderate stick forces. It's interesting reading.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
Pacer N8025D
RV-6QME N441LP Reserved
Under floor details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks or Olds Landing Lights? |
I installed an Olds in each wing. The Olds system requires you to cut a
rectangular hole in the leading edge and then trim the lens to an exact
butt joint fit. This was very time consuming and difficult for me. You
have to get both the hole and the lens perfect. The alternate way
(Duckworks) is to just cut a nice-looking hole in the leading edge, with
her lens overlapping the hole on the inside and therefore not requiring any
great pains in fitting.
I went with the Olds because I saw an RV 4 with this system and NAPA
flashers on both taxi and landing lights. You can see him in the pattern
and on long final in MVFR with ease! The safety of the greatly enhanced
visibility to other planes appeals to me.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barington IL
----------
> From: Scott A. Jordan <SAJ_SLJ(at)compuserve.com>
> To: RV List
> Subject: RV-List: Duckworks or Olds Landing Lights?
> Date: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 3:25 PM
>
>
> 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?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
This may not be exactly pertinent to the rear seat rudder pedals in an RV-4,
but let me relate an experience that I had when flying in the right seat of a
friend's Lancair 320. After take off and doing some demos, the pilot asked me
if I wanted to fly his plane. Of course, I did. I asked him if I could do a
wingover and when he asked what that was, I described the maneuver using my
hand. He said sure, so I pulled up and started the maneuver. When I went to
add the rudder to get over the top, my feet , which had been pulled back so as
not to interfere with the pilot's input, went to the firewall. There I was,
nose very high, airspeed bleeding off very fast, and NO RUDDER! He never told
me that he didn't have rudder pedals on my side. RIGHT RUDDER!, GIVE ME SOME
RIGHT RUDDER!, I yelled. We sort of flopped over on our back because that was
the only way I could get the nose down without stalling. When I got him to
agree to try another one with him helping me with some rudder, he liked it. I
learned a valuable lesson. Never assume anything about an unfamiliar
airplane. I don't have brakes on the right side of my RV and I always brief
my passenger about that so that there is no misunderstanding about that when
they land. I think that rudders would be very important to have in the back
seat of any tail dragger just in case they might be needed for something other
than a wing over.
Jim Cone
RV-6A flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JVanLaak <JVanLaak(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
I have the pedals, throttle and trim in the back seat and the only problems I
have with it are that there is precious little room for the back seaters feet
to move the pedals. If you intend to put the pedals in be sure to also build
the recesses for the back seaters feet (plans in RVator), which make things
much more comfortable in any case.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com |
I think it is easy to miss the point about the alternative engine
experimenters. I don't believe that anyone planning a non-Lyc.
installation will tell you that you should install an alternate
engine if don't want to. Most of them do it for the challenge,
not just to find the cheapest option out there. I am looking at
a O-320-H2AD from a 172 with 3136 TT and 857 SMOH for $5500. I
could potentially run that engine for another 1000 hrs or so (at
*least* 5 years for me). But I, like many others, I enjoy the
challenge and are willing to take the time to experiment with
something new and different. For me, its the primary motivation
for building a RV to begin with. I am also looking at an ad for
a 1968 IFR equipped Mooney M20G for $36,000 which I could buy and
fly now, but what's the fun in that?
Chris Browne
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.COM
Building -6A tail jig and considering a Franklin ... or a Mazda
...
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engines for RVs
Date: 12/11/97 3:14 AM
Mike Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> 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. ...
>
Everthing Mike said is true... Not everyone has the time to deal with
the changes you are going to have to make with alternative power.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Mike,
The short answer to your question about EFI harkens right back to
the alternative engine debate. Once again, it has to do with
regulations, R&D costs, and the market. As long as people buy the
certified engine at the price that Lycoming gets for it, why
should the company invest profits into an improved product which
will have to be recertified? Enter the auto conversion with all
its more modern EFI, etc. As soon as the Lyc boys start losing
substantial sales in the homebuilt market, they might start
listening.
Chris Browne
CBrowne714(at)aol.com
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: 12/11/97 5:12 PM
>Mike,
>
Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No carb ice,
>automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
>altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of other
>uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and
change >the world.... :-)
>
>Jon Elford
>RV 6A #25201
Jon,
I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could be
made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics
who
call it a lycosaur. ...
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BrownTool <BrownTool(at)aol.com> |
While I am certainly biased, i might recommend shopping around with several of
the tool vendors and comparing price and selection. Most of us have toll-free
numbers so your only cost will be a few minutes of your time. Cleveland and
Avery are both fine companies as is my company, Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
If you do not have one of our free catalogs, please contact us and we will
rush one to you immediately. We currently have available a VERY LIMITED
selection of surplus/used air tools and hand tools which might also be of
interest to you and save you a little money in the process.
Thank You !
Michael Brown
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
Oklahoma City, OK
1-800-587-3883
BrownTool(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Hi all,
I think Doug Rozendaal is correct when he says that our homebuilts will be in
trouble if one crashes in a schoolyard. I think he is wrong if he thinks that
is likely to be "lawnmower motor" powered - or any other non-Lycoming powered.
The odds are extremely high that it will be powered by a Lycoming or Continental
just because thats what 99% of them are.
I disagree about the costs, especially for new, first class stuff.
And, of course, I resent the suggestion that I am about to do something stupid
and the scolding that I must "stay away from stadiums and schoolyards"!
Only a few percent of serious accidents arise from engine problems, many from
very old and very poorly maintained Lyconts. To enhance our safety it is clear
that we should spend money maintaining proficiency.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
> The first time someone dumps a homebuilt in a schoolyard we are going to be
> in real big trouble. The buearacrats inside the belt way are answering to
> the press and when some one puts a mike in front of their mouth and asks,
> "You mean to tell me that anyone can build anything they feel like, stick a
> lawnmower motor on the front of it and fly it over a schoolground or a
> stadium?"
> I have seen some very professional well thoughtout auto conversions, and I
> think that they have merit. These project would have cost as much or nearly
> so as a Lyc. and performed no better. I have also seen some where the
> objective was not to learn but to save money. Some of these have no
> business flying.
>
> My thoughts are to those of you who are willing to spend time, effort, risk,
> and money expanding this area more power to you. Just stay away from
> stadiums and schoolyards. To those who are trying to save money, you won't.
> Your $ per hour will be higher. You will spend more time fooling and less
> time flying. And please don't do anything stupid.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
>
>747's and in fact most jets use internal battery backed gyros I am told
>by a knowledgable driver of same, at about $3000 a pop.
>
Okay, sorry to stray so far from RV's but what about that Boeing-MD-Airbus
or whatever with the glass cockpit that went down in South America with
it's static ports taped over from a privious washing? Al (I hope we don't
OD on this thread cause someones' gotta know this one!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Tools - what to buy for a quick build? |
Without reviewing what is in the Avery kit... I already had a 14 inch drill
press. The little ones would also do but I'd get one. The same with my bench
grinder. I use my table saw with a planer blade a lot. Works great on
aluminum.
I've given heavy use to these newish orange handle clothespin type clamps and
the big vise grips jobs. Several battery drills. What I still don't have but
should is a vest with pockets so that I can always find real frequently used
items like sharpies, measures, cleco pliers, band aids.
Got six or seven compartmented plastic boxes about a foot on a side. I have
some of those little bitty plastic drawers too - hate them!
I'm going to put a low table under the fuselage to put tools and stuff on. I'm
very short on space.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kevin lane" <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV List:Engine disassembly -Reply |
> FYI, I believe the wide deck 0-320's and 0-360's need a special set of
> plates that are mounted on each side on certain cylinder studs and then
> the case is jacked apart. I think the case through studs are a light
press
> fit.
there is a bolt hidden behind the cam shaft drive gear which holds the
O-320 halves together-don't forget about it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)MCI2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A QB - I only have 35 degrees elevator movement |
Hal,
I had to trim both the aft end of the hole in the deck plate and the sheet
metal portion of the hs spar. To get enough up elevator, I also had to
trim a little off from one of the steel control horns, where it runs into
the 1/8" stop plate riveted to the aft bulkhead.
Alex Peterson, MN (waiting for Arnold Palmer to sell his N number AP1)
6A finishing kit on truck.
> My elevator lever arms hit the horizontal sheet metal "deck" at the rear
of them
> and sheet metal on HS at the front. This limits total movement to less
than the
> 55 degrees that docs say it should be.
>
> Have I done something wrong or is this just another "doesn't quite fit"
> situation? I could notch the sheet metal but....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timbo" <htim(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
Would you want one system (i.e.engine) totally dependant on another system
(i.e electrical)? Timbo
----------
> From: CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re[2]: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
> Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 11:16 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> The short answer to your question about EFI harkens right back to
> the alternative engine debate. Once again, it has to do with
> regulations, R&D costs, and the market. As long as people buy the
> certified engine at the price that Lycoming gets for it, why
> should the company invest profits into an improved product which
> will have to be recertified? Enter the auto conversion with all
> its more modern EFI, etc. As soon as the Lyc boys start losing
> substantial sales in the homebuilt market, they might start
> listening.
>
> Chris Browne
> CBrowne714(at)aol.com
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
____________________________
> _____
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
> Author: Mike Wills at INTERNET
> Date: 12/11/97 5:12 PM
>
>
> >Mike,
> >
> Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No carb ice,
> >automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
> >altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of
other
> >uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and
> change >the world.... :-)
> >
> >Jon Elford
> >RV 6A #25201
> Jon,
> I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
> EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could
be
> made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics
> who
> call it a lycosaur. ...
> Mike Wills
> RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
> willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chevy V6 Installation |
| From: | ron.taborek(at)flight642.com (RON TABOREK) |
Alan,
I'd be quite interested in learning more about your suggested engine
monitoring suggestion. I have an AV-10 engine monitor, which covers
many engine parameters. I am planning to record the data and do
overhaul on an on-condition basis.
ron.taborek(at)flight642.com RV-4 Installing O-320 Toronto
By the way, thanks to all who contributed to the vernatherm/relief valve
discussion. Most helpful!
-> Message-Id:
-> From: Gibson Allan <Allan.Gibson(at)wmc.com.au>
-> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Chevy V6 Installation
-> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 06:16:01 +0800
->
->
-> 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: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpleing techniques |
Yes, I found that two wacks on the C frame tool set my dimples beautiful.
First wack moderate sets the die and the second slightly harder wack completes
the dimple nicely using the spring back dies from both Avery and Cleveland. A
wooden malet works nice but I used a hardwood block fitted over the
tool--press fit. I also used a dimpling table that kept my skins level to the
dies. This freed my hands to hold the slider die in contact ( mine has the
spring) with the Al sheet. Do not ram the dies together or beat repeatedly on
them. Practice on scrap the two wacks. You can hear the dies set in the second
wack. There is a slight ring (sound) . Using this technique I get better sets
than with the squeezer and notice little if any improvement with coming back
with counter sink bit. JR--RV4.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce & Paulette Smith" <bpsmith(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
Check out DynaCam.com. Several pages of interesting stuff. Seems ideally suited
for an RV application. And they're looking for investors who have net worth
>1 million, which, I guess, is most of us - right?
----------
>
>
> >
> > > Another interesting engine is made by DynaCam. This engine is
> cerftified.
> >
> > But Certified in what? I think it came up a few years ago, and if I
> recall,
> > there are more aircraft flying Zoche Diesels than there are flying
> DynaCams.
> > (That's the one based on the torpedo engine, right?)
>
> At one time, one was installed in a Piper Arrow flying out of TOA. Neat
> engine.
>
> Rob (RV-6Q).
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | emcole <emcole(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Tim Sweemwr wrote:
>
>
> What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
>
Electric-- $1200 vs Vacuum $400 You do the Math!:^)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ferdfly <Ferdfly(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rear-seat Rudder Pedals |
Rob and Ron, I installed a set of van`s rear seat rudder peddals in my RV-4,
The longer I looked at them, the more I hated them, I finally took them
out.It will be more effort to replace them, but I think I can.
Fred La Forge RV-4...Building.Engine baffles and cowling. Ferdfly(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com (Stephen Paul Johnson) |
| Subject: | Pro-seal gap filling properties |
Hi all,
There is a small gap, about 1/16" or so, between one of the rib flange
tabs at the nose of my tank and the skin. No big deal on the internal
ribs, but on the inboard and outboard ribs this gap will have to be
filled with pro-seal when I get around to that messy job. Has anybody
had this situation and flown for awhile without leaks? I could put a
small piece of scrap between the rib flange and the skin, but I don't
know if that would just cause more problems.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mauser(at)claris.com (Richard Chandler) |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
What keeps the header from draining? Can the EFI generate suction when it's
sucking air instead of fuel? Or do you have a boost pump down low?
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Mack" <donmack(at)allways.net> |
| Subject: | Updated web site |
I have added two new items to my web site:
1) Pictures of Ed Anderson's Mazda 13B installation in an RV-6A
and
2) A listing of all the RV related newsletters. If you know of any that I
missed, let me know
Don Mack RV-6A, actually riveting fuselage skins (boy that feels good)
donmack(at)allways.net or donmack(at)flash.net
http://www.flash.net/~donmack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
<<
So, are 747's at risk being all electric or do they have vacuum sytems?
hal
>>
Hal,
Airliners such as the 747 use all electric gyro's. But. The captain has his
own set, and the first officer has his or her own set. Each side runs off a
seperate electrical bus. They also have a stanby horizon in the event things
get really ugly. This runs off yet another bus called the standby bus.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | morristec(at)icdc.com |
RV>>747's and in fact most jets use internal battery backed gyros I am told
RV>>by a knowledgable driver of same, at about $3000 a pop.
RV>>
RV>Okay, sorry to stray so far from RV's but what about that Boeing-MD-Airbus
RV>or whatever with the glass cockpit that went down in South America with
RV>it's static ports taped over from a privious washing? Al (I hope we don't
RV>OD on this thread cause someones' gotta know this one!)
I don't know the specifics about the crash, but consider that large
airplanes (FAR part 25)have to demonstrate failure rates for the attitude
systems of less than 10 E-9 (.00000001). That is why they require 3 redundant
systems with 4 or more sources of electrical power, with each indicator
capable of being powered by at least 2 of the sources. Consider that
running out of fuel will shut down all generators (including the APU), so
typically there is an Air Driven Generator, and then the aircraft battery. The
"battery" comes to play when all else fails. The battery only has to last 30
minutes though.
Most older airplanes (EX. DC-9) are certified to CAR 4B and don't have
to (read won't) meet those requirments though.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
I saved the following post some time ago. I do not know if the price is
correct. www.amazon.com wants $95 each. If anyone has bought or buys
them, please let me know if the price is correct.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
Date: 8/23/96 18:08
Subject: news://news/321AF104.8DD(at)ifd.mavt.ethz.ch
------------------------------- Message Contents
-------------------------------
Juerg Mueller wrote:
>I bought mine last yer from:
>
> Hoerner Fluid Dynamics
> POB 65283
> Vancouver, WA 98665
>
>Cost was something like:
>Fluid Dynamic Drag $75
> Lift $74
> Postage 6
> $155
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)compuserve.com> |
(Hal Kempthorne) wrote:
<>
I can't speak for the Big Boeing, but the transport category aircraft I have experience
with
have multiple sources of electrical power for instruments, including a battery
that does almost
nothing (depending on aircraft type) or absolutely nothing other than provide last
chance
backup for the captain's flight instruments, one comm, one nav, etc. No vacuum
system is used,
except the one that cleans the carpets. :)
Tim - Pittsburgh - in imminent danger of falling off the proverbial fence
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Duckworks or Olds Landing Lights? |
You wrote -
"I would like to put a pulse light recognition system in the aircaft,"
----------
I am planning to use a leftover flasher from a Cessna flashing beacon
system to pulse my landing lights. A lot of people have replaced the Cessna
flashing beacons with strobe lights and the beacon system is removed and
left in the corner of a hangar. The Cessna flasher unit I have is made to
flash two 125 watt halogen bulbs.
I opted for the Duckworks lights because of the price difference and I
could not see the need for hi-low beam lights and an extra set of wires in
each wing.
George McNutt, Langley BC
6A rear wing spars.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
Richard Chandler wrote:
snipped
> > Another interesting engine is made by DynaCam. This engine is certified.
>
> But Certified in what?
> (That's the one based on the torpedo engine, right?)
Richard,
You are correct about the DynaCam engine being based on a WWII torpedo
engine. The torpedos used hydrazine for fuel! Talk about scarey stuff!!!
The engine DESIGN has been certified. This means that it has passed the
running test. See posts of the past few days on this subject. It is in
the process of having the MANUFACTURING process certified. This proves
to the FAA that you are producing a product which consistantly meets the
design certification. You need to have both before you can put them into
certified aircraft. As of now, they are only for sale in experimental
catigory aircraft.
I am using capitals to emphasize, not shout. I hope this clears things
up for you.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Gibson Allan wrote:
>
>
> 747's and in fact most jets use internal battery backed gyros I am told
> by a knowledgable driver of same, at about $3000 a pop.
>
> This is totally false. I don't know who this guy is that told you that,
but nothing could further from the truth.
The fact is that the gyro's are powered from the instument transfer buss
through the hot battery buss and an inverter when the engines are not
running. The aircraft batteries would power the captain instruments only
by way of the same buss. New batteries would be good for 45min. Normally
power is by the no.1/2/3/4 engine generators thru the main electrical
buss and to the individual pilot instrument busses.
I know, I spent 31years as Captain for a major airlines flying many
diferent types of aircraft.
Since I've noticed that you like to add your 2 cents I thought I'ld add
mine.
Regards Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Engine hop ups... |
>I believe some of the complication with "automotive type" engine control
>systems involves the exhaust oxygen sensor. The automotive type
>(platinum if I recall correctly) are incompatible with leaded fuel
>systems. In addition to temp, wouldn't it be nice to control combustion
>through exhaust O2 monitoring. Or better yet, an automatic feedback
>control system. Keep thinking; there has to be a better way.
>
>Bryan Jones
>JONESB(at)GEON.COM
>
>These are my opinions not my employer's.
Bryan,
You are correct about the lead in fuels. They wreak havoc with O2 sensors.
I've seen all kinds of different aftermarket auto fuel injections that use
no feedback, but have PC programmable fuel "maps" the computer reads based
on it's inputs. (ie. at xx cyl. temp and xx manifold pressure, pulse
injectors for xx milliseconds.) Very simple by automotive standards. I
have extensive fuel injection training and am excited to come up with
something new. What a conversation piece to show up at the fly-ins with
your lap-top on the passenger seat......
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
PS. Where do you work?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Cone <JamesCone(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fluid Dynamic Drag |
Any good Aviation School library should have one. Most are in the reference
section and can't be checked out. I have a copy that I bought from the
author's widow but am not comfortable loaning it out. The address to order
one from Mrs. Hoerner is: Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Drag (Fluid Dynamic Lift is
also available), 7528 Staunton Place, N.W., Albuquerque, NM 87120. The phone
number in my copy is (505) 898-0533. The title page also says that if this
address is no longer valid, to contact the Membership Roster of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) with offices in New York, Los
Angeles, and Brussels, or in a copy of the book recently published. I heard
the Mrs. Hoener may have passed away.
BTW, this book is fantastic, as is the book on lift. It is written so that
even a non-engineer can understand it. Lots of drawings to illustrate the
concepts. I have read it cover to cover twice when I was having trouble
getting my Sea Hawker to fly right. It was very helpful and gave me the
information that I needed to end up with one of the best flying Sea Hawkers.
Hope this helps.
Jim Cone
RV-6A flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A QB - I only have 35 degrees elevator movement |
Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> My elevator lever arms hit the horizontal sheet metal "deck" at the rear of them
> and sheet metal on HS at the front. This limits total movement to less than
the
> 55 degrees that docs say it should be.
It's not 55 deg it's 25 to 30 degrees
>
>
>
> What is the cure for the slider canopy frame which is 3/8 inches too wide on
the
> left side? Mine overhangs the fuse. I can see cut and weld, is that it?
>
Thats it cut to fit.
> "
>
> single 3/16 bolt thru sheet metal members etc.
Plenty strong. Ever see how you Deb is built in certain areas?
>
>
>
> The canopy latch has
> no safety to it
Make one.
I have a 6QB kit also and and I find no problems as I see it so far.
Its all built and I'm in the progress of installing the panel and the
engine.
Good luck, Don Champagne
>
> Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
> halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jepilot(at)juno.com (J E REHLER) |
The O320 in my RV6A sat four months while I first had the Hartzell
constant speed prop overhauled and checked for compliance with the recent
Hartzell AD. It failed. So after checking on prices, etc. I next
ordered a new Hartzell CS through Vans (a very good price for a new
prop). The prop arrived direct from Hartzell last week after 8 weeks of
waiting (which was the wait period advised by Vans, so no surprise
there). Installed the prop, rolled out the plane and tried to start it.
Since at least four months had passed since it last ran, I checked the
fuel tanks for water (none) and after cranking awhile it finally fired.
Whoa - it ran horribly rough. Absolutely shaking the whole plane. The
rough running was the same with either mag. The engine would accelerate
with more throttle but the shaking was too much. I would guess at least
two cylinders are not firing (however I did not remember to touch each
cylinder after shut down to verify that one or more cylinders were not
working -- I always remember tricks like that as I'm driving home from
the airport). When I got out of the cockpit and inspected the engine,
fuel was flowing from the carb and steadily dripping . Took quite a
while for it to stop dripping.
So I'm assuming that the needle valve is stuck and the engine basically
is flooding ( too rich). . I did not notice any unusual smoke from the
exhaust during the brief run.
>From these symptoms, is a stuck float -needle valve the likely problem?
If so what tests might confirm that this is the problem? If the needle
valve is stuck what is the cure? Any and all comments and suggestions
will be welcome.
Thanks. Jan Rehler RV6A trying to fly again, Corpus Christi, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin & Theresa Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>
>I agree with Jeffrey. I have an EFI on a Mazda 13B in an RV-6A. I really
>did not want to run a excess fuel return line to each tank with the
>switching, etc. So, after giving it some thought, I designed a smaller
>"header" tank 3"x2"x8" mounted on the firewall. Fuel comes into the header
>tank from the wing tanks. I have two EFI High pressure fuel pumps each with
>its own separate pluming to the header tank. The pumps extract fuel from
>the header tank and feed it to the injector's fuel rail. Unused/excess fuel
>is fed back to the header tank. Any fuel injected into the engine creates a
>partial vacuum in the header tank which in turn draws fuel from the wing
>tank. The partial vacuum is sufficient to draw fuel 2 feet vertically from
>a marine fuel tank I placed on the ground when the engine was operating on
>the test stand. The vacuum is sufficient to almost suck the tank flat when
>I once that once I forgot to open the fuel vent on the plastic marine fuel
>tank - so PLENTY of "suction" to pull fuel from the wing tanks. Also VERY
>important to ensure wing tanks ALWAYS has an unrestricted vent to
>atmosphere - other wise the strong "suction" could cause the wing tank to
>collapse or at least pull the wing skin in between the ribs. In any case, I
>am sure there are other alternatives, but that is one that has worked for
>me.
>
>Ed
>
>andersone(at)bah.com
Are there any aircraft flying with this type of suction fed header
tank arrangement?
I've got two concerns:
1. The suction is basically the difference in pressure between the
pump inlet pressure and atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressue is
lower at altitude, so the amount of suction will be decreased.
2. The amount of head you can draw from will vary with the g loading.
At 6 g you will only be able to pull fuel 1/6 as far.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Take care,
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: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
>
>
>>Very good post. Could you list the parts that he puts in new & the ones
>>that are used on condition. You don't need a cor?
>
>The price was outright and included the core provided by Aero Sport. It
>also included new magnetos, ignition harness, light weight starter, light
>weight (40 amp) alternator, spark plugs, inter cylider baffles, fuel pump,
>new or overhauled carburetor, starter ring gear, and first run steel cylinders.
>
>Chrome cyliders were also available at the same price - steel was my choice.
>
>Aero Sport shipped a complete list of parts, part numbers, and part serial
>numbers with the engine. It was a fairly long list, so I'm sure to be
>leaving something out, but I closed up the crate again with the paperwork
>inside.
>
>They also incuded a very complete test-run report. Once the engine was
>test-run, the carburetor was removed and the oil drained and replaced with
>inhibiting oil. Theoretically it's ready to be stored for up to a year, but
>I'd like to see it fly sooner than that.
>
>Continued availability at this price was dependant on availability of
>suitable crankshafts. When the supply of used cranks is gone, new cranks
>will be used and the price will go up. But you'd have a new crank instead
>of used.
>
>There was no extra charge for crating, and it was shipped Consolidated
>Freightways, freight collect. The plywood and 2x4 crate was very
>substantial - it was very obvious they'd shipped an engine or two before.
>You could have parked a bus on the box without hurting anything.
>
>I got exactly what I asked for, and excellent service. If you're
>requirements differ, Aero Sport will build the engine to your specs. O360s
>were also available at a higher, but still very competitive price.
>
>I thought finding a suitable engine for my RV would be the hardest part of
>the project - I know I spent more time worrying about it than any other
>thing. Turns out it wasn't so hard after all.
>
>- Mike
>hartmann(at)sound.net
>
Mike,
Why did you choose steel instead of chrome? Only curious and somewhat
uneducated on aircraft engines. All the ads list chrome as their "cream of
the crop". My automotive experience tells me that chrome would be trickier
and take longer to break in. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Devlin" <jdevlin(at)americus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: foot actuated dimpler plans (a.k.a. laser-guided sledge hammer |
dimpler!)
Kevin,
Your foot actuated drop hammer is a winner. Saves lots of time.
Analogous to to a one arm paper hanger with the itch tho. I've showed many
wannabees this setup. They say they'll use it when they build. Have you
ever considered putting cymbals on your knees for musical entertainment
while building? Just kidding. This setup is great! Cost me about $25 to
make. There I go again trying to beat the system. But then again
innovation usaully goes against the flow.
Best regards,
John Devlin, RV 6A, Skinning fuselage, building chevy power plant
----------
> From: kevin lane <n3773(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To: rv list
> Subject: RV-List: foot actuated dimpler plans (a.k.a. laser-guided sledge
hammer dimpler!)
> Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:31 PM
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | snowmd(at)cavemen.net (Snow, Mark) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>
>
>>Mike,
>>
> Why can't aircraft utilize this stuff. No carb ice,
>>automatic leaning control (a function of manifold pressure-less air at
>>altitude, less fuel.), no dreaded hot restart problems and a host of other
>>uncharted benefits fostered by this technology. Let's brainstorm and change
>>the world.... :-)
>>
>>Jon Elford
>>RV 6A #25201
>
>Jon,
> I,m surprised that yours has been the only response to my comment about
>EFI. Its seems to me that EFI on a Lyc is the single best mod that could be
>made to that engine to bring it into the modern age. Silence the critics who
>call it a lycosaur. After all, the chevy engine that has received so much
>bandwidth here is derived from a design that originated in the early
>fifties. The only thing that makes it a "modern high tech engine" is the
>electronic controls bolted to it.
> Keep in mind that EFI in an aircraft engine can be much simpler than that
>installed in an auto. No concerns with off idle throttle response,
>driveability, EPA guidelines, etc... RPM, MAP, and possibly EGT and throttle
>position should be sufficient inputs to an ECU to run an aircraft EFI
>system. If there is nothing on the market when the time comes for me I will
>attempt to design something myself. My fuel tanks are already plumbed with
>return lines.
>
>Mike Wills
>RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
>willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>I've been flying behind an SDS EM-1 EFI system for the last 310 hours (18
months) in my C-85 equipped Dragonfly. I have been very satisfied with the
system. The sensor requirements are a TPS, map sensor, oil temp sensor, and
air temp sensor. The system does have an in-cockpit, adjustable mixture
control, which is used more for initial setup of the system. You can
program the computer in the air. Cold starts are a non-issue. The engine
starts on the first or second blade. Factory support has been excellent.
Price is reasonable, around $1200 for everything. I run mine in an
open-loop mode (user programmable), so an O-2 sensor is not necessary,
although I do have one. It has died a very slow death (lasted about 100
hours)running a blend of av gas and pump gas. I built my own intake
manifold for this EFI system, which has improved the breathing of the
engine. It performs much better than a stock C-85 although there are other
modifications. I would recommend this system to any four- or six-cylinder
engine owner willing to do the necessary work to adapt the system to their
engine. Providing they are willing to accept the fact that this system is
TOTALLY electron dependant.
Mark snow
48RV
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Schrader <leschrader(at)dvsdghse.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
Jon Elford wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
Going through the list messages the last few days and viewing the
multitude of auto vs lycoming views has been tedious, but it seems "we
have finally gotten to the meat". Each camp has it's own views and
positive features. The lycoming is a proven design with a minimum of
parts and simple "beefy" old time technology (by todays standards). The
auto engines are highly engineered (read high tech) reliable and
effecient engines that rely on higher rpm to produce rated power and
torque. This requires a transmission or gear reduction to be usable with
either an aircraft or automobile. These also are highly refined and well
engineered in most cases, but....the auto conversion has to have this
additional system in the power train in order to be effective....more
parts, more chance of a failure. The lycoming is a simple beefy engine
that isn't too efficient in it's existing format, but in most cases it's
mechanically reliable and doesn't need any sort of gear reduction. Now
for the meat of my message....it makes a lot of sense to take the best
of both worlds....a simple beefy engine with a reputable mechanical
history and the "high tech" reliable accessories to control it. This
might supply the majority of builders with a reliable power plant that
is also efficient (for a change). Let's hear from the producers of these
accessories or people that have used them and their results. There are
several ignition systems and fuel injection systems that are available
but I've heard very little on the list about them. Also the reliability
and ease of installation of the various starter and alternator systems
available. Come on... make the effort and share the information....it
would save a lot of people the time, money and frustration of trying to
improve their aircraft with something that has already been tried or
found unsuitable.
For the people using or developing auto conversions, my hat's off to
you......that's what experimental aircraft are all about.... the freedom
to try alternatives for improvement.
Larry Schrader
RV-4, ordering finish kit
leschrader(at)dvsdghse.com
"still squashin rivits"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Kelley <patk(at)mail.ic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro-seal gap filling properties |
Stephen Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> There is a small gap, about 1/16" or so, between one of the rib flange
> tabs at the nose of my tank and the skin. No big deal on the internal
> ribs, but on the inboard and outboard ribs this gap will have to be
> filled with pro-seal when I get around to that messy job. Has anybody
> had this situation and flown for awhile without leaks? I could put a
> small piece of scrap between the rib flange and the skin, but I don't
> know if that would just cause more problems.
My -6A wing kit came with the tank access plate and reinforcing rings
pre-cut. Inside the ring were two pieces cut to conform to the leading
edge; these were meant for just the purpose you mention. I found that a
little filing could make them fit almost perfectly; they also cover the
forward tooling hole on the rib. I can't imagine that the -8 kit
doesn't have them.
PatK -RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling techniques |
| From: | bob.char.reeves(at)juno.com (Robert L Reeves) |
I used a neat dimpling tool that I borrowed from a friend. It was a deep
throated bench riveter with a air cylinder from a truck air brake system
mounted on the top where you would hit it with a hammer and a foot
operated air valve. Left your hands free to guide the sheet onto the
dimple die. I rigged up a light similar to the lazer light to shine on
the sheet to guide the hole to the die. My buddy paid in the
neighborhood of $300 for it, but it looked like it wouldn't be to hard to
make one yourself. I can find out from him where he bought it, if anyone
is interested. It really speeded up dimpling the skins.
Bob Reeves
Building Bearhawk, Flying RV-4
Hidden River Airport,
Sarasota, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Dimpling & Countersink |
I bought a 2 # rubber dead-blow hammer from Harbor Freight and banged and
dimpled my way through the whole kit. The hammer is starting to get a little
ragged around the edges but the C-Frame tool still looks new.
Gene Francis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>>I've been flying behind an SDS EM-1 EFI system for the last 310 hours (18
>months) in my C-85 equipped Dragonfly.
>Mark snow
>48RV
SDS has a website at:
http://www.sdsefi.com/
This system is close to what I have in mind. The one thing that I see
lacking is that, as a system designed for auto use, it lacks the redundancy
that most pilots would like to have to give them a warm fuzzy feeling. I
understand they now have a system for the Subaru guys that is redundant, but
its cost is comparable to the Airflow Performance mechanical system. There
is a good technical description/article of this system in the book
Alternative Engines published by Mick Myal who also publishes Contact! magazine.
What if anything have you done to provide some redundancy/protection for
your electrical system?
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
>
>Check out DynaCam.com. Several pages of interesting stuff. Seems ideally
suited for an RV application. And they're looking for investors who have
net worth >1 million, which, I guess, is most of us - right?
Saw this engine run at Copperstate. The only running example of its type
and it looked kind of crude. These guys were far more interested in talking
to potential investors than potential customers. If you gotta have a
certified alternative, look at a Lom, or Franklin.
Mike Wills
RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RBusick505 <RBusick505(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro-seal gap filling properties |
<< I could put a
small piece of scrap between the rib flange and the skin, but I don't
know if that would just cause more problems. >>
As I recall Van supplies parts just for this purpose. Regardless, I put in
pieces shaped the same as the rib and about 4"long. Prosealed the whole thing
together, sealed all gaps.
Bob Busick
RV-6
Fremont CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | snowmd(at)cavemen.net (Snow, Mark) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I would recommend this system to any four- or six-cylinder
>engine owner willing to do the necessary work to adapt the system to their
>engine. Providing they are willing to accept the fact that this system is
>TOTALLY electron dependant.
>
>Mark snow
>48RV
>
The EFI web site is www.sdsefi.com
Mark Snow
48RV
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don McNamara <mcnamara(at)sbt.infi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question: Yikes! Primer |
Richard TREANOR wrote:
> My plan was to Etch, Alodine and prime (with S-W GBP-988). I don't
> want to get into the hassles and health risks associated with handling
> the epoxy primers.
Rich--
Sherwin Williams GBP 988 is a self-etching, two-part primer. I don't
think you need to etch the surface separately.
--Don McNamara
are the rules
unless your certificate reads otherwise.
________________________________________________________________________________
changes from the norm are "standard". Specifically, I'm wondering if
the restriction regarding congested and densely populated airspace is
removable for RVs.
Basically, we're not supposed to fly our RVs over densely populated
areas or through congested airspace (such as victor airways). I didn't
see any wording that made exceptions for takeoff and landing, which
means I wouldn't be able to fly out of my home airport. It also means
that you have to fly around all the towns you would otherwise be using
as reference points on a VFR flight. And I don't even want to *think*
about the effects on an IFR flight.
Comments anyone? -Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Qmax LLC <QmaxLLC(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Van's primer vs. ours |
Well, I thought I had it all figured out and then the thought occurred to
me....Van's says that the parts are already primed when he ships them. So, if
we apply our own brand of primer because (we think) Van's isn't good enough,
then aren't we simply applying a tough coat over a weak one?
The result would be that the final paint and our primer are no more firmly
bonded than if we had never applied our better primer. Or to put it another
way, our primer is not being applied to the aluminum, it's applied to the
original primer....so where's the long-term gain.
Roughing up the part would not be sufficient to remove 100% of the original
primer so it would be necessary to dip the part, especially the non-flat ones.
I know this doesn't jibe with the stories of needing an Uzi to scratch the new
primer, but corrosion starts in microscoping voids where a single molecule can
get to the aluminum. We've all seen cars with well bonded paint at the center
but rusted out at the edges.
So where's the advantage, or, alternatively, mistaken assumption on part?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Tim Sweemwr wrote:
>> What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
>
>Electric-- $1200 vs Vacuum $400 You do the Math!:^)
>
I think you left out a few items in the math, like.... the whole vacuum
system !!
Waddaya think it's free ??.
IMHO, the DG is obsolete. So, the entire cost of the vacuum system should
be added to the cost of the Horizon. I think the electric one is simpler
and should be more reliable. I plan to go electric for the horizon as my
primary gyro. Should save weight complexity and, I think, it's about a
draw cost wise.
John
is it just me, or is getting the nose ribs to behave and line up
with the skin rivet lines a pain in the royal KEESTER or what?!?!! Is it
easier to move them around if the inside vinyl is removed...providind a
smoother surface to tweak the ribs into place with the broom stick?
Inquiring minds want to know..and so does mine...;)
Brian Denk
-8 #379
fitting skins into eternity
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald) |
Snip>>>I was wondering if anyone on the list knows of a Mazda 13B
install in a RV-6A?
first to to see if anyone has drawn first blood. If you are uncomfortable
responding on the list you can contact me personally.
Thanks,
Pat Kirkpatrick<<| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)meridium.com> |
| Subject: | Inexpensive Used Hand Squeezer |
I called Browns this am to check out their surplus tools and found out
they have a few Hand Squeezers with 3 inch yokes for (I believe) 95$.
As I recall just the new handles for the Avery or Tatco run about that
much and a 3 inch yoke, mamma mia! They are the
Aircraft Tool Inc. model. Not to be confused with ATS.
I just bought a die grinder off of them.
There number is 1-800-587-3883 if anyone is interested.
Gary Fesenbek,
RV6AQ empenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HinkleyC(at)fca.gov |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea |
* * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
Brian,
Lining up the nose ribs is a pain however a little work in the beginning
will save you allot of time when you are drilling.
We attached a piece of wood to the end of our wing jigs and drilled a hole
to match the 3/16" stamping hole at the tip of the leading edge ribs. We
then used a 1/8" threaded rod with nuts and washers on both sides of each
rib, this rod ran through all of the leading edge ribs and the piece of
wood attached to the jig. We tightened the nuts on the wood to hole the
rod in place,
then we started at the outboard rib next to the wood and used a square
against each rib make sure it was vertical. After doing each rib this way
you should be able to see all of your center lines when you place you skin
on.
We found that on some of the ribs we needed to move the center line left or
right just a little. To move the center line we used the tip of a dart, if
you don't have a dart then a good "all" would work.
Curtis Hinkley
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "joseph.wiza" <joe(at)mcione.com> |
This past summer I visited Sport Arrow/progressive Air Service Kamloops
BC. I toured the factory and from what I saw it was a first class
operation. I bought a lycoming 160 hp Engine rebuilt to factory spec's for
$9700 plus shipping. I haven't run the engine yet but I'm not worried about
it. I talked to some people at Vans and they assured me they were reputable
folks. They do a first class job in packing and pickling the engine. For
more info call or write
ATTN: Bart Lalonde
Progressive Air Service
2965 Airport Dr
Kamloops, BC. V2B7W8
Fax 2503761995
PH2503766226
A short distance from Kamaloops is a place called Blind Bay Nes1tled in the
mountains (very scenic). Here I met a gentleman called Eustace Bowhay and
a friend (who's name I forgot) that have designed a float kit for the RV6A.
The RV6A was on Floats at the time (another first class job).
Today I received a call from Eustace, he said they had test flown the RV6A
float plane. They climbed at 800 fpm to 8000ft at 110 mph indicated. At
this altitude
they cruised at 140 mph (gps) in both directions (75% Power). The float
kit should be available in the spring. When ordering your RV6A kit from
Vans that is the time to let them know you want the float fittings
installed if you are interested. For more info
contact
Eustace Bowhay
3331 Mcbride rd rr1
Blind Bay, BC, V0E1H
Ph 2506754428
No
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Sweemer" <teetime(at)flinthills.com> |
Hey gang,
Y'all have given me a lot of food for thought about the gyros. Thanks.
Tim
RV4
fuselage done, waiting to get last kit,
doing instrument panel and ergonomics
homework
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
I don't suppose TBO was an issue with the torpedos?
hal
> You are correct about the DynaCam engine being based on a WWII torpedo
> engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hatwell <hatters(at)overvne.demon.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
In message <7ba89cf5.348e1eda(at)aol.com>, KBoatri144
writes
>
>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.
>
>
>Second, if the problem is in the rivets, is there a source of flush pop rivets
>which break off more cleanly?
>
>
>Kyle Boatright
Kyle
The problem is your pop riviter, The hole in the pop rivit tool is much
larger than the shank of the pop rivit.
I had the same problem. What I did was to get the die insert that was
just smaller that the pop rivit shank and open it up with a drill sized
to just clear the shank. Have had no problem since with jagged edges.
--
Rob Hatwell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
Larry, I have a 13B in a Rv-6A awaiting Air worthiness inspection. A fellow
RVer has built a WEB page out of some of my photos of the installation and
there is a written summary of adaptions. Web page is:
http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/
enjoy
Ed
Andersone(at)bah.com
----------
From: Larry Mac Donald
Subject: RV-List: mazda 13B
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 1:12PM
Snip>>>I was wondering if anyone on the list knows of a Mazda 13B
install in a RV-6A?
first to to see if anyone has drawn first blood. If you are uncomfortable
responding on the list you can contact me personally.
Thanks,
Pat Kirkpatrick<<| Date: | Dec 12, 1997 |
| From: | snowmd(at)cavemen.net (Snow, Mark) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
>
> What if anything have you done to provide some redundancy/protection for
>your electrical system?
>
>Mike Wills
>RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
>willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
For the last 310 hrs. the only redundancy,back up I've had is the
alternator-battery combination.I do have a very bright low voltage warning
light that comes on at 12.5 volts. On one flight not too long ago the L.V.
light came on,I noticed it right away then looked at the voltmeter and
realized that my alternator had quit. I told my passenger that we couldn't
proceed,turned around and went back to my home airport.I then decided that
it would be wise to have battery redundancy which I have not yet installed.
I had however recently replaced the main battery (as per Bob nuckols) and
plan to continue doing this yearly from now on
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Hartmann <hartmann(at)sound.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
>Why did you choose steel instead of chrome? Only curious and somewhat
>uneducated on aircraft engines. All the ads list chrome as their "cream of
>the crop". My automotive experience tells me that chrome would be trickier
>and take longer to break in. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
I'm not convinced that chrome is any better than steel overall and it does
have the downside you mentioned of taking longer to break in. Several of
the engine experts I spoke with said that you could expect higher oil
consumption over the life of the engine with chrome. In fact, the only
advantage to chrome that I could get some kind of agreement on was that it
might be better than steel in an engine that flew infrequently . My feeling
is that there are so many other things on an aircraft that depend on regular
use to survive that I'd find it a better home if I couldn't fly it once or
twice a week. Once regular use is established, steel seemed to have the
advantage over chrome.
It's a personal preference.
- Mike
hartmann(at)sound.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I have an EFI on my mazda 13B engine on an RV-6A. All EFI's require some
electronic signal trigger to start the injection timing. While there are
several potential sources for the trigger, I used the square wave signal
generated from the negative lead of the lead ignition coil (have two
independent ignition coils). That worked just fine triggering the EFI UNTIL
the ignition coil failed. While I had a second coil to continue to provide
the spark, the failure of the first coil eliminated the EFI trigger signal
and thus - NO fuel injection. Fortunately, this happened during a ground
run-up. I now have two independent sources for the EFI electronic trigger
signal. Just thought I would pass along my experience.
Ed
andersone(at)bah.com
----------
From: Snow, Mark
Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 11:51AM
I would recommend this system to any four- or six-cylinder
>engine owner willing to do the necessary work to adapt the system to their
>engine. Providing they are willing to accept the fact that this system is
>TOTALLY electron dependant.
>
>Mark snow
>48RV
>
The EFI web site is www.sdsefi.com
Mark Snow
48RV
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea |
Hi Curtis,
You and Al ever get to gether to get your tail dragger check out?
Also, how is project coming??
Ed
----------
From: HinkleyC
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 1:25PM
* * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
Brian,
Lining up the nose ribs is a pain however a little work in the beginning
will save you allot of time when you are drilling.
We attached a piece of wood to the end of our wing jigs and drilled a hole
to match the 3/16" stamping hole at the tip of the leading edge ribs. We
then used a 1/8" threaded rod with nuts and washers on both sides of each
rib, this rod ran through all of the leading edge ribs and the piece of
wood attached to the jig. We tightened the nuts on the wood to hole the
rod in place,
then we started at the outboard rib next to the wood and used a square
against each rib make sure it was vertical. After doing each rib this way
you should be able to see all of your center lines when you place you skin
on.
We found that on some of the ribs we needed to move the center line left or
right just a little. To move the center line we used the tip of a dart, if
you don't have a dart then a good "all" would work.
Curtis Hinkley
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> |
| Subject: | Pro-seal gap filling properties |
On the RV-6 you carefully fashion backing plates to fill the gap at the
nose rib on the outside ribs of the fuel tank. I also used a generous
coating of Pro-Seal to make sure it did not leak.
Steve Soule
Huntington, Vermont
Still jigging fuselage bulkheads
-----Original Message-----There is a small gap, about 1/16" or
so, between one of the rib flange
tabs at the nose of my tank and the skin. No big deal on the
internal
ribs, but on the inboard and outboard ribs this gap will have to
be
filled with pro-seal when I get around to that messy job.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 CHRIS.BROWNE(at)BGE.com wrote:
> The short answer to your question about EFI harkens right back to
> the alternative engine debate. Once again, it has to do with
> regulations, R&D costs, and the market. As long as people buy the
> certified engine at the price that Lycoming gets for it, why
> should the company invest profits into an improved product which
> will have to be recertified? Enter the auto conversion with all
> its more modern EFI, etc. As soon as the Lyc boys start losing
> substantial sales in the homebuilt market, they might start
> listening.
Chris,
Just a historical note. Both Lycoming and Continental experimented with and
fitted full electronic fuel and ignition systems to their engines in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. Lycoming extensively test-flew their system
in, as I recall, a Comanche.
Lycoming did find some fuel savings - especially in climb and descent where
the ordinary pilot doesn't lean properly - but, overall, made a business
decision against going into production with the system. Basically, the
cost/benefit wasn't there at the time (as they saw it).
History is repeating itself - Lycoming has been running the Hamilton
Standard FADEC on an IO-540 in the test cell. They're also working with
Unison on a full FADEC version of the LASAR system.
So it's not entirely fair to say that they don't do the R&D - from what
I've seen, they've looked at pretty much every tweak discussed here. What
they don't do is put something into production unless they are SURE they
will make money with it. That's the market at work.
If their customers (and that's still largely the airframe OEMs) were to switch
to brand X because it had EFI, or an auto block, or whatever, you can be
sure they would switch in a heartbeat as well.
But it's a very conservative industry. The airframe makers, and that includes
Vans, simply have no interest in offering themselves up for the liability or
plain PITA factor that a new engine might incur if that new engine doesn't
address a clear need or represent a substantial technological improvement.
The clear needs are things like filling a horsepower void (which is
basically Orenda's business plan) or responding to a different regulatory
or economic climate (which is what all the diesel guys, including Lycoming
and Continental) are doing.
The technical improvements being bandied around are, generally, improvements
to engine ancilliaries (fuel injection, ignition) and there's simply no
reason those same improvements can't be retro-fitted to existing aircraft
engine designs. The dinosaurs have been there, done that, and the systems
are today available in both certified and uncertified form. Not a lot of
the OEMs (any?) are biting.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the CORE engines as embodied by Lyc.,
Franklin, and Continental design are HIGHLY efficient from the standpoint
of fuel efficiency and horsepower to weight. That's a very bitter pill
for many to swallow. People look around and they see double overhead
whatzits, roller this and that, etc. and they call this modern with the
implication that modern = newer = better.
Guys, I hate to say it, but revolutionary piston engine development ended
with the end of the second world war. That's aircraft, marine, and automotive.
Since then it's been detail refinement and moves to address specific auto
needs (cost of goods sold, packaging, emissions, drivability, and
fuel economy at low specific output).
All the other stuff: multi-valve heads, liquid-cooling, overhead cams,
roller rockers, direct injection, etc. was invented back before television.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
Hal,
Not a flame, but do you consider a 747 a light aircraft?
Scott Gesele N506RV
>So, are 747's at risk being all electric or do they have vacuum sytems?
>
>hal
>>
>> >What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Most light aircraft have vacuum driven A/H's and D/G's in conjunction with
>> an electric T/C. There are two main reasons for this:
>>
>> 1. The lost of either the electric or vacuum system will not disable all
>> gyros. It is impossible to control an aircraft in the soup with all gyros
>inop.
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <harje(at)proaxis.com> |
>
>747's and in fact most jets use internal battery backed gyros I am told
>by a knowledgable driver of same, at about $3000 a pop.
Not the ones I flew. The Capt. set was on the emergency battery bus
and the co-pilots was on the instrument bus. The the little standby H.G.
was powered by a seperate battery. If you got down to that you were in a
world of hurt. They ran just about 24 hrs a day other than when the
airplane overnighted some where, which wasn't very often.
A few of us here decided on electric from Chief because comparing
the complete systems, the price difference wasn't that bad and I didn't have
to run the vacumn pump off my engine. And having spent lots of hours with
electric, I trust it. But I don't intend to fly serious IFR with this
airplane or with one set of anything including pilots. IMHO.
The best Holidays ever to you and yours.
Denny RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
>>Check out DynaCam.com. Several pages of interesting stuff. Seems ideally
>suited for an RV application. And they're looking for investors who have
>net worth >1 million, which, I guess, is most of us - right?
>
> Saw this engine run at Copperstate. The only running example of its type
>and it looked kind of crude. These guys were far more interested in talking
>to potential investors than potential customers. If you gotta have a
>certified alternative, look at a Lom, or Franklin.
Been following this engine peripherally for over 15 years. It's
got some interesting points not the least of which is low parts
count and lack of vibration. I spoke with Lopresti after the
Piper test bed aircraft flew . . . have you seen the RPM versus
torque curves for this engine? As I recall, it would really like
to be swinging a longer prop at lower rpms. Addition of prop shaft
gearing to stay with 6' props was a bit more of a hassle than
anyone wanted to mess with. Longer gear legs on the airplane to
handle longer props were equally unattractive.
That's an engine looking for an airplane.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
>>Check out DynaCam.com. Several pages of interesting stuff. Seems ideally
>suited for an RV application. And they're looking for investors who have
>net worth >1 million, which, I guess, is most of us - right?
>
> Saw this engine run at Copperstate. The only running example of its type
>and it looked kind of crude. These guys were far more interested in talking
>to potential investors than potential customers. If you gotta have a
>certified alternative, look at a Lom, or Franklin.
Been following this engine peripherally for over 15 years. It's
got some interesting points not the least of which is low parts
count and lack of vibration. I spoke with Lopresti after the
Piper test bed aircraft flew . . . have you seen the RPM versus
torque curves for this engine? As I recall, it would really like
to be swinging a longer prop at lower rpms. Addition of prop shaft
gearing to stay with 6' props was a bit more of a hassle than
anyone wanted to mess with. Longer gear legs on the airplane to
handle longer props were equally unattractive.
Perhaps this is an engine still looking for an airplane?
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies was Engine Hop-up Mods |
Listers,
I find the "great engine debate" interesting & sometimes informative.
It has ,however, been needlessly tedious and time consuming to read.
I wish to make you aware of some proper RV list etiquette. When
replying to a long post, you should delete (snip) unnecessary verbage
from the original post to which you are replying. Leave just enough to
let the reader know what the original
question/opinion was. Many of your replies have included two or three
previous posts in total.
All posts to the list get saved onto Matt's hard drive. His storage
space has finite limits. The alternative engine debate has wasted a lot
of this space because most listers engaging in it, aren't snipping the
posts they are replying to. Excess verbage makes reading the list
tedious, as sometimes we must wade through 30-40 lines of repetition to
find a 3 line reply.
Matt provides us with the list for free. It is a great
courtesy; one
that shouldn't be abused. If you are unsure of how to edit your email
replies, please ask. I'll be happy to explain how it's done.
I'm not raggin' on anyone; just pointing out how to make the list
easier to read, not to mention keeping Matt happy.
Thanks for the RV list Matt. I sure appreciate it.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>> 747's and in fact most jets use internal battery backed gyros I am told
>> by a knowledgable driver of same, at about $3000 a pop.
>>
>>This is totally false. I don't know who this guy is that told you
>>that, but nothing could further from the truth.
>
About 15 years ago, instrument companies (Jet Laboratories was
one of them) developed a line of backup batteries for electric
gyros. The major market for these products was bizjets and even
some turboprops. The battery packs were housed in ARINC style
enclosures for incorporation into popular avionics racks of the
time. Some airplane owners would run a few other goodies besides
gyros from these batteries. Given the complexity of air transport
aircraft and the multiple redundancy for power paths to critical
systems, I'd find it pretty strange that any sort of backup battery
would show up in these machines for operation of gyros . . . these
airplanes have so many things that REQUIRE electrical power for
comfortable termination of flight, backing up just the gyros would
be like going to fight a housefire with a glass of water.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wayne bonesteel <wayneb(at)oakweb.com> |
What replaces the vacuum DG ? vertical card ?
> IMHO, the DG is obsolete. So, the entire cost of the vacuum system should
> be added to the cost of the Horizon. I think the electric one is simpler
> and should be more reliable. I plan to go electric for the horizon as my
> primary gyro. Should save weight complexity and, I think, it's about a
> draw cost wise.
>
> John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
Hi Richard,
Header is down low on the firewall about where a gascolator? would
normally be, so below most of fuel level in wing tanks, also I do have the
normal boost pump between fuel tank selector switch and header tank. I have
drained the header tank empty, left the boost pump off and turned on the EFI
pump and it generates enough suction (combined with header being at low
part of fuel flow) to give me 45psi of fuel pressure within 3 seconds. I
may have failed to mention that the fuel return to the header tank is thru a
pressure regulator which keeps pressure in the fuel rail even with the pumps
off. The only failure mode unique to this installation that I could come
up with it that if the header tank developed an air leak (destroying the
partial vaccum). However, it was welded outof 1/4 inch alumn and pressure
tested to 250psi, so don't expect that to happen. Even if it did fuel flow
could be maintained by turning on the boost pump long enough to get on the
ground safety. Hope this answers your questions. By the way there is a WEB
page with photos of my EFI set up at http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/
----------
From: Richard Chandler
Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 5:13AM
What keeps the header from draining? Can the EFI generate suction when it's
sucking air instead of fuel? Or do you have a boost pump down low?
--
Richard Chandler
RV-6: Garage bought and being finished, saving for tools and tail kit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
Good point - none of us (or very few) do this for any reason other than the
challenge and fun of doing it.
Ed
----------
From: CHRIS.BROWNE
Subject: Re[2]: RV-List: Engines for RVs
Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 8:13PM
I think it is easy to miss the point about the alternative engine
experimenters. I don't believe that anyone planning a non-Lyc.
installation will tell you that you should install an alternate
engine if don't want to. Most of them do it for the challenge,
not just to find the cheapest option out there. I am looking at
a O-320-H2AD from a 172 with 3136 TT and 857 SMOH for $5500. I
could potentially run that engine for another 1000 hrs or so (at
*least* 5 years for me). But I, like many others, I enjoy the
challenge and are willing to take the time to experiment with
something new and different. For me, its the primary motivation
for building a RV to begin with. I am also looking at an ad for
a 1968 IFR equipped Mooney M20G for $36,000 which I could buy and
fly now, but what's the fun in that?
Chris Browne
Chris.Browne(at)BGE.COM
Building -6A tail jig and considering a Franklin ... or a Mazda
...
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engines for RVs
Date: 12/11/97 3:14 AM
Mike Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> 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. ...
>
Everthing Mike said is true... Not everyone has the time to deal with
the changes you are going to have to make with alternative power.
Craig Hiers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
You make Two valid points. However, regarding the first point, whether you
use my header tank arrangement or simply feed fuel to the mechanical fuel
pump of a normal lycoming, you are relying of the same pressure differental
to move fuel from the tank to the pump. Even if you turn on the boost pump
you are still relying on the pressure differential between the input side
of the pump and that in the fuel tank to get fuel to the boost pump. If you
think not, try plugging up the vent to you fuel tank (no, don't really do
it) and turning on your boost pump, you will find that eventually fuel will
cease to flow, skin between your tank ribs may start to "suck" in, etc.
because as fuel is removed, fuel will cease to flow to the pump once the
internal tank pressure equals the pump inlet pressure. If you think about
it, that is always the case unless you actually have a submerged fuel pump
in your tank.
Even in the case of "6" gs, fuel flow may not be effected as much as you
would think, depending on the oreintation and duration you may not even
notice it. If your pump "sucks" from the lowest point in your fuel system
then 6 Gs will only result in more fuel flow (assuming the Gs are positive)
to that point. Now if you pump can not pump against the 6 gs then you will
start to have fuel starvation, but again how long are you going to pull 6
gs??
Ed
----------
From: Kevin & Theresa Horton
Subject: RE: (Fwd) RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 6:03AM
>
>I agree with Jeffrey. I have an EFI on a Mazda 13B in an RV-6A. I really
>did not want to run a excess fuel return line to each tank with the
>switching, etc. So, after giving it some thought, I designed a smaller
>"header" tank 3"x2"x8" mounted on the firewall. Fuel comes into the header
>tank from the wing tanks. I have two EFI High pressure fuel pumps each
with
>its own separate pluming to the header tank. The pumps extract fuel from
>the header tank and feed it to the injector's fuel rail. Unused/excess
fuel
>is fed back to the header tank. Any fuel injected into the engine creates
a
>partial vacuum in the header tank which in turn draws fuel from the wing
>tank. The partial vacuum is sufficient to draw fuel 2 feet vertically from
>a marine fuel tank I placed on the ground when the engine was operating on
>the test stand. The vacuum is sufficient to almost suck the tank flat
when
>I once that once I forgot to open the fuel vent on the plastic marine fuel
>tank - so PLENTY of "suction" to pull fuel from the wing tanks. Also VERY
>important to ensure wing tanks ALWAYS has an unrestricted vent to
>atmosphere - other wise the strong "suction" could cause the wing tank to
>collapse or at least pull the wing skin in between the ribs. In any case,
I
>am sure there are other alternatives, but that is one that has worked for
>me.
>
>Ed
>
>andersone(at)bah.com
Are there any aircraft flying with this type of suction fed header
tank arrangement?
I've got two concerns:
1. The suction is basically the difference in pressure between the
pump inlet pressure and atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressue is
lower at altitude, so the amount of suction will be decreased.
2. The amount of head you can draw from will vary with the g loading.
At 6 g you will only be able to pull fuel 1/6 as far.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Take care,
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: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Good points on several topics. While I understand the "political" impacts
of the tragidy of any aircraft, but particular an homebuilt
"experimental", would have crashing into a school yard. However, while I do
recall several instances of "spam cans" with their lycomings crashing into
school yards, housing areas, or other "public" areas, I am unaware of a
single instance of a homebuilt with an alternative engine doing so.
Certainly could happen, but I am inclined to believe that those of us who
do go the alternative engine route may not be as complace about the engine
as those who stick "certified" engines. I review small aircraft
accident/incident reports and was astonished to see the number of times the
aircraft crashed because of engine failure given what is paid for a certfied
engine.
But, you are right the reality of the public outcry of such an incident
could have an adverse impact, but I don't think the type of engine whether
certified or not would make any difference. Frankly, I have been following
the alternative engine area for over 5 years and I am unaware of a single
serious accident involving an alternative engine, there may have been some,
but I am not aware of them and I look for them in order to learn what went
wrong. Again, I believe a well thought out alternative engine approach is
not any risker or as risky as some of the installations of aircraft engines
I have seen in homebuilts.
Viva La Difference
Ed
----------
From: Doug Rozendaal
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engines for RVs
Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 6:59PM
> I just find it hard to imagine
>than in 2050, we will still be flying the same lycomings that we do today.
> But, it may certainly be the case.
>
I doubt if Mr. Douglas Thought the US Gov't would be buying refurbed DC-3's
at the turn of the Century or Mr. Beech thought we would still be
flying -18's In 1997, But every night a Beech goes over my house at 8:15 PM
loaded with UPS freight. I predict that we will, infact still be flying
LyContasouris engines in 2050. I will go even farther, I predict we will
still be flying 450 P&W's. I also predict we will be flying personal Jets.
I can't wait! Who knows we might even be flying Vortec 4.3L. I know a guy
flying a Pietenpol with a model A engine and another with a Corvair.
Till then, I love my Lycoming. And I also have the utmost respect for those
of you who choose otherwise, As long as everyone realizes what you are
doing. We must be careful. Their are no promises that we can continue to
do this forever.
Some editorial if you will indulge me:
I spent the last few days with FAA deputy administrator Barry Valentine at
the Int'l Council of Airshows Conv. in LAS. He believes were it not that
John Denver was without a Medical Cert, we would be fighting the political
battle of our lives. Not that it has anything to do withit but it diverted
the media attention and placed some apparent blame on Mr.. Denver.
The first time someone dumps a homebuilt in a schoolyard we are going to be
in real big trouble. The buearacrats inside the belt way are answering to
the press and when some one puts a mike in front of their mouth and asks,
"You mean to tell me that anyone can build anything they feel like, stick a
lawnmower motor on the front of it and fly it over a schoolground or a
stadium?"
When that question is asked the answer will not be, "It is their right as an
American."
I have seen some very professional well thoughtout auto conversions, and I
think that they have merit. These project would have cost as much or nearly
so as a Lyc. and performed no better. I have also seen some where the
objective was not to learn but to save money. Some of these have no
business flying.
My thoughts are to those of you who are willing to spend time, effort, risk,
and money expanding this area more power to you. Just stay away from
stadiums and schoolyards. To those who are trying to save money, you won't.
Your $ per hour will be higher. You will spend more time fooling and less
time flying. And please don't do anything stupid. The Constitution does
not promise us anything about homebuilt airplanes.
One more aside, I was talking at ICAS to a friend who went to Germany to
train a PBY Catalina pilot, The landing fee was $800 US for every landing,
touch and goes included. Think about it. Then make sure you send a check to
your Senator and Congressman in the next election so when the FAA proposes
stupid things like that here he will remember who you are when you when you
write him.
My apologies for the long post.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)petroblend.com
http://www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Anderson Ed" <AndersonE(at)bah.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
Hi Mark, I have an EFI and to provide redundancy, I installed two 25AH
batteries (overkill I have been informed - but what the heck only a $100
bucks more for peace of mind). I have all crucial electrical systems wire
to a bus that I can have one or both batteries on. I can isolate either
battery incase of a short or other battery malfuction. I also have a
low/overvoltage light as well as a battery management module that monitors
the voltage in number 2 battery and automatically switches it into the
charging (alternator) when it needs it. Seems to work well on the ground
(still awaiting airworthiness inspectons). Also, I have a "live man"
circuit breaker that is normally open which when pushed in by passes all
switches in the crucial circuits providing power to the EFI and ignition
modules. I have been told that it is overengineered - but when my butt is
on the line, no such thing.
ed
----------
From: Snow, Mark
Subject: RE: RV-List: Engine Hop-up Mods
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 2:03PM
>
> What if anything have you done to provide some redundancy/protection for
>your electrical system?
>
>Mike Wills
>RV-4(wings done; saving for fuse kit)
>willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
For the last 310 hrs. the only redundancy,back up I've had is the
alternator-battery combination.I do have a very bright low voltage warning
light that comes on at 12.5 volts. On one flight not too long ago the L.V.
light came on,I noticed it right away then looked at the voltmeter and
realized that my alternator had quit. I told my passenger that we couldn't
proceed,turned around and went back to my home airport.I then decided that
it would be wise to have battery redundancy which I have not yet installed.
I had however recently replaced the main battery (as per Bob nuckols) and
plan to continue doing this yearly from now on
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | caummisa(at)arn.net (Richard Caummisar) |
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies was Engine Hop-up Mods |
Listers,
Since its "giving season" why not thank Matt with a
donation to keep this invaluable resource alive, growing
and well........You all know the address......If you don't go to his homepage
at: http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/index.htm
There's even a picture of him!! AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!
_________________________________________________________
> Matt provides us with the list for free. It is a great
>courtesy; one
> that shouldn't be abused.
>Thanks for the RV list Matt. I sure appreciate it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
>Chris,
>
>Just a historical note. Both Lycoming and Continental experimented with and
>fitted full electronic fuel and ignition systems to their engines in the
>late 1970s and early 1980s. Lycoming extensively test-flew their system
>in, as I recall, a Comanche.
The technology associate with this has advanced drmatically since the 70's -
early 80's.
>
>History is repeating itself - Lycoming has been running the Hamilton
>Standard FADEC on an IO-540 in the test cell. They're also working with
>Unison on a full FADEC version of the LASAR system.
>
>The technical improvements being bandied around are, generally, improvements
>to engine ancilliaries (fuel injection, ignition) and there's simply no
>reason those same improvements can't be retro-fitted to existing aircraft
>engine designs. The dinosaurs have been there, done that, and the systems
>are today available in both certified and uncertified form. Not a lot of
>the OEMs (any?) are biting.
So? I'm not an OEM, I'm a homebuilder.
>
>Contrary to conventional wisdom, the CORE engines as embodied by Lyc.,
>Franklin, and Continental design are HIGHLY efficient from the standpoint
>of fuel efficiency and horsepower to weight. That's a very bitter pill
>for many to swallow. People look around and they see double overhead
>whatzits, roller this and that, etc. and they call this modern with the
>implication that modern = newer = better.
Fact is that all of those little refinements when taken in total add up to a
signifcantly improved engine in the automotive world. Nothing wrong with
incremental refinement to improve the breed.
>
>Guys, I hate to say it, but revolutionary piston engine development ended
>with the end of the second world war. That's aircraft, marine, and automotive.
>Since then it's been detail refinement and moves to address specific auto
>needs (cost of goods sold, packaging, emissions, drivability, and
>fuel economy at low specific output).
>
>All the other stuff: multi-valve heads, liquid-cooling, overhead cams,
>roller rockers, direct injection, etc. was invented back before television.
>
>greg
Greg,
Agreed that the current aircraft engines available are as you say highly
efficient (although I believe fuel consumption could be improved upon,
especially considering how these things are used in the real world).
Obviously these manufacturers believe there are improvements to be had, or
they wouldnt be looking at FADEC's.
But the availability of an OEM FADEC is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned
because if/when these systems go on the market they will be part of a
certified engine with an astronomical price tag. I'm a homebuilder, not
bound to use certified (read expensive) systems. Im also not looking for
anything revolutionary, just something that provides a cost effective
improvement over what is available now. The SDS system that Mark Snow is
using on his Dragonfly is more like what I had in mind. I know the problems
I described in a previous post occur in both carbureted and mechanically
injected engines as I have witnessed these problems first hand. I dont think
we have to accept them, and I know there are folks out there qualified to
produce a system that provides the safety/redundancy that aviation demands.
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>What replaces the vacuum DG ? vertical card ?
Poor terminology on my part. I should have said the DG is useless!!!.
It has always been useless. It's primary purpose is to precess excessively
on a regular basis in order to suck money from your wallet<1/2g>. Speaking
of useless...... why on earth would anyone want a turn co-ordinator? The
only useful part ( the ball ) can be had for $30.
OK , I may be pulling your leg a tad... But building a homebuilt means not
having to blindly follow convention. Anything that goes into my panel will
have to earn it' way in.
Have a nice weekend.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mike Wills wrote:
> >Just a historical note. Both Lycoming and Continental experimented with and
> >fitted full electronic fuel and ignition systems to their engines in the
> >late 1970s and early 1980s. Lycoming extensively test-flew their system
> >in, as I recall, a Comanche.
>
> The technology associate with this has advanced drmatically since the 70's -
> early 80's.
I say this somewhat rhetorically but when I compare the late-eighties vintage
Motronic under the hood of my Toyota to the late-sixties Jetronic under
the hood of my old Volvo, I see very little difference. The Toyota has
grown a couple of oxygen $en$or$ (> $300 to replace) and a nice diagnostic
output. The computer is a bit smaller too. But the basic system functions
just as it did, and with the same inputs (save the O2 sensors), two decades
prior.
> So? I'm not an OEM, I'm a homebuilder.
And still a miniscule part of a tiny market. I'm not saying that's right
or that's good, but it's a market reality.
> Fact is that all of those little refinements when taken in total add up to a
> signifcantly improved engine in the automotive world. Nothing wrong with
> incremental refinement to improve the breed.
You hit the nail on the head - "in the automotive world." Auto engines,
from an efficiency and cost basis, have improved dramatically in the past
thirty years. But that's only when measured against themselves and in the
automotive operating environment. I think a lot of people lose sight of
that.
> Obviously these manufacturers believe there are improvements to be had, or
> they wouldnt be looking at FADEC's.
I would say they're simply doing their due diligence so as not to get caught
with their pants down. And you're right to a degree - they are probing to
see if the economic, technologic, and market conditions have changed
sufficiently in the past ten-fifteen years to make what was once not
economically viable now profitable.
> But the availability of an OEM FADEC is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned
> because if/when these systems go on the market they will be part of a
> certified engine with an astronomical price tag. I'm a homebuilder, not
> bound to use certified (read expensive) systems. Im also not looking for
> anything revolutionary, just something that provides a cost effective
> improvement over what is available now. The SDS system that Mark Snow is
> using on his Dragonfly is more like what I had in mind. I know the problems
> I described in a previous post occur in both carbureted and mechanically
> injected engines as I have witnessed these problems first hand. I dont think
> we have to accept them, and I know there are folks out there qualified to
> produce a system that provides the safety/redundancy that aviation demands.
I agree with you COMPLETELY. As I've said before, I think that electronic
ignition is the motherload in terms of improvement to existing aero engines.
Unfortunately, many people think you can't have EI and/or EFI without
dragging a heavy, complicated, and inefficient automotive block along with
it.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loren D. Jones" <Loren(at)LorenJones.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rebuilt Engines |
>A short distance from Kamaloops is a place called Blind Bay Nes1tled in the
>mountains (very scenic). Here I met a gentleman called Eustace Bowhay and
>a friend (who's name I forgot) that have designed a float kit for the RV6A.
Were these straight floats or amphibs?
Loren D. Jones
Wannabe-real-bad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | snowmd(at)cavemen.net (Snow, Mark) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I now have two independent sources for the EFI electronic trigger
>signal. Just thought I would pass along my experience.
>
>
I also have two independant trigger sources for my efi computer in the form
of two completly redundant electronic ignition systems. These two trigger
sources are fed to an or gate making them invisable to each other.
Pre-flight runup is conducted in the same manner as with a mag equiped
engine, checking first the intrigty of #1 ignition and then #2.this system
has worked well for me. The possible single point failure
is in or'ing circuitry and the efi computer.Redundency does not have to be
in the form of more electronics however,would'nt an air door in the form of
an ellison or posa serve as a back up,cost being the draw back here?
Mark Snow
48RV
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Loren D. Jones" <Loren(at)LorenJones.com> |
> Not the ones I flew. The Capt. set was on the emergency battery
bus
>and the co-pilots was on the instrument bus. The the little standby H.G.
>was powered by a seperate battery. If you got down to that you were in a
>world of hurt. They ran just about 24 hrs a day other than when the
>airplane overnighted some where, which wasn't very often.
TWA 800 had 90,000 hours on it (over 25 years), according to the news
report, which they claimed as 30,000 hours beyond it's original intended
life span. Boeing was quick to add that there were no hard and fast life
span numbers and that only time will tell how long they will really last.
90K is a LOT of hours! How many tanks of fuels is that on an RV?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | caummisa(at)arn.net (Richard Caummisar) |
Here is Matt's address and fax for donations.........
_______________________________________________________
>
>Listers,
>Since its "giving season" why not thank Matt with a
>donation to keep this invaluable resource alive, growing
>and well........You all know the address......If you don't go to his homepage
>at: http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/index.htm
>
>
>There's even a picture of him!! AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!
>_________________________________________________________
>
>> Matt provides us with the list for free. It is a great
>>courtesy; one
>> that shouldn't be abused.
>>Thanks for the RV list Matt. I sure appreciate it.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
> . . . . Speaking
>of useless...... why on earth would anyone want a turn co-ordinator? The
>only useful part ( the ball ) can be had for $30.
>
>OK , I may be pulling your leg a tad... But building a homebuilt means not
>having to blindly follow convention. Anything that goes into my panel will
>have to earn it' way in.
I used to ride shotgun for one of our renters at Benton Apt (1K1)
and watched him shoot ILS to minimums with both gyros covered
(i.e. needle-ball-airspeed) in spite of typical KS gusts and
cross-winds. The "useless" part can be very handy when the
sucker bolted to the back of the engine decides to stop sucking.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
>> The technology associate with this has advanced drmatically since the 70's -
>> early 80's.
>
> But the basic system functions
>just as it did, and with the same inputs (save the O2 sensors), two decades
>prior.
But because of advancing technology and widespread acceptance, the
components, and software that drives your 90's era EFI is orders of
magnitude cheaper to build than the 70's era unit.
>
>> So? I'm not an OEM, I'm a homebuilder.
>
>And still a miniscule part of a tiny market. I'm not saying that's right
>or that's good, but it's a market reality.
To cite an example, Klaus Savier's Lightspeed ignition is making a buck in
this niche market. Why not a small EFI developer targeting the same market?
>
>> Fact is that all of those little refinements when taken in total add up to a
>> signifcantly improved engine in the automotive world. Nothing wrong with
>> incremental refinement to improve the breed.
>
>You hit the nail on the head - "in the automotive world." Auto engines,
>from an efficiency and cost basis, have improved dramatically in the past
>thirty years. But that's only when measured against themselves and in the
>automotive operating environment. I think a lot of people lose sight of
>that.
Are you telling me that those refinements have all been tried by
Lyc/Cont/etc... and rejected because they made no difference? I used the
"automotive world" as an example because its the only one I could come up
with. I see no evidence that aero engine manufacturers have attempted any of
those refinements to improve efficiency so I couldnt present an aircraft
example. Can you show me data that indicates all of these refinements have
been tried on aero engines, and "when measured against themselves" there was
no improvement?
>
>> Obviously these manufacturers believe there are improvements to be had, or
>> they wouldnt be looking at FADEC's.
>Unfortunately, many people think you can't have EI and/or EFI without
>dragging a heavy, complicated, and inefficient automotive block along with
>it.
>
>greg
Looking to fan the flames with that jab at auto engines(joking guys, just
joking)? I started this thread by suggesting that it might be worth looking
into applying modern automotive technology to existing aero engines. Happy
to see that at least one person has tried this, is happy with it, and
recommends it as a worthwhile mod. The intent was not to start yet another
debate on the merits of auto engines in airplanes.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com (Paul M Bilodeau) |
| Subject: | Re: 747 Lifetime.....Was: gyros |
> TWA 800 had 90,000 hours on it (over 25 years), according to the news
> report, which they claimed as 30,000 hours beyond it's original intended
> life span. Boeing was quick to add that there were no hard and fast life
> span numbers and that only time will tell how long they will really last.
>
> 90K is a LOT of hours! How many tanks of fuels is that on an RV?
How many tanks of fuel for an RV on ONE 747 flight???
Happy Holidays.... 8<}
Paul M. Bilodeau
pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com
732-957-6611
RV-6A Empennage
Building Horizontal Stabilizer.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sharlene Shipley or Bruce Knoll <snsbfk(at)mail.sage.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
Hi Joe and all,
This is something that the EAA should be asked about. They should be working
hard to get us equality with the spam cans.
>
>I've been reading the FARs and AIM in preparation for my instrument
>oral exam. Exciting reading, let me tell you :-) One of the sections
>talks about the restrictions placed on experimental aircraft. The preamble
>says that the various restrictions may be enhanced or reduced per the
>Administrator for a particular airplane. That is, these are the rules
>unless your certificate reads otherwise.
>
>>From those of you with flying airplanes, I'm wondering what sort of
>changes from the norm are "standard". Specifically, I'm wondering if
>the restriction regarding congested and densely populated airspace is
>removable for RVs.
>
>Basically, we're not supposed to fly our RVs over densely populated
>areas or through congested airspace (such as victor airways). I didn't
>see any wording that made exceptions for takeoff and landing, which
>means I wouldn't be able to fly out of my home airport. It also means
>that you have to fly around all the towns you would otherwise be using
>as reference points on a VFR flight. And I don't even want to *think*
>about the effects on an IFR flight.
>
>Comments anyone? -Joe
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Knoll
RV6A to be QB
Empennage Started
snsbfk(at)mail.sage.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)wynne.co.uk |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountian Instrument |
>I installing the RMI micromonitor in the panel, right now I'm trying to
>come up with a good way to attach and secure the 104 capacitors to
Good Luck, and if anyone does give you some advice I'd really appreciate if
you could pass it on to me. I hope to install mine in February. Seasons
Greetings.
Bill W-Wynne N5236 W00404 (N. Wales UK) 01654 710101/2/3(fax)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Very rough idle |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Hi Jan,
You might check to see if your new prop goes to full high pitch
immediatly after starting. Could be that it is the opposite action from
your old one. If so,the governor can usually be reversed. I have seen
it happen.
Regards,
Bill Davis, N66WD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gregory R. Travis" <greg(at)ibid.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mike Wills wrote:
> But because of advancing technology and widespread acceptance, the
> components, and software that drives your 90's era EFI is orders of
> magnitude cheaper to build than the 70's era unit.
Ok, yes, absolutely. I was talking technology (the engine doesn't know
how much the EFI cost) and you're talking economy of manufacture. You
have a very good and very valid point and it was one that I was hinting
about. In a roundabout way I admit.
> To cite an example, Klaus Savier's Lightspeed ignition is making a buck in
> this niche market. Why not a small EFI developer targeting the same market?
I don't know - I wish some would step forward. I think stuff like what
the guys are airflow are doing is great. Remember, though, that Klaus'
concept of what constitutes a profitable endeavour is quite different from
what a Textron or Teledyne would consider profitable. Again, I'm not in any
way saying that Textron or Teledyne are right (quite the opposite really)
but simply that their view of the market is quite different from the little
guy.
> Are you telling me that those refinements have all been tried by
> Lyc/Cont/etc... and rejected because they made no difference? I used the
> "automotive world" as an example because its the only one I could come up
> with.
Both Lycoming and Continental have built engines with EFI, with overhead
cams, with large bores and small bores, with liquid cooling, with electronic
ignition, in V, radial, and other configurations, etc. They have the
engineering data and, yes, the short answer to your question is that
they did reject it because it made no positive difference. Let me correct
that - it made no economically sensible difference.
> I see no evidence that aero engine manufacturers have attempted any of
> those refinements to improve efficiency so I couldnt present an aircraft
> example. Can you show me data that indicates all of these refinements have
> been tried on aero engines, and "when measured against themselves" there was
> no improvement?
No, I can't post the proprietary engineering data of either company (not
that I even have access to it). As for EFI systems on aircraft engines,
I can refer you to John Barton at Teledyne Continental or Rick Moffet
at Textron Lycoming. Both were at their respective companies when the EFI
programs were underway. Both were (or are in Moffet's case) head of
engineering. As for EI, I refer you to Brad Mottier at Unison who can give
you the BSFCs for Lycomings with and without LASAR.
> >Unfortunately, many people think you can't have EI and/or EFI without
> >dragging a heavy, complicated, and inefficient automotive block along with
> >it.
> Looking to fan the flames with that jab at auto engines(joking guys, just
> joking)?
No, and I apologize for that impression. I have nothing against auto engines
so would have no reason to "jab" them. My only point here is to illustrate
my belief that it is not the core engine that experimenters should be
concentrating on. The BIG changes have been in the ancilliaries and engine
controls. This is why I agree with you so strongly when you say:
> I started this thread by suggesting that it might be worth looking
> into applying modern automotive technology to existing aero engines.
I interpret "modern automotive technology" as things like fuel controls and
electronic ignition.
That's where I think the real engineering fun lies - in the systems - and
where I think the biggest return on investment is likely to be found.
greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Bishop <wemkbish(at)nponline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Duckworks or Olds Landing Lights? |
George McNutt wrote:
>
> You wrote -
> "I would like to put a pulse light recognition system in the aircaft,"
> ----------
Bob Nuckolls has designed a relay and flasher circuit for this. I purchased it
and have incorporated it into my schematic, but don't have it installed yet. It
is very simple and straight forward. His web site is http://www.aeroelectric.com
Warren Bishop RV-6 Installing systems...vacuum, electric, etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Very rough idle |
Here is a quick trick that can help decision if engine is being flooded. With
engine running poorly, shut off the fuel. As the engine gets starved it will
begin to run better as it leans out. Turn the fuel back on and it should go
rough.
This is an automotive trick so maybe you shouldn't use it! ;~)
If the carb is gummed up you should probably strip and clean it.
hal
>
> So I'm assuming that the needle valve is stuck and the engine basically
> is flooding ( too rich). . I did not notice any unusual smoke from the
> exhaust during the brief run.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GARY HARVELL <harvell(at)monroeville.gulf.net> |
Could anyone tell me all the modifications needed to mount the
lycoming 0320 h2ad in a rv6a.
Gary Harvell
wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Speaking of Lights? |
I was just in the West Marine boat store. They have a "personal Strobe" that looks
very
much like a standard small a/c strobe tube. It runs on a D cell battery and
flashes once per second. Sells for $25! No where does it say what the output
etc is - does say visible for two miles.
So, why does a wingtip strobe cost $250+? Rhetorical question - don't answer;
at least not to everyone!
Wanna make some bucks? Buy these, re-package them with the word "aircraft" and
sell them for $99 each.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV builders"
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Acker" <r.acker(at)thegrid.net> |
>
> Could anyone tell me all the modifications needed to mount the
> lycoming 0320 h2ad in a rv6a.
Gary,
You'll need to modify the engine mount to clear the top rear accessory
housing (Van's has modified mounts available for a nominal exchange price).
Also, a small additional bump on the cowl may needed for fuel pump
clearance, and I'm still trying to find someone who has come up with an
engine baffling solution. Anyone?
Rob (RV-6Q - H2AD).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com (Stephen Paul Johnson) |
| Subject: | Pro-seal gap filling properties |
You wrote:
>
>
>On the RV-6 you carefully fashion backing plates to fill the gap at
the
>nose rib on the outside ribs of the fuel tank. I also used a generous
>coating of Pro-Seal to make sure it did not leak.
>
>Steve Soule
>Huntington, Vermont
>Still jigging fuselage bulkheads
Thanks for the info. On the -8, the reinforcing plates are pre-cut to
conform to the ribs. Obviously, I should make new ones that fit
exactly my leading edge curve.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ShowCtrGuy <ShowCtrGuy(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
<< > Saw this engine run at Copperstate. The only running example of its type
>and it looked kind of crude. These guys were far more interested in talking
>to potential investors than potential customers. If you gotta have a
>certified alternative, look at a Lom, or Franklin.
>>
Well, I've never flown behind a Franklin... But i have a bit of time spent
in a Zlin526 with 180HP LOM engine.. all I have to say is that it is a really
smooth running engine.. plus it has a really nice growl.. been running it on
Amoco premium for awhile.. All I have for this engine is praise..
Jeremy King
RV4 #3981 Empenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MarkVN <MarkVN(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming cylinder porting |
Jon
I have a background similar to yours only to do more with motorcycles than
snow mobiles.. Lycoming cylinder porting is fairly common. Lycon out here
does it often , so do many others. improvements can be very good especially
with the parallel valve engines... word of caution however, since the
cylinders have no long studs to hold the assembllies togeather, when ever
material is removed from the upper portions of the head the results tend to
weaken the bridge that the head forms and increases the chance of cracks...
Sky Ranch has an engineering manual that goes into this.. Its great reading,
Markvn(at)aol.com
P.S> I definately plan on porting my cylinders, Iam just unsure about how
high to go on the compression ratio , and how far to go with ceramic coatings.
Also I think cold air induction is a big plus..
Starting the wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling techniques |
At Copperstate one of the vendors was A company called Airbolt. He appeared to
have many of the same things Avery and Cleveland had, but one thing caught my
eye and Bob Averys also. It was a large benchtop C frame tool designed for the
Pneumatic squeezers many of us have. It was expesive but a super tool it was.
He also had nice dies cheaper than some others. His number is 800-736-4123. I
have been trying to get a catalog but he is just putting one together. JR.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
I don't think you're including the cost of installing (and maintaining) a
vacuum system to operate the $400 gyros. The cost difference would be
substantially less but electric ones would still be quite a bit more. I
believe someone else already stated the main reason is for having an alternate
system to provide vital flight references in case of an electrical system
failure.
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of emcole
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: gyros
Tim Sweemwr wrote:
>
>
> What are the pros and cons of electric vs vacuum driven gyros?
>
Electric-- $1200 vs Vacuum $400 You do the Math!:^)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Speaking of Lights? |
Hal:
Several years ago, Great Plains engines sold a kit to make strobe lights.
(Great Plains sells VW engines for KR and Dragonflys.) I saw them at
Oshkosh 1992 and liked them. I believe that the 1992 cost was $20.
There are also many Dragonflies that do something similar to what you
mention. They are using a homemade voltage regulator to get the 12V down
to the proper operating voltage.
This set up works well for VFR flight. Your DAR may not approve them for
operation at night or on IFR. Somewhere in the FAR I remember reading
that the anti-collision lights must put out so much light. This would
need to be proven by the builder if the FAA requested. The OVER PRICED
"Aircraft" strobes comes with an FAA approval of meeting their standard.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>I was just in the West Marine boat store. They have a "personal
>Strobe" that looks very much like a standard small a/c strobe tube. It
runs on a D cell
>battery and flashes once per second. Sells for $25! No where does it
say what
>the output etc is - does say visible for two miles.
>
>So, why does a wingtip strobe cost $250+? Rhetorical question -
>don't answer; at least not to everyone!
>
>Wanna make some bucks? Buy these, re-package them with the word
>"aircraft" and sell them for $99 each.
>
>Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- "Peace on earth, good will to all RV
>builders"
>halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
My OPERATION LIMITATION lists:
"1. No person shall operate this aircraft other than as an amateur built.
Additionally, this aircraft shall be operated in accordance with the
applicable air traffic and general operating rules of FAR 91 and all
limitations herein prescribed under the provision of FAR 91.319 (e). "
FAR 91.319 (c) list that .... "no person may operate an aircraft that has
an experimental certificate over a densely populated are or in a
congested airway." The same paragraph goes on to say: "The Administrator
may issue special operation limitations for particular aircraft to permit
takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in
a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in
the authorization in interest of safety in air commerce." Quoted text
is from my 1993 FARs. There may be new restrictions in the last
revision.
FAR 91.319 (d) (2) " Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise
specifically authorized by the Administrator; and"
My OPERATION LIMITATIONS also list:
"4. All flight operations shall be conducted in accordance with VFR
Flight Rules."
The DAR said that the above limitation allows me to fly Night.
I will be getting the aircraft IFR certified. I informed the DAR about
this before the original certification. He informed me that the FAA
would not allow him to issue the IFR until after the test flying. He has
seen my aircraft go together over the last 8.5 years and said that I
could get the IFR. Will let you know of the outcome.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>I've been reading the FARs
---------- snip ----------
One of the sections talks about the restrictions placed on experimental
aircraft. The
>preamble says that the various restrictions may be enhanced or reduced
per the
>Administrator for a particular airplane. That is, these are the rules
>unless your certificate reads otherwise.
>
>From those of you with flying airplanes, I'm wondering what sort of
>changes from the norm are "standard". Specifically, I'm wondering if
>the restriction regarding congested and densely populated airspace is
>removable for RVs.
No it is not. I am in Southern California and was allowed to test fly
there. I operate out of an airport that the FAA would not normally allow
experimentals to fly. Because of my certificated engine / propeller and
the know performance, I was allowed. I can climb fast enough and can
stay away from the houses. BTW, I am based at Cable Airport (CCB),
Upland California. This is the Largest Privately owned Public Use
Airport in the US. (Location is: north-west of Ontario, California).
>Basically, we're not supposed to fly our RVs over densely populated
>areas or through congested airspace (such as victor airways). I
>didn't
>see any wording that made exceptions for takeoff and landing, which
>means I wouldn't be able to fly out of my home airport. It also means
>that you have to fly around all the towns you would otherwise be using
>as reference points on a VFR flight. And I don't even want to *think*
>about the effects on an IFR flight.
t>
>Comments anyone? -Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's carb mounted throttle/mixture bracket |
Ronald Vandervort wrote:
>
>
> Hello out there,
>
> Using the above referenced bracket on 0-360-A1A, covers the recess in the
> carb casting (the recess allows the nut to access more threads) at the
> right inboard stud location. This then leaves about one half a thread
> showing when it is all drawn up tight on that stud.
together you can then back out the carb stud a couple of threads and
that will take care of your problem.
I mounted mine and have no trouble. Depending on the cable you use and
bearing end you have to cut the shaft and that will force you to make
new ones. It's stainless so make shure you hev a good die.
Good Luck,
Don Champagne
N767DC RV6-QB
Mounting engine and Instrument Panel|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 747 Lifetime.....Was: gyros |
Say! You weren't born in Laconia NH by any chance were you?
>Don Champagne
Paul M. Bilodeau
> pmbs(at)probe.mt.att.com
> 732-957-6611
> RV-6A Empennage
> Building Horizontal Stabilizer.....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: DynaCam - was: Alternative power |
Jeremy:
I got to do aerobatics in a Zlin 2 weeks ago. Not sure of the engine
manufacturer but it was an inverted 6. I think that it was made by
Walter ?.... something or other. The engine ran great. From the ground
listening to the aircraft go by over head I have always thought it was
bad because of the noise it makes. In flight is quiet.
Flew to Portland from Los Angeles in an Ralley behind a 220 HP Franklin
last year. It also ran good. Do to the high heat at the Red Bluff fuel
stop, the engine was missing on takeoff. We returned to inspect. It was
hot and everything looked good. I suggested a reduced power climb out.
(i e. pull the prop back, throttle forward and lean to keep the engine
running smooth.) No fault of the engine since the OAT was over 100 F.
The engine missed again. Oil temp was near redline. Leaning smoothed
out the miss. The reduced power climb worked. The higher airspeed did
lower oil temp with time and we still cleared the mountains.
My dislike of the Zlin is the noise it makes when I am on the ground and
it is flying by overhead. My dislike of the Franklin is its HIGH fuel
burn. I paid for the round trip fuel burn. It averaged 12.5 GPH and
cost me $400 in AvGAS for the round trip flight. I could have flown
commercially cheaper. The Ralley owner thinks that the 220 HP is more
like 205 based on the performance of his plane.
Gary A. Sobek
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
>
---------- snip ----------
> Well, I've never flown behind a Franklin... But i have a bit of time
spent
>in a Zlin526 with 180HP LOM engine.. all I have to say is that it is a
really
>smooth running engine.. plus it has a really nice growl.. been running
it on
>Amoco premium for awhile.. All I have for this engine is praise..
>
>Jeremy King
>RV4 #3981 Empenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's carb mounted throttle/mixture bracket |
Don Champagne wrote:
>
>
> Ronald Vandervort wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello out there,
> >
> > Using the above referenced bracket on 0-360-A1A, covers the recess in the
> > carb casting (the recess allows the nut to access more threads) at the
> > right inboard stud location. This then leaves about one half a thread
This should say : Thread two nuts on the stud cinch them and back out the
stud two threads.
>
>
> I mounted mine and have no trouble. Depending on the cable you use and
> bearing end you have. You may have to cut the shaft and that will force you to
make new threads.
> It's stainless so make shore you have a good die.
>
> Good Luck,
> Don Champagne
> N767DC RV6-QB
> Mounting engine and Instrument Panel|
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timbo" <htim(at)micron.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: from rvlist article |
----------
> From: Timbo <htim(at)micron.net>
> To: Hal Kempthorne
> Subject: Re: from rvlist article
> Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 9:25 PM
>
> Hi Hal, I agree that EFI is one of the best ways to manage an engine. I
> have studied the Ford EFI for a long time. It is a good system, but I
don't
> believe EFI is a good idea for a plane. It makes the whole package more
> complicated when it should be simplified.
> Electronic control is not just an experiment in production aircraft. I
> work on such an aircraft, the MD 900 Helicopter has two Pratt and
Whitney
> turbine engines with electronic fuel controls. BUT... These FMU's
(Fuel
> Managment Unit) have a manual setting for safety which the pilot can
> select. This aircraft has 1000 hours on it now, and we had to change one
> FMU because the servo inside, controlled by the electronics, failed. With
a
> manual setting, the pilot was able to fly the rest of his mission without
a
> sudden engine problem.
> In most production aircraft, the engine(s) would keep running if there
was
> an electrical problem. Even if the engine was isolated from the
electrical
> system. Fuel metering is hydromechanical (carb., fuel injection, or fuel
> control), fuel delivery is handled by mechanical engine driven pumps and
> electric boost pumps. And last, but not least, the ignition is handled
by
> engine driven devices (mags), which are independant systems of
themselves,
> or, in the case of a turbine, has continual flame in the burner can.
> Having an engine under total electronic control, in my opinion, is not a
> good thing in a plane.
> But if one could develop a "manual" bypass to provide safety, then it
would
> be hard to beat the EFI for performance!
> Anyway, after reading the posts on alt. engines for the last two weeks, I
> had to say something. A little long winded, but my two cents, And you
> asked!!!
> Timbo
>
> ----------
> > From: Hal Kempthorne <halk(at)sybase.com>
> > To: htim(at)micron.net
> > Subject: from rvlist article
> > Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 10:42 AM
> >
> > Timbo,
> >
> > >Would you want one system (i.e.engine) totally dependant on another
> system
> >
> > Sure. Are you suggesting there is a problem here? If so, what?
> >
> > hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marc DeGirolamo <mdee(at)dlcwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivet Problems |
A
>
>
>>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.
>> I had the same problem.If you put a piece of AL ( a scrap of .025 with a
hole in it the size of the shank)) between the pop rivet tool and the rivet
you will get nice clean rivet heads (After 10 or 12 rivets this hole
enlarges also so throw it out and make a new one). One other benefit is that
when the tool jumps after the shank breaks you will mark the scrap piece and
not your nice shiney wing. For the rivets that you have already done, take a
rivet shaver and gently clead the head of the rivet, carefull not to take
more than the burr off.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marc DeGirolamo
RV-4
Saskatoon,SK.
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
I would not put a two stroke as they currently exit in my RV either but what
has to do with the Velocity/-------prop crash?JR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net |
| Subject: | Dry Cell Battery |
Is anyone familiar with the Black Panther dry cell battery collection?
They have a website at blackpanther.com and after haven seen the batteries,
they seem very interesting. The advantages of a dry cell battery seems
extremely favorable to me for aviation and the weights they post are very
respectable. Anyone have experience with these?
Regards,
Charles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>recall several instances of "spam cans" with their lycomings crashing
>into
>school yards, housing areas, or other "public" areas, I am unaware of
>a
>single instance of a homebuilt with an alternative engine doing so.
>Viva La Difference
I don't think this is a valid analogy (don't know if it really matters
either though).
If there has been a "few" instances of crashes in school yards,etc, and
we lump all single engine certified (N numbered) aircraft together. Then
it doesn't seem too likely that their would have been an experimental
with an alternative engine in the news if you consider how small a
percentage of the total # of aircraft are experimental. Then factor in
how small of a percentage of experimentals are flying with alternative
engines, we see that just because one hasn't been in the news doesn't
mean you can use that as evidence that the receive closer attention or
have better reliability than all the others.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>Also, is it just me, or is getting the nose ribs to behave and line up
>
>with the skin rivet lines a pain in the royal KEESTER or what?!?!! Is
>it
>easier to move them around if the inside vinyl is removed...providind
>a
>smoother surface to tweak the ribs into place with the broom stick?
>Inquiring minds want to know..and so does mine...;)
>
>Brian Denk
>-8 #379
>fitting skins into eternity
Brian,
In the shop at Van's we always remove the plastic on the inside
when fitting/drilling skins to structures that have much curve to them.
the plastic is 3 to 4 thousandths thick and can effect the fit after
removal if the curve is very sharp.
As for lining up the L.E ribs, with all the wings (4 or 5) that we built
while static testing we found that they are sized perfectly and you can
just start from the top side of the wing drilling towards the L.E. with
the bottom side of the skin laying loose allowing you to move the ribs
around and align them to the prepunched holes once you get to the L.E. if
the ribs have ben straightened accurately you can pull bottom side tight
with straps and the lines usually are just about lined up on the bottom.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Question: Yikes! Primer |
Get a product data sheet from Sherwin-Williams for the type paint that you are
considering. The local dealer should have them available and they will tell
you what you ask.
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of Richard TREANOR
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 1997 2:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: Question: Yikes! Primer
I finally have my shop ready and with the arrival of a back-ordered hand
squeezer from Avery next week I'll be ready to start building my
empennage.
Now down to the question... Reading a thread on priming from the
archives I ran across a recent post regarding Sherwin Williams GBP-988
primer. The sender included some product data in their post, which
included the note "Do not apply over MET-L-MATE or similar conversion
coatings". Can anyone help me here? Is this note referring to a specific
product or something like Alodine in general?
My plan was to Etch, Alodine and prime (with S-W GBP-988). I don't
want to get into the hassles and health risks associated with handling
the epoxy primers.
Thanks in advance.
Rich Treanor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Inexpensive Used Hand Squeezer |
You wrote
"I called Browns this am to check out their surplus tools and found out
they have a few Hand Squeezers with 3 inch yokes for (I believe) 95$.
As I recall just the new handles for the Avery or Tatco run about that
much and a 3 inch yoke, mamma mia!"
-------------------
Save money, get the expensive one!
I purchased the US Industrial Tool RV Builders kit, upgraded from their
TP116 hand rivet squeezer to their TP144 and bought two extra yokes.
Squeezing rivets with the US Industrial squeezer was a slow and painful
experience, everything had to be lined up perfectly to prevent rivet
tipping, not consistant every one different, and a lot of drilling tipped
rivets out.
Then I bought the Avery hand rivet squeezer, no comparison, I do a much
faster and neater job.
IMHO the difference between a good hand rivet squeezer and junk is that on
a good squeezer the ram (moving shaft) goes through a hole in the inboard
end of the yoke and then squeezes against the outboard end of the yoke,
this keeps everything in alignment under stress.
On the cheap squeezer the inboard end of the yoke is shorter and mounted
with roll pins on the handle frame above the ram, this allows the whole
assembly to flex under load and you lose the alignment between the ram and
the outboard end of the yoke.
For all the rivets that you are going to do (and not be drilling out) get a
good squeezer!
A cheap squeezer is ok for light loads such as dimpling thin skins so if
you still want one contact me directly, I have a cheap one I want to get
rid of.
George McNutt, Langley BC
Been there done that!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com> |
<< Given the complexity of air transport
aircraft and the multiple redundancy for power paths to critical
systems, I'd find it pretty strange that any sort of backup battery
would show up in these machines for operation of gyros . . . these
airplanes have so many things that REQUIRE electrical power for
comfortable termination of flight, backing up just the gyros would
be like going to fight a housefire with a glass of water. >>
Bob,
I cant remember exactly what this guy said but I dont think thats what he
meant. Either way I can tell you for sure on Boeing or Douglas passenger jets
there is no back up battery. Each type airplane has its own system for back up
so they are all slightly different. Every airplane has its own standard
battery. If all generator busses are lost they have a standby bus . This runs
directly off of the hot battery bus. This will run a few critical instruments
for flight and a radio, for approximatly 30 minuets. The redundancy for all
systems is long and drawn out and we could go on for ever trying to explain
it. Hopefully this is a simple description most can understand.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea |
Any way of getting a small sketch of the jig that lined up the ribs.
Thanks
Bill
KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
Hi Scott
I am building an RV6 at FRG and would like to talk with you since your so
close,
I tried information but they claim you don't exist, so I guess its a ghost
flying that new plane.
Bill
KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TPhilpin <TPhilpin(at)aol.com> |
<< Speaking
of useless...... why on earth would anyone want a turn co-ordinator? The
only useful part ( the ball ) can be had for $30.
...
John Walsh>>
I hope you are not serious John, some of these postings are pretty scary, not
to mention reckless. I hope the balance of the list has had better pilot
training...
T. Philpin
RV - 8 Tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nicholas Knobil <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Newbie at large |
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I arrived home this evening to find the boxes containing the tail of my someday
RV-8 sitting in the mudroom.
I have been lurking on this list for the past several months, and I don't think
I would have had quite the gumption to go for it if there wasn't a group like
you to trade thoughts with. I certainly don't think I'll finish the project
without leaning on the smarts of the folks who have passed before me.
Right now I kind of feel the same way I did when I turned final on that first solo,
and thought to myself, "was this really a good idea?".
Nick Knobil
Bowdoinham, Maine
08B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "joseph.wiza" <joe(at)mcione.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rebuilt Engines |
amphibs\ Sorry forgot to mention that
----------
> From: Loren D. Jones <Loren(at)LorenJones.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Rebuilt Engines
> Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 3:46 PM
>
>
> >A short distance from Kamaloops is a place called Blind Bay Nes1tled in
the
> >mountains (very scenic). Here I met a gentleman called Eustace Bowhay
and
> >a friend (who's name I forgot) that have designed a float kit for the
RV6A.
>
>
> Were these straight floats or amphibs?
>
> Loren D. Jones
> Wannabe-real-bad
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gasobek(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming cylinder porting |
<19971210.121037.6686.3.SMCDANIELS(at)juno.com>
Scott:
If you read Lycoming's literature (Lycoming Flier) you will find that
Lycoming says that engine power increases 1% for each 10 F drop in INLET
air temperature below standard. (An increase in temperature will cause a
decrease in power. A decrease in temperature will cause an increase in
power.) If you can lower the air temperature 80 F power will go up 8%.
Air Flow Performance told one of my RV-4 friends that cold air induction
will increase power 8%.
Ok on an injected engine but not with the carburetor. If any warming of
the induction air takes place going through the sump, it helps vaporize
the fuel in the fuel/air mixture for better ignition. That is way a warm
Lycoming runs smoother at idle than a cold one.
Gary A. Sobek
FAA A & P
RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
writes:
>
>
>> Markvn(at)aol.com
>>
>> P.S> I definately plan on porting my cylinders, Iam just unsure
>>about how
>>high to go on the compression ratio , and how far to go with ceramic
>>coatings.
>>Also I think cold air induction is a big plus..
>> Starting the wing
>> I am not positives but I think Airflow performance did some testing
>on a
>dyno using cold air induction and found no power increase on a lyc
>(using
>there injection system).
>
>Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4Brown <RV4Brown(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Newbie at large - chatter |
<< "was this really a good idea?". >>
Anyone that can spell "Bowdoinham" can build an RV. Good luck!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170 <Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
<< I think it is easy to miss the point about the alternative engine
experimenters. I don't believe that anyone planning a non-Lyc.
installation will tell you that you should install an alternate
engine if don't want to >>
<>
Hear, Hear
Regards, Merle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Bob,
> I cant remember exactly what this guy said but I dont think thats what he
>meant. . . . . . . . This will run a few critical instruments
>for flight and a radio, for approximatly 30 minuets. The redundancy for all
>systems is long and drawn out and we could go on for ever trying to explain
>it. Hopefully this is a simple description most can understand.
> Ryan
I don't recall the exact words but my impression was that he was
referring to the general aviation backup batteries as being
used also on transport catgegory airplanes and used only
to keep gyros up. My point was that the minimum list of goodies
for putting a 7xx type airplane on the ground is FAR longer
than the list I published for GA lightplanes. The contemporary
GA gyro backup battery size and implied architecture of wiring
was much too small.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dry Cell Battery |
>
>Is anyone familiar with the Black Panther dry cell battery collection?
>They have a website at blackpanther.com and after haven seen the batteries,
>they seem very interesting. The advantages of a dry cell battery seems
>extremely favorable to me for aviation and the weights they post are very
>respectable. Anyone have experience with these?
Just visited their website. They're offering a lead-acid, recombinant
gas battery not unlike the Concord RG series or B&C batteries. This
technology is becoming quite commonplace and IMHO is the ONLY kind
of battery to use in an airplane. There are DOZENS of other manufacturers
out there offering similar technologies . . . virtually all manufacturers
of un-interuptable power supply batteries now offer RG technology. "Gel"
cells and flooded batteries are fading fast and I'm not sorry to see them
go.
Blackpanther takes a whack at Optima batteries which is only slightly
justified . . . the stacked flat-plate designe does give one a slight
edge on watt-hours per cubic inch. The Optima battery is a carry over
from the ORIGINAL recombinant gas battery production by Gates from some
15 years ago. The patents have expired on this technology so lots of
folks are getting into the act. Gates was having mechanical troubles
with the "jelly-roll" cells when B&C was offering them to amateur airplane
builders 10 years ago . . had to give them up. When Gates went to the
stack-of-flat-plates design, they sold their tooling to Optima who now
seems to have whipped the mechanical problems of years past.
Looking at the Black Panther ad . . .
Superior volumetric and gravimetric power density, offering
more power in less space and weight
Ultra-high-rate discharge capability
Ultra-low internal resistance, allowing superior terminal
voltage characteristics under fast rate discharges
Under normal charging conditions, out-gassing is negligible.
True of all RG products. Actually out-gassing is usually
ZERO.
Gases are fully contained and recombined within the battery,
making it safe for installation in human environments, such as
inside the passenger compartment (under the seat).
RG batteries were VERY popular with the computer IPS
builders . . . secretaries get really tense when foul
fumes fill the office . . . or acid drips onto the carpet.
100% maintenance free copper/alloy terminals, making a true
fit-and-forget battery
Advanced manufacturing techniques, insuring high reliability
and consistency
True of most RG batteries . . . the technology is a proven
concept. Problems with these batteries are generally
attributable to manufacturing defects (still a LOT of
hand assembly for most manufacturers).
Use of very high purity lead grid (99.994%), translating into longer life
VERY important . . . don't know about Concord but the battery
B&C sells starts out with NEW lead. However, I've heard that
metals recycling folk are getting better all the time with
cleaning up OLD lead.
Flame-retardent case and cover material, featuring an LOI> 28 and meeting
UL94-VO requirements.
Superior fast recharge capability, allowing 95%+ recharge in less than
30 minutes from 100% state of discharge
Can be mounted in any orientation. Battery may be installed and operated
in any direction, allowing greater flexibility in product design and
use, due to the sealed, non-spillable construction, making it safe and
approved by the USDOT for air transportation shipping worldwide
True of every RG battery.
Wide operating temperature range. Black Panther can handle the cold and
heat, from -40o to +60oC Safety, All Black Panther product is UL recognized,
as a component per UL standard 924 and 1778 Environmentally friendly;
easily recyclable
Nothing really outstanding here . . . but feel free to explore their
range of products from a viewpoint of economics and installability.
BTW . . . these are not "dry" batteries . . . their electrolyte
is liquid water-sulphuric acid. It happens to be totally contained
in not quite saturated separators. You can poke a hole in one and it
won't leak but you can wring liquid out of a separator.
I do note that the Black Panther battery is optimized for deep cycle
service and claims 400+ cycles of endurance. This is a little misleading.
ALL batteries begin a slide in capacity due to deep cycling immediately
upon placement in service. Batteries designed for cranking (it only takes
1-2% of the battery capacity to start an engine) are generally good
for 75-100 "deep cycles" (full charge down to 10% and back) before the
full-charge value drops to 80% of original capacity. Depending on
where Black Panther wants to call "end of life", their number of
charge-discharge cycles can vary widely. For airplanes this is
not especially important . . . 99.99% of the time all you need a battery
to do is crank the engine. If you don't regularly deep cycle the
battery (your alternator craps out every third flight or so) then
the deep-cycle feature is not a compelling feature for purchasing
Black Panther over any other battery.
For more information on the RG batteries, see:
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/nojuice.html>
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/rg_bat.html>
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)home.com> |
Roberto,
What is your experience with electric vs. vacuum gyros? Several gyro shops
have told me that the electrics last many hours more than the vacuum units.
If this is true, then the simplicity and longetivity overcome their initial
cost.
Louis Willig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | McLaughlJR <McLaughlJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
>Just a historical note. Both Lycoming and Continental experimented with and
fitted full electronic fuel and ignition systems to their engines in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. Lycoming extensively test-flew their system
in, as I recall, a Comanche.<
This is the most illuminating explanation of state of the art (or lack
thereof) engine
development I have yet seen. Much of this has been said before, but not as
well.
Even if we don't like what we get in the crate for $19k, we are being a little
bit naive
if we think for a minute that the contents are not well thought out. Some
appreciation
of both the business, and the engineering, aspects of engines is necessary to
understand
why we are where we are. Thanks for the post, Greg.
Joel.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick_G" <micky_g(at)email.msn.com> |
These Mazda engines just look like they belong in aircraft.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: Anderson Ed <AndersonE(at)bah.com>
Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 10:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: mazda 13B
>
>Larry, I have a 13B in a Rv-6A awaiting Air worthiness inspection. A
fellow
>RVer has built a WEB page out of some of my photos of the installation and
>there is a written summary of adaptions. Web page is:
>http://www.flash.net/~donmack/mazda/
>
>enjoy
>
>Ed
>Andersone(at)bah.com
> ----------
>From: Larry Mac Donald
>To: rv-list
>Subject: RV-List: mazda 13B
>Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 1:12PM
>
>
> Snip>>>I was wondering if anyone on the list knows of a Mazda 13B
>install in a RV-6A?
>first to to see if anyone has drawn first blood. If you are uncomfortable
>
>responding on the list you can contact me personally.
>Thanks,
>Pat Kirkpatrick<<
>I would like to share in this info also. Please respond on list.
>Thank You,
>Larry Mac Donald lm4(at)juno.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
I have afriend at FRG ( Republic Farmingdale ) that has some 20 planes on
line, he used chrome in several aircraft, and they did not hold up well at
all, yesterday we pulled 2 chrome jugs off of an Arrow that only had 500 hours
on the jugs. He vowed never to use chrome again.
For what its worth guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KB2DU <KB2DU(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Newbie at large |
Hi Brian:
Well I started the 6 back in August and the wing kit should arrive in a few
days
with the christmas rush and all, and I know how you feel, I put the EP kit
together and did not know of this great gang of guys that are full of answer's
etc. But I feel alot better knowing that now I have numbers and people to
call when problems come up.
Good Luck with the 8 EP
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming cylinder porting |
<19971213.060013.5182.1.gasobek(at)juno.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>Scott: If you read Lycoming's literature (Lycoming Flier) you will
>find that Lycoming says that engine power increases 1% for each 10 F
>drop in INLET air temperature below standard. (An increase in
>temperature will cause a decrease in power. A decrease in temperature
>will cause an increase in power.) If you can lower the air
>temperature 80 F power will go up 8%.
>Air Flow Performance told one of my RV-4 friends that cold air
>induction
>will increase power 8%. Ok on an injected engine but not with the
>carburetor. If any warming of the induction air takes place going
>through the sump, it helps vaporize
>the fuel in the fuel/air mixture for better ignition. That is way a
>warm
>Lycoming runs smoother at idle than a cold one.
>
>Gary A. Sobek
>FAA A & P
>RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell
>MCDANIELS)
>writes:
>MCDANIELS)
>>
>>
>>> Markvn(at)aol.com
>>>
>>> P.S> I definately plan on porting my cylinders, Iam just unsure
>>>about how
>>>high to go on the compression ratio , and how far to go with ceramic
>
>>>coatings.
>>>Also I think cold air induction is a big plus..
>>> Starting the wing
>>> I am not positives but I think Airflow performance did some
>testing
>>on a
>>dyno using cold air induction and found no power increase on a lyc
>>(using
>>there injection system).
Gary,
I understand all the reasons for wanting cool induction air, and
I know that a lot of the aerobatics guys put on modified induction
systems even if using a standard Lyc sump.
The info I mentioned was what I thought I remember airflow perf putting
out in one of their Newsletter/press releases that with Dyno testing they
saw no appreciable power output. Like I said I remember it incorrectly
so maybe I should have not mentioned it. I will try to check into it and
find out.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BrownTool <BrownTool(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Used Hand Squeezer |
<< MHO the difference between a good hand rivet squeezer and junk is that on
a good squeezer the ram (moving shaft) goes through a hole in the inboard
end of the yoke and then squeezes against the outboard end of the yoke,
this keeps everything in alignment under stress. >>
George,
With all due respect, the USED SURPLUS Squeezers that were being talked about
are surplus from an air force base. They are not by any means junk or
inferior, the only reason they are so inexpensive is because they are used.
As a licensed aircraft mechanic, I would not recommend nor do I recommend
tools that I consider junk.
My company also sells the TATCO Hand Squeezers, which are in my opinion the
best hand rivet squeezer on the market, however that is not to say that the
surplus squeezers we have available are not a great tool at a great price. We
do not sell junk nor do we have a desire to.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify,
Michael Brown
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
1-800-587-3883
BrownTool(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR <JRWillJR(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
Except during takeoff and landing--- I am taking off untill the 50% point then
I am landing.This thing about experimentals you say not being able to use
certain publicly funded airports when equipped for ops in that environment is
a new one to me and I am fairly sure a misunderstanding. JR.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
Bob said
<< Given the complexity of air transport
aircraft and the multiple redundancy for power paths to critical
systems, I'd find it pretty strange that any sort of backup battery
would show up in these machines for operation of gyros . . . these
airplanes have so many things that REQUIRE electrical power for
comfortable termination of flight, backing up just the gyros would
be like going to fight a housefire with a glass of water. >>
--------------
Thats true, - on our 747-400's even the standby attitude indicator is
powered by the Main Battery Bus. If you lose four generating and/or
electrical systems you are having a really bad day.
Normal attitude (gyro) information to the Electronic Flight Instrument
System (EFIS) is provided by three switchable IRS (Inertial Reference
System) units. The IRS units have lazer ring gyro's with no moving parts.
They operate on AC power, however they do use the auxiliary power unit
(APU) battery for a DC backup power source (a second battery identical to
the main aircraft battery).
Backup DC power to the IRS is for temporary use and emergency procedures
are based on restoring at least one electrical system. The APU battery
probably would not get you home from the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
The main use for the DC backup power system on the IRS units is so they
will not lose alignment when parked on the ground and the ground power unit
is accidently disconnected, fails, or APU power is inadvertantly switched
off. Re-alignment takes ten minutes.
To prevent in-flight failure of your vacuum gyros monitor their health by
listening to them after you shut down your engine. If one is noisey and/or
grinds to a stop fairly rapidly the bearings are failing.
George McNutt, Langley BC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
>In addition, its my understanding electrics gyros have a longer service
>life (due to no air contamination). Can anyone confirm?
In addition, is there any reason why an electric gyro might be less
susceptible to damage from aerobatics?
Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inexpensive Used Hand Squeezer |
BrownTool wrote:
snipped
> My company also sells the TATCO Hand Squeezers, which are in my opinion the
> best hand rivet squeezer on the market, however that is not to say that the
> surplus squeezers we have available are not a great tool at a great price. We
> do not sell junk nor do we have a desire to.
>
> Thanks for allowing me to clarify,
>
> Michael Brown
> Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
Hi Listers,
I've used the Avery and the Tatco squeezers. The Tatcos are very nice.
They are lighter than the Averys. Some people don't like to try to
squeeze 1/8" rivets with the Tatcos. I'm 6'4" 215 lbs. so I can squeeze
5/32" rivets with them, although they do tend to flex squeezing 5/32"
rivets. The Averys are better/easier to squeeze 1/8" rivets with. The
Tatcos are better when you are doing LOTS of 3/32" rivets, because of
the lighter weight. Both are top notch products. I haven't bought
anything from Mr. Brown and I have no connection with his company. I am
sure that I will one day buy something from him though. My two cents.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Johnson <rvgasj(at)popmail.mcs.net> |
| Subject: | Need Advice On Installing VANS Prop Governor Bracket |
I am trying to install VANS prop governor bracket on the new governor they
sent me. I have a Lycoming 0-360 also from VANS. The problem is that the
governor bracket hits the oil filter ( the standard ch48110 lycoming oil
filter). I assumed since I bought the engine, governor, and governor
bracket from VANS, it would have fit. Has anybody else run into this
problem, and how did you solve it. If I position the bracket any other way
than the plans show it, it will not be at the correct angle for the governor
lever. I don't see any easy way to modify it either.
Thanks In Advance For Any Ideas !!
Scott Johnson
rvgasj(at)mcs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Johnson <rvgasj(at)popmail.mcs.net> |
| Subject: | Need Advice - I can't get the internal crankshaft plug out. |
Having a constant speed prop on a Lycoming 0-360 requires an internal
crankshaft plug with no hole in it.
Mine had a hole in the plug for the fixed pitch prop I used the first 70
hours. I tried today to get that plug out and it won't budge. Has anybody
got a good way to do this. What makes it very hard is that the oil spray
bar is right in front of the plug.
I have already tried pulling it out with a dent puller with a maching screw
on the end of it. But the hole keeps getting bigger, and the plug won't budge.
The local mechanics have not decided whether they will help because they
could easily damage the spray bar as well ( the engine would then have to be
disassebled ). I can see their point that they stand to make maybe 200
hundred bucks on the deal, or lose 2000 for a teardown if they reck it.
Grounded with the prop off ...
Scott Johnson / Chicago rvgasj(at)mcs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Lewis" <timrv6a(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
On 12 Dec 97 at 7:54, Joe Larson wrote:
> >From those of you with flying airplanes, I'm wondering what sort of
> changes from the norm are "standard". Specifically, I'm wondering if
> the restriction regarding congested and densely populated airspace is
> removable for RVs.
Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates:
Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate--
...
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations,
no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely
populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special
operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to
be
conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance
with
terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in
air
commerce
________________________________________________________________________________
" 3. Except for takeoffs and landings, no person may oeprate this
aircraft over densly populated areas or in congested airways."
So it appears that a waiver for takeoffs and landings is "standard" .
------------------------------------
Tim Lewis
N47TD (reserved) RV-6AQ #60023
Springfield VA
timrv6a(at)earthlink.net or
timrv6a(at)iname.com
------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Lycoming cylinder porting |
Listers,
Here is my take on the cold air induction thread going around. There exists
a Catch 22 with this issue. Cold air is more dense, hence more oxygen
molecules per given cubic volume than hotter air. On the converse, cold
fuel is harder to atomize (the only condition in which gasoline will burn -
vapor) and it tends to want to condense on the intake tract walls. This
condensing will render the fuel basically useless until such a time as it
rejoins the airstream. The fuel will usually condense at low power
settings, such as at idle, with relatively cold intake tract temperatures.
This is the reason for not polishing the intake tract anywhere that fuel
will be mixed with the air. The relatively rough surface creates surface
turbulence that helps prevent the fuel from condensing. The fuel rejoin the
airstream at higher throttle setting when airflow increases, thereby
"picking up the fuel" and carrying it into the cylinders for atomization and
then combustion. When at idle and the fuel is condensing, this is
effectively leaning the mixture. This is the reason for having a choke on
an automotive carburetor. It richens the mixture in anticipation of this
leaning effect, so that there is still enough fuel left over when it gets to
the cylinder to burn reasonably well.
The problem with an aircraft carburetor or a throttle body injector is that
the fuel is mixed (or is supposed to be) with the air the entire length of
the intake tract. This basically nullifies most of the advantage gained by
cold air induction. The air is cold and dense, but then so is the fuel and
the intake runners. Heat up the air to preserve atomization and fuel
retention and the density advantage is gone. This, as I see it, would be an
extreme benefit to port type fuel injection (not necessarily EFI). You
could go to whatever lengths you wanted to get the intake air as cold as
possible, flow it through polished runners without penalty and have it meet
up with the fuel just before entering the cylinders. Then atomization is
accomplished by a carefully designed nozzle which atomizes fuel better than
any carburetor could ever dream of. Hence, when the intake valve opens,
cold, dense air flows in along with an extremely fine mist of fuel. All of
the fuel gets burned (ie. no puddling in the low spots of the intake tract)
and economy as well as performance are increased. This is what cars have
done for years, with strictly mechanical systems, electromechanical CIS
systems and sequentially fired electronic systems.
Again, a long winded explanation of my own read on things. Sorry if I bored
anyone...... ;-)
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>In addition, is there any reason why an electric gyro might be less
>susceptible to damage from aerobatics?
>
>
>Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
>ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
If you can "cage" the gyro, it's fine for aerobatics. Most
vacuum gyros cannot be caged except for some very old Korean
War veterans. There may be electric caging mechanisms that
cage a powered down gyro . . check with the individual
makers. Some of my aerobatic readers are mounting gyros
on a sub-panel removable from the pilot's seat using thumb
screws and quick-disconnects for the hoses so they can
leave the gyros on the ground when they feel like getting
a little silly . . .
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355 <JNice51355(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Newbie at large |
YES, IT'S A GREAT IDEA!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice On Installing VANS Prop Governor Bracket |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>I am trying to install VANS prop governor bracket on the new governor
>they
>sent me. I have a Lycoming 0-360 also from VANS. The problem is that
>the
>governor bracket hits the oil filter ( the standard ch48110 lycoming
>oil
>filter). I assumed since I bought the engine, governor, and governor
>bracket from VANS, it would have fit. Has anybody else run into this
>problem, and how did you solve it. If I position the bracket any
>other way
>than the plans show it, it will not be at the correct angle for the
>governor
>lever. I don't see any easy way to modify it either.
>
>Thanks In Advance For Any Ideas !!
>
>Scott Johnson
>rvgasj(at)mcs.com
Scott
You install the arm bracket just as you described so that it is
orientated correctly to the control arm, and then adjust the position of
the bracket on the governor.
Because the Prop gov's have to be used on a large # of different aircraft
they are adjustable.
I think we are still supplying woodwards (is that what you have).
With the woodward there are screws that can be loosened after removing
some safety wire that will allow the end of the gov. that has the control
arm and cable bracket to be rotated to whatever orientation you need for
your installation (do not fully disassemble, just loosen and rotate).
Then resafety the screws and your set to go.
I would love to see the look on your face the first time you shove that
throttle fwd after using a fixed pitch up until now.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
an do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice - I can't get the internal crankshaft |
plug out.
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I tried today to get that plug out and it won't budge. Has
>anybody
>got a good way to do this. What makes it very hard is that the oil
>spray
>bar is right in front of the plug.
>
>I have already tried pulling it out with a dent puller with a maching
>screw
>on the end of it. But the hole keeps getting bigger, and the plug
>won't budge.
I have had good results using the dent puller in the past.
Are you using a deep (course) threaded screw?
I asume you have already tried on both sides of the spray bar.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
an do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Newbie at large |
----------
certainly don't think I'll finish the project without leaning on the smarts
of the folks who have passed before me.
> Nick Knobil
(big snip)
Good for you that you follow your dream. List or no list, the will to do it
and finish is yours alone. Faith in yourself and determination are the
keys. I certainly agree that the list links you to a large club who are
there to help over the bumps, but if you want to build bad enough, nothing
short of no funds will stop you. At least you are getting the best kit out
there regardless of type or cost and the RV group is a very good source
with lots of experience to draw on. You will finish ok, all it takes is a
start. Good luck and enjoy......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin Tinckler" <tinckler(at)axionet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice - I can't get the internal crankshaft plug out. |
----------
> From: Scott Johnson <rvgasj(at)popmail.mcs.net>
: RV-List: Need Advice - I can't get the internal crankshaft plug out.
> I have already tried pulling it out with a dent puller with a maching
screw
See page 40 of Tony Bingelis's book "engines" has good diagrams of just
this problem. Basically you insert an L shaped bar of steel with a hook on
one end into the hole you made then use a small hammer to tap it out
towards you. And yes this is with the darn spray bar in there.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: Primer Issues |
Listers,
I have primed all of my empennage components with the Sherwin-Williams
primer listed in the preview plans. The part# escapes me at the moment and
I'm WAY too lazy to run down to the aircraft shop (aka garage) to look, but
it's the only S-W primer listed. I decided on this after a visit to the
Van's prototype shop and saw that they were using it on the RV 8A prototype.
It is very simple to use. It is a self-etching acid wash primer so you can
spray it on with no alodine or anything, just bare metal (I do use a purple
Scotch-Brite pad to scuff them up first, though). It's cheap- $50 for one
gallon of primer AND a gallon of catalyst/reducer and it cleans up easy with
regular laquer thinner. When it is sprayed right it the parts look
anodized. One time I took my vertical stab rear spar to work to show the
uneducated what it was that I was doing in my garage that I'm always
blabbing incessantly about, and several people asked me where I had it anodized.
My two cents worth...
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
Jon Elford
RV 6A #25201
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lousmith <Lousmith(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice On Installing VANS Prop Governor Bracket |
> I am trying to install VANS prop governor bracket on the new governor they
> sent me. I have a Lycoming 0-360 also from VANS. The problem is that the
> governor bracket hits the oil filter ( the standard ch48110 lycoming oil
> filter). I assumed since I bought the engine, governor, and governor
> bracket from VANS, it would have fit. Has anybody else run into this
> problem, and how did you solve it. If I position the bracket any other way
> than the plans show it, it will not be at the correct angle for the
governor
> lever. I don't see any easy way to modify it either.
>
> Thanks In Advance For Any Ideas !!
>
> Scott Johnson
> rvgasj(at)mcs.com
>
Scott,
First remove the screws on the rear plate of the prop gov. and rotate the
plate and the lever to the desired position. Next, replace the bracket and
the screws. I ran into the same problem on my RV-8. Called the company that
I bought the gov. from and was told that you could re-index the rear plate to
any position.
Regards,
Louis Smith
lousmith(at)aol.com
RV8 N801RV
Interior finished, Engine mounted and waiting on the rest of the finish kit!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Osterman III" <PineRanch(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Tracy Cooks Mazda 13B |
12/13/97
Listers:
I asked Tracy Cook for an update on his project and received the following
post which you may find interesting:
Paul Osterman III
RV6A Drilling Gear Mounts
Anderson, Ca
------
Hi Paul,
I know of the RV-List and wish I had time to follow and participate in it.
The time constraints of building a house, developing the EFI & PSRU,
keeping up with book and ignition controller orders, and publishing the
Rotary Aviation Newsletter just eats up all my time. I'm hoping to have
more time soon when the house is done (early next year).
The following is a brief update on the engine & airplane. Feel free to
post it to the list.
P.S. You're gonna love the RV-6A and thanks for asking about me.
I've been flying the Mazda 13B rotary on the RV-4 for three years and
almost 600 hours now. The airplane gets flown 4 - 8 hours a week
commuting back and forth between here (Clearwater FL) and Shady Bend
airpark where I am building a house. I no longer worry about the engine
at all, I'm convinced it is as reliable (or more so ) than anything
Lycoming or Continental ever built. Confidence in the associated stuff
(PSRU, cooling system, etc.) is growing all the time but still to be
proven.
Still flying the Mikuni carburetor setup and a Ross drive but will soon
install an EFI and PSRU of my own design that are now running on a test
stand engine. The EFI system is fully redundant (except for the injectors)
and the PSRU is a planetary gear design which uses the same Ford C6 gears
as the Ross unit but everything else about it is different.
Current performance of flying engine is equivalent to a Lyc. 0 - 320 160hp
but I expect to get about 185 hp from the EFI setup.
________________________________________________________________________________
hours. At 600 hours I have seen no signs of wear, compression loss, oil
usage, etc. It's worth mentioning that I started with a 7 year old junk
yard engine and I replaced only the apex seals and oil seal O-rings before
installing the engine. I have been using Mobile 1 oil and change it at 60
- 70 hour intervals. Have had to add no oil between changes and there is
no noticeable drop in the oil level. As you may remember, I don't use the
factory oil injection system so I must mix about 1 ounce of Marvel Mystery
Oil per gallon of fuel. I use 87 OCT unleaded except when on long trips
when I must use 100 LL.
I expect to have about 1000 hours on the engine by the end of 98 at which
time I will do a teardown and inspection. At that time I will write
another magazine article about the results & findings.
I try to follow the running debate on which engine is the "right one" for
the RV (Ford 3.8 vs Chevy Vortec vs Mazda rotary) but its hard to get
good comparison data. My main complaint about the V6s is weight. Jesse
Myers claims the Chevy is only 40 lbs more than a Lyc. but I'd need to see
the hard numbers to believe it. As far as performance, I don't really
know. I'd love the opportunity to fly head to head with a V6 powered RV
and find out.
I have trouble getting Laura (wife) and all camping gear in the RV-4 so I'm
thinking about building an RV -8. Power will be either a turbocharged 13B
or a normally aspirated 20B three rotor engine. The 20B will make around
260 HP in non-turbo trim. This is far into the future of course and I
will be flying the -4 for a long time.
Although I don't have time to join the RV-List right now, I'm always happy
to answer specific questions about the engine. Just E-mail me at
71175.606(at)compuserve.com .
Tracy Crook
Rotary powered RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Will Cretsinger <cretsinger(at)startext.net> |
| Subject: | Re: instrument panel |
Robert Cabe wrote:
> One additional comment. The center support (I think it's f-643) may be an
> inch short. Mine was.
Is it short or was it intended to stiffen the skin? Stiffeners are used in other
locations and I thought little about this being the case here also. I added no
extension...should I? I like it as a stiffener.
Will Cretsinger
-6A working on tilt canopy now
Arlington, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >In addition, is there any reason why an electric gyro might be less
> >susceptible to damage from aerobatics?
> >
> >
> >Ed Bundy RV6A - first flight 11/20/96
> >ebundy(at)juno.com - Eagle, ID
>
> If you can "cage" the gyro, it's fine for aerobatics. Most
> vacuum gyros cannot be caged except for some very old Korean
> War veterans. There may be electric caging mechanisms that
> cage a powered down gyro . . check with the individual
> makers. Some of my aerobatic readers are mounting gyros
> on a sub-panel removable from the pilot's seat using thumb
> screws and quick-disconnects for the hoses so they can
> leave the gyros on the ground when they feel like getting
> a little silly . . .
>
> Bob . . .
> AeroElectric Connection
>
> Then what does the gaging knob on the vacuum Sigmatek do?
DC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
<< Also, I have a "live man"
circuit breaker that is normally open which when pushed in by passes all
switches in the crucial circuits providing power to the EFI and ignition
modules. I have been told that it is overengineered - but when my butt is
on the line, no such thing. >>
This is like the "Battle Short" switches we put in our Mil-Spec Computers.
Good policy.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
<< If you can "cage" the gyro, it's fine for aerobatics. >>
Not so, Bob. The caging does not protect the gyro in any way. It merely
allows it to be re-erected promptly upon resuming level flight.
All gyros are freaked out by aerobatics, some maybe more than others, but the
cageable feature has no bearing (hah, hah, I kill myself) on this.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
Sorry if this is a bit stale. I inadvertently sent it to Hal instead of
to the list.
halk(at)sybase.com wrote:
> Only a few percent of serious accidents arise from engine problems,
> many from very old and very poorly maintained Lyconts. To enhance
> our safety it is clear that we should spend money maintaining
> proficiency.
I recall similar flamefests in rec.aviation.homebuilt. Paul "don't fly
your Chevy over my house" Lamar, a bitter anti-auto-engine campaigner,
asserted (amongst many other "failings" which have been aired in this
thread) that auto-engine powered planes were falling out of the sky with
broken crankshafts due to prop loads. He went so far as to search the
NTSB database for "experimental" and "homebuilt" and found many engine
failures, which he claimed as proof of his theory. Except that mostly
they'd been fuel starvation. Not a single broken crank could be found.
I'm curious as to the reliability of a mid-time O320 which I can afford)
compared to the reliability of a converted Chevy or Mazda (which I can
also afford). The reliability of a brand new O320 ex-Vans is only
relevant to me if I win Lotto.
But I don't believe it's a huge issue.
Let's assume that a Chevy engine (not the ancillary systems like
alternator, etc which you'll also have in a Lyc) is *twice* as likely to
fail catastrophically in mid-air as a Lycoming. That might (I'm guessing
at the numbers) increase your chances of an accident from 1 in
10,000,000 hours to 2 in 10,000,000 hours. But your chance of having an
accident due to other causes is somewhere round 2 in 100,000 hours. Of
those, 75-85% are pilot error. It wouldn't matter if a Chevy was 10
times more likely to fail than a Lyc. There are many ways you can reduce
your accident risk to the same level as the Lyc by flying more
conservatively, maintaining proficiency, not doing low-level acro, etc.
So I agree 100% with Hal. The major cause of engine failure is simply
running out of gas. In the interests of safety, why aren't we discussing
how to add extra fuel tanks to our planes?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pop Rivets on Skins |
<< the monel 7/64" dia pop
rivet is tubular and the stell mandrel often is not retained in the shear
plane, so it ends up that this rivet is not as strong in shear as is the 3/32
aluminum AN rivet. >>
Then why would anyone elect to use the monel rivets in place of the aluminum?
By the way, I appreciate you including your shear test data. It answered some
questions for me, as well as prompted me to ask myself a few more, about the
previous builder/s of my kit.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
"Junkyard Dog" RV-4 S/No 4239
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chester razer <razer(at)midwest.net> |
| Subject: | 6A Weight / Balance Data |
Thought I'd post this weight and balance data as reference for the 6A
builders
Weighed my 6A yesterday with electronic scales.
Here's some aircraft data:
airframe interior fully primed
exterior primed and three applications of durethane
0360 A1A
Woofter prop extension
Performance Wood Prop
Basic VFR panel using both RMI units
two radios
Basic Interior: seat cushions and backs, no side panels or flooring
Manual trim and flaps.
Wing tip strobes with power supplies in wing tips
ELT behind pilot seat.
Aircraft built as per Vans plans with no extras
Mains: 772lbs
Nose wheel: 268 lbs
total: 1040 lbs
I don't know what other 6A's weigh, I'm simply posting this as a
construction aid for other 6A builders to use as a reference
--
Chet Razer
razer(at)midwest.net
Getting ready for FAA inspection and looking for a flying date in
February
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W B Ward <WBWard(at)aol.com> |
<< So, are 747's at risk being all electric or do they have vacuum sytems? >>
I am not aware of any vacuum systems in the B747's, MD11's, DC10's, A300's
A310's, 727-200's, or the 727-100's that the company I work for owns.
I do know that most of the "essential" IFR equipment, is tied to hot battery
busses to keep them running, in the event of electrical system failure. That
gives the crew time to make a nearby alternate.
Regards
Wendell WBWard(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DFaile <DFaile(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
Concerning the "Congested Airspace" restriction.
We approached our FSDO with the fact that if they restrict us from congested
airspace, we would be unable to fly to and land at Oshkosh! I think OSH is
"congested airspace" during the event!
david faile
CFII/A&P
Christen Eagle II Flying Since '82
RV6 started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | F Mark40 <FMark40(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim |
I have my cardboard trim tab pattern constructed and installed on my elevator.
Now I must make the control horn so I can establish a position for my servo
mounting plate. The supplemental instructions show the horn being made of two
pieces of angle riveted to the bottom of the skin. The manual trim uses the
thicker horn mounted to the root end of the trim tab. This looks like a more
robust installation because it is attached to the root rib (or folded skin)
and has a doubler which is not shown in the plans but is in the RVAtor.
If I go with the skin mounted horn as per the electric trim plans, should I
put a doubler under the skin ? There is not one in the plans, but I am
concerned about the 0.016 skin being able to handle the load at the rivet
points. Or, should I go with the root mounted horn and doubler like the
manual trim uses ? Maybe this will be too close to the root end to allow the
servo to get a straight poke at the horn.
Also, the supplemental plans are not to scale and there are no dimensions for
the trim horn. I guess the dimensions of the horn are not critical and can be
compensated for by using the servo governor.
How have you electric trim users done it ?
Mark McGee
Wings due to arrive any day now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marty Sailer <mwsailer(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Hop-up Mods |
Richard Chandler wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>I spoke to a rep from ECI at Sun & Fun about smoothing the intakes after seeing
how rough it was, when I overhauled my O-360, in my Cherokee. He said they did
it to an engine and it lost power on the Dyno. They didn't believe it and
tried it to another engine with the same results. ECI does recommend Balancing.
Marty RV-6AQ 464RV(res) Allentown, Pa.
Putting lights in wing tips
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies was Engine Hop-up Mods |
| From: | ron.taborek(at)flight642.com (RON TABOREK) |
Charlie,
I'd just like to add my support to your comments about trying to
edit the quotes used in the emails. If there are many people like me on
the list it's all our computer skills can manage to get hooked up and
joined, but having finally figured out how to extract selective lines
for quotes, I find it's not too hard at all.
It sure would make reading and understanding the list easier if
quotes were edited a bit more.
ron.taborek(at)flight642.com RV-4 Installing O-320 Toronto
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | snowmd(at)cavemen.net (Snow, Mark) |
| Subject: | Engine Hop-up Mods |
I now have two independent sources for the EFI electronic trigger
>signal. Just thought I would pass along my experience.
>
>
I also have two independent trigger sources for my efi computer in the form
of two completely redundant electronic ignition systems. These two trigger
sources are fed to an or gate making them invisible to each other.
Pre-flight run up is conducted in the same manner as with a mag equipped
engine, checking first the intrigty of #1 ignition and then #2.this system
has worked well for me. The possible single point failure
is in or'ing circuitry and the efi computer.Redundency does not have to be
in the form of more electronics however,would'nt an air door in the form of
an ellison or posa serve as a back up,cost being the draw back here?
Mark Snow
48RV
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie <ckfiber(at)dallas.net> |
| Subject: | Houston Area Trip |
I will be in the Houston, TX area on business December 14-21st. I always
like to look at RV projects for hints, tips, etc. I will be available in
the evenings mainly. If anyone is interested in letting me take a peek at
your project or flying RV let me know at (ckfiber(at)dallas.net). Thanks in
advance!
Charlie Kearns
RV8 N113JK
Finishing up wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim |
Mark , I can't help but thanks for the post.
I planed on the elec trim when I finished the horn. I ordered the
worthless EET-1 kit from Van's & found the horn material could not be
used & plans were drawn backwards, & no dimensions. E mailed Bill but he
wasn't shocked. So I used the manual horn. Since then I found a panel on
some ones Home page that mounts the control of the manual system like a
cert airplane, I plan to use it when I get there. I have found to may
posts on fine tunning control & elec failures.
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lottmc(at)datastar.net (Michael C. Lott) |
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies was Engine Hop-up Mods |
This is for Charlie.
Charlie, I know how to reply by adding the entire previous post, or none
of it. I don't know how to be selective with parts of the previous
post. If you could give a quick lesson on how to do this and post it to
the list, I would appreciate it and maybe a few others would, also.
Thanks. Michael Lott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EDWARD HASCH JR <hasch(at)earthlink.net> |
i have an rv 6 for sale.base gallatin tn (m33) hangared
built 1992 340 tt airframe 985smoh engine 0 320 e3d
aircraft is polished aluminum beautiful aircraft in and out
call for info
ed hasch a&p ia cfi faa dar
615 824 4704 work 615 275 3418
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies |
<34941167.8841F508(at)datastar.net>
Mike: I am on Juno, so this may not help you. I reply with the old
message & type between the lines on the reply page so I can keep up with
what I am trying to say. When I get to worthless trash I highlight &
"cut" to the buffer. I always get a few blank lines so I delete them out.
Juno does not allow any selective cuts on the read page so I make a text
file & play with it there.
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Editing email replies was Engine Hop-up Mods |
Michael C. Lott wrote:
snipped
I don't know how to be selective with parts of the previous
> post. If you could give a quick lesson on how to do this and post it to
> the list, I would appreciate it and maybe a few others would, also.
> Thanks.
My pleasure Mike,
I use Netscape mail for my main email account and Juno for my backup. I
know the following works on them as well as MS Mail & AOL. After
clicking the REPLY TO button, you will see the text of the post you wish
to reply to.
Step 1
Decide if your reply should be to the entire list or only the author of
the original post. If posting to the list, continue to step 2
When replying to the author only, note his email address. You will find
it listed somewhere on his original post. Usually it is near the top,
such as:
--> RV-list message posted by: (his email address here)
click on the MAIL TO box not the MAIL TO button.(The box is the white
rectangular area with typed text in it.) Delete the
"rv-list(at)matronics.com" and type in the author's email address. ie:
charliekuss(at)sprintmail.com
If you wish to send another copy of your reply to someone else, click on
the Cc button and type in the second person's email address. If you read
the header to this post, you will see that I sent a second copy to Mike
directly.
Step 2
If you are changing the subject from the original post, please note this
in the SUBJECT box by clicking on the subject area and changing the
subject info. See the subject title of this post for an example of doing
this.
Step3
Click on the MESSAGE box area, starting with the beginning of the text
you wish to delete. Wait for the blinking cursor to appear. If it is
slightly left or right of where you want it, move it using your mouse or
the North, South, East & West keys (the 4 gray keys with the arrows to
the right of the main keys on the board). Position the mouse arrow over
the blinking cursor and click the mouse's left key. Hold the left key
down and drag (roll) the mouse to the right side of the screen. The
screen will turn the text in this area either black or blue (depending
on your email program). When you reach the right side of the screen,
start moving the mouse down, continuing to hold the left mouse button
down.
You should now have an area of shaded text. This procedure is called
"blocking". Once you have blocked all the text you wish to delete,
release the mouse button. The shaded area should still be on screen. Hit
the DELETE key and the shaded(blocked) area disappears. If you need to
remove part of the last line in your block, simply move the mouse back
towards the left side of the screen before releasing the left mouse
button.
If the shaded area goes white before you are ready to delete (you let
your finger off of the mouse button, or double clicked the button,
didn't you?) repeat step 3.
The most readable replies are formatted:
Question or opinion
Answer or counter opinion
Question #2 or opinion #2
Answer #2 or counter opinion #2
etcetra, etcetra
Blocking can be used to speed up deleting text in the MAIL TO, Cc and
SUBJECT boxs.
You'll be getting a bill in the mail for this computer lesson at the end
of the month!! :-)
Newbie's note: Single words in all capitals merely means emphasis on the
word. Sentences or paragraphs all in capitals is considered shouting.
(very rude)
This symbol --> :-) is a sideways smiley face. It indicates a joke
or humor.
Happy holidays
Charlie Kuss
if I squint just right, the sand on the beach almost looks like snow!
:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flight restrictions |
Guys, refer to AC 20-27D, Certification and Operation of Amatuer-Built
Aircraft, Appendix 9, Sample List of Operating Limitations, Phase I, Initial
Flight Test in Restricted Area, paragragh 3: "EXCEPT FOR TAKEOFFS AND
LANDINGS, no person may operate this aircraft over densely populated areas or
in congested airways". This same limitation continues in Phase II. As far as
I know, you can takeoff and land anywhere that any other aircraft can so long
as you and your aircraft meet all the other requirements for operating in that
airspace and there are no other specific restrictions in effect at a
particular airport that would preclude your use thereof (I know there are
some). Does anyone have any regulatory info to the contrary? If so, I've
busted it a lot of times!
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of DFaile
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 1997 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: RV-List: Flight restrictions
Concerning the "Congested Airspace" restriction.
We approached our FSDO with the fact that if they restrict us from congested
airspace, we would be unable to fly to and land at Oshkosh! I think OSH is
"congested airspace" during the event!
david faile
CFII/A&P
Christen Eagle II Flying Since '82
RV6 started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim |
----------
From: owner-rv-list(at)matronics.com on behalf of F Mark40
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 1997 7:49 AM
Subject: RV-List: Electric Elevator Trim
I have my cardboard trim tab pattern constructed and installed on my elevator.
Now I must make the control horn so I can establish a position for my servo
mounting plate. The supplemental instructions show the horn being made of two
pieces of angle riveted to the bottom of the skin. The manual trim uses the
thicker horn mounted to the root end of the trim tab. This looks like a more
robust installation because it is attached to the root rib (or folded skin)
and has a doubler which is not shown in the plans but is in the RVAtor.
If I go with the skin mounted horn as per the electric trim plans, should I
put a doubler under the skin ? There is not one in the plans, but I am
concerned about the 0.016 skin being able to handle the load at the rivet
points. Or, should I go with the root mounted horn and doubler like the
manual trim uses ? Maybe this will be too close to the root end to allow the
servo to get a straight poke at the horn.
Also, the supplemental plans are not to scale and there are no dimensions for
the trim horn. I guess the dimensions of the horn are not critical and can be
compensated for by using the servo governor.
How have you electric trim users done it ?
Mark McGee
Wings due to arrive any day now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric Elevator Trim |
FMark40(at)aol.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
You don't say what model RV you're building. I'm building a -6 (#24692,
emp purchased early 1996), with manual trim.
> The supplemental instructions show the horn being made of two
> pieces of angle riveted to the bottom of the skin. The manual trim
> uses the thicker horn mounted to the root end of the trim tab. This
> looks like a more robust installation because it is attached to the
> root rib (or folded skin) and has a doubler which is not shown in
> the plans but is in the RVAtor.
I made my trim horn according to the plans. It is NOT mounted on the
root end of the trim tab. In fact, it's made the same as what you
describe the electric trim horn. No doubler either. Incidentally, I used
solid rivets rather than pops to attach the horn to the trim tab.
> Also, the supplemental plans are not to scale and there are no
> dimensions for the trim horn. I guess the dimensions of the horn
> are not critical and can be compensated for by using the servo
> governor.
Surely you got the trim horn pieces supplied pre-cut and folded?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Electric Elevator Trim |
I was going to suggest you get the install kit (EE-KIT) until I read Don's
reply. I installed mine about a year ago on a tail kit I got about a year and
a half ago and thought it was pretty straight forward, but then I'm left
handed, so I tend to do everything upside down and backwards, I guess. Sure
didn't have the experience Don relates. Just checked it and it seems strong
enough to me compared to the manual one I had on my first RV. So if no one
states otherwise, that's what I'm going with.
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA
Mark , I can't help but thanks for the post.
I planed on the elec trim when I finished the horn. I ordered the
worthless EET-1 kit from Van's & found the horn material could not be
used & plans were drawn backwards, & no dimensions. E mailed Bill but he
wasn't shocked. So I used the manual horn. Since then I found a panel on
some ones Home page that mounts the control of the manual system like a
cert airplane, I plan to use it when I get there. I have found to may
posts on fine tunning control & elec failures.
Don Jordan~~ 6A-wings~~ Arlington,Tx~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William G. Knight" <airshows1(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | $$$ For RV-6 Aircraft |
Have $$$ for clean 180 hp RV-6 (not RV-6A) with sliding canopy, approved c/s
prop, and Phlogiston spar or quick-build. Please call Bill at 561-278-8369
or e-mail off list at address: airshows1(at)msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Sheehan <wsheehan(at)concentric.net> |
| Subject: | Any Bay Area RV-6A Builders? |
Hi,
1) I am seriously interested in gettig na quick build kit for
the RV-6A. Most interested in viewing and helping someone who
is in progress. Do you need a second set of hands?
2) Also potentially interested in buying a kit in progress.
3) Eventually will be interested in buying and used tools &
equipment used in construction.
4) Any ideas on renting a building space?
Thanks,
William Sheehan
Menlo Park, CA
I don't got nothing yet....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald) |
snip>>>So I agree 100% with Hal. The major cause of engine failure is
simply running out of gas. In the interests of safety, why aren't we
discussing how to add extra fuel tanks to our planes?
Frank.<<| From: | Alivic(at)wport.com |
| Subject: | auto conversions |
I deduced yesterday after almost two weeks of no rv-list mail that I had
inadvertantely been un subscribed from the list and that since 12/1/97
there had been a rather active thread regarding auto conversions. I
checked in the archives and these discussions have not been posted as
yet. If anyone out here still has these discussions I would very much
appreciate your forwarding them to me. In order to not swamp my server
account please clear with me before forwarding all of these applicable
messages. Tony Livic (alivic(at)wport.com)
RV-8 empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice On Installing VANS Prop Governor Bracket |
Scott,
I too have Van's gov bracket and 0-360 engine. Mine fits just
fine..although I had to elongate two of the three mounting holes on
the bolt circle of the bracket to make them line up exactly with the bolts
on the gov. cover.
My Gov. control lever swings from about the 2 o'clock to about the 10
o'clock position. (consider 12 o'clock straight up) The bracket is
mounted so the cable comes in at about the 9:30 position.
You know, you can change the position of the gov control levers on most
governors, I think, by loosening the cover assembly (remove screws) and
rotating cover and lever assembly to desired clock position.
Good luck,
If I can help further give me a shout...!
Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q
Seattle area
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle 510-606-1001) |
| Subject: | Re: auto conversions |
Tony,
up to about 1am that same day. I just looked at the archive and the last
posting with a valid date was on 12/13 at 23:55. So, the discussions you
mention should be available in the archives.
Hope this helps...
Matt Dralle
RV-List Admin.
>--------------
>
>I deduced yesterday after almost two weeks of no rv-list mail that I had
>inadvertantely been un subscribed from the list and that since 12/1/97
>there had been a rather active thread regarding auto conversions. I
>checked in the archives and these discussions have not been posted as
>yet. If anyone out here still has these discussions I would very much
>appreciate your forwarding them to me. In order to not swamp my server
>account please clear with me before forwarding all of these applicable
>messages. Tony Livic (alivic(at)wport.com)
>RV-8 empennage
>
>
>
>
>--------------
--
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: | Cafgef <Cafgef(at)aol.com> |
File under handy hints In the area of tools:
I bought a file used to sharpen chain saws. It is about 5/32 dia. It has
been a very handy file for making holes bigger and cleaning up corners.
Leaves a smooth finish, relative speaking. A couple of bucks and well worth
it.
Gene Francis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Woodson <woodson(at)soe.berkeley.edu> |
| Subject: | Weight and Balance on RV8 |
Can anyone give me weight and balance data for
the RV8?
In particular, I am wondering if it can handle
250 pounds in the back? Perhaps some weight would
need to be placed in the front luggage compartment
to balance it. Would that put it over gross?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us> |
| Subject: | Navaid installation |
I am about to begin installation of the Navaid servo unit, under passenger
seat, according to the instructions supplied Navaid by some builders.
There are two schemes provided. One sits a bit more forward than the
other.
Any advice out there on this installation....?
Thank You,
Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q
Seattle area
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Edwards <CTE(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Weight and Balance on RV8 |
I tried a passenger of 250 pounds in my computer RV-8 the pilot could only
be 203 pounds and the front baggage compartment had to be filled with 4
pounds of stuff to handle fuel exhaustion and stay within CG range. This
was full fuel and computed inside of Flightsoft Pro.
Chris Edwards
RV-8 #80231
-----Original Message-----
From: INTERNET:rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 1997 7:44 PM
Subject: RV-List: Weight and Balance on RV8
by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with SMTP id
TAA19002;
by mole with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
(PST)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 16:41:59 -0800
From: Charles Woodson <woodson(at)soe.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RV-List: Weight and Balance on RV8
Can anyone give me weight and balance data for
the RV8?
In particular, I am wondering if it can handle
250 pounds in the back? Perhaps some weight would
need to be placed in the front luggage compartment
to balance it. Would that put it over gross?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6ator <RV6ator(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Navaid installation |
Ron,
I have installed two Navaid autopilots, one in my six and one in a friends
6A.
The installation is quite simple, although I do not recall how far forward or
back the servo was mounted. Your best bet is just hook the servo arm up to the
right hand stick and position the servo on the floor where it seems to work
best. I mounted the servo directly to the bottom skin using a doubler and it
has worked just fine. Try to keep the servo-stick connect rod as short as
possible.
Good Luck
Regards,
Bill Mahoney
RV-6 N747W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355 <JNice51355(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 6A Weight / Balance Data |
Thanks for the valuable info!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Push-Pull Tube |
Today I decided to fit the push-pull tubes from the bellcrank to the ailerons.
At
the bellcrank end I found in an old Rvator that I need to place a 5702-75-60
washer on each side of the rod end bearing for clearance reasons. This is held
together with a AN-3-10A bolt and AN-365-1032 nut. Goes together real well this
way.
On the aileron end, things start to get a little fuzzy. Where the rod end bearing
attaches to the a-607 bracket I can find no hints in the plans anywhere as to
how
this is supposed to go together The only drawing that shows this is on page 10
of
the plans and this is a macro view of the wing and its pieces. This drawing shows
that the push pull tube on the inboard side of the A-607 bracket but no hardware
call outs. It makes sense to put it on this side (inboard) but the hole in the
rear spar will have to be enlarged a bunch from what the plans say to accomplish
this. So my questions are:
1) Which side of A-607 bracket did you install the rod end on and what hardware
did you use. I know there has to be a spacer and some washers, but what washers
and how many spacers?
2) How big did you have to make the hole in the rear spar?
3) If I am really dumb and missed this in the manual and plans, What pages should
I look at?
Thanks in advance
Gary Zilik
RV-6A s/n 22993
Pondering over Push-Pull tubes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>
><< If you can "cage" the gyro, it's fine for aerobatics. >>
>
>Not so, Bob. The caging does not protect the gyro in any way. It merely
>allows it to be re-erected promptly upon resuming level flight.
>
>All gyros are freaked out by aerobatics, some maybe more than others, but the
>cageable feature has no bearing (hah, hah, I kill myself) on this.
You have to power 'em down too . . . it's true that caging just
centers the mechanisms but it also keeps the gimbals from banging
around due to outside influences. If the rotor is still spinning,
then there's a lot of stress on the bearings as well. Our
gyros are shipped UPS only if both caged AND power (or vacuum)
removed).
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
<3.0.1.16.19971214060144.30a70464(at)dtc.net>
>>
>> Then what does the gaging knob on the vacuum Sigmatek do?
>
Call the Sigmatek and find out. Some caging systems may be
momentary centering devices only that let you speed up the
process of getting your gyro stood up at power up.
The kind of caging mechanism you're looking for is a
latching variety . . . you'll also need to power down the
rotating force for the rotor be it electric/vacuum. Check
with the manufacturer.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . . >
< Show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weight and Balance on RV8 |
42-43,45-58
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
writes:
>
>
>Can anyone give me weight and balance data for
>the RV8?
Charles
not without a lot more information.
I'm not meaning to pick on you directly but this kind of question is
asked so often and it really is unanswerable.
It is like asking if the space I have to work in is big enough to build
an RV-8. How big of a space?
Van discussed this type of general question in one of the RVator
newsletters recently and he explained that without more information this
question can't be answered about any airplane
Things such as - what size other passenger(s), how much fuel on board
(and for airplanes like RV's were a lot of other variables are possible)
what engine and prop are installed (hence - What is the empty weight and
empty C.G. position.
I'll try and answer using a general example of an RV-8 with a 180 Lyc and
a constant speed prop, typical equipment that builders tend to install
and a typical paint job.
Empty it would probably weigh between 1060 and 1100 lbs.
with a gross of 1800 we'll say we have a useful load of 700 lbs.
subtract for 42 gal of fuel and we have 448 useful left which would
handle a 200 pounder up front and almost 250 in the back.
I am pretty sure you are ok for CG until fuel starts getting low (say 10
gals) then I think it would be right near or maybe aft of the aft limit.
reduce fuel load slightly and put some ba gage up front and it would help
with the CG situation.
This is just a hypothetical example that I am guessing from memory on how
the #'s work out, so don't take it for absolute fact but I think it is
close.
I don't think any builders have received any specific weight and balance
info in kits yet (not till finish kit),
So, as you can see with an RV-8 (as well as any airplanes for that
matter) the correct answer to your question would be "that depends".
I hope this general info some what answers your question though.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
>In particular, I am wondering if it can handle
>250 pounds in the back? Perhaps some weight would
>need to be placed in the front luggage compartment
>to balance it. Would that put it over gross?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Push-Pull Tube |
<34953383.686DB17F(at)bewellnet.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
writes:
>
>Today I decided to fit the push-pull tubes from the bellcrank to the
>ailerons. At
>the bellcrank end I found in an old Rvator that I need to place a
>5702-75-60
>washer on each side of the rod end bearing for clearance reasons. This
>is held
>together with a AN-3-10A bolt and AN-365-1032 nut. Goes together real
>well this
>way.
>On the aileron end, things start to get a little fuzzy. Where the rod
>end bearing
>attaches to the a-607 bracket I can find no hints in the plans
>anywhere as to how
>this is supposed to go together The only drawing that shows this is on
>page 10 of
>the plans and this is a macro view of the wing and its pieces. This
>drawing shows
>that the push pull tube on the inboard side of the A-607 bracket but
>no hardware
>call outs. It makes sense to put it on this side (inboard) but the
>hole in the
>rear spar will have to be enlarged a bunch from what the plans say to
>accomplish
>this. So my questions are:
>
>1) Which side of A-607 bracket did you install the rod end on and what
>hardware
>did you use. I know there has to be a spacer and some washers, but
>what washers
>and how many spacers?
>
>2) How big did you have to make the hole in the rear spar?
>
>3) If I am really dumb and missed this in the manual and plans, What
>pages should
>I look at?
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Gary Zilik
>RV-6A s/n 22993
>Pondering over Push-Pull tubes.
>
Gary I don't have plans at home but I am pretty sure there are details on
the drawing for the aileron.
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: | Derek Reed <dreed(at)cdsnet.net> |
Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>
> snip>>>So I agree 100% with Hal. The major cause of engine failure is
> simply running out of gas. In the interests of safety, why aren't we
> discussing how to add extra fuel tanks to our planes?
> Frank.<<
> Nice alum wing tanks AKA Blader Buster tanks are made by Farn Reed,541
> 471 6289
[No relation to Farn,just same name by coincidence]
anks. It would seem like a logical addition to some of the
fancy fuel flow monitors or flight data computers.
Loren D. Jones
Getting shop in shape
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "les williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)classic.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Navaid installation |
Curious as to why you would want to keep the connecting rod as short as
possible? Wouldn't that cause the travel at the rod end bearings to limit out
with less fore and aft movement of the stick? From other posts on this, I
have gathered that it should be as long as possible, so that it doesn't bind.
I think one person said that he attached the rod to the left stick for this
reason.
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA
Ron,
I have installed two Navaid autopilots, one in my six and one in a friends
6A.
The installation is quite simple, although I do not recall how far forward or
back the servo was mounted. Your best bet is just hook the servo arm up to the
right hand stick and position the servo on the floor where it seems to work
best. I mounted the servo directly to the bottom skin using a doubler and it
has worked just fine. Try to keep the servo-stick connect rod as short as
possible.
Good Luck
Regards,
Bill Mahoney
RV-6 N747W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 leading edge skin strapping idea |
>Any way of getting a small sketch of the jig that lined up the ribs.
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill
>KB2DU(at)AOL.COM
>
Bill,
As for a sketch...shouldn't need one! Simply cut off a few four inch
long 4x4 blocks from a scrap piece of post. (Three or four are all
that's needed, depending on how many cargo straps you want to use. I
used three, tightened the one in the middle, then the one inboard and
outboard a "click" at a time until the skin pulled down evenly.)
Use a piece of duct tape to tape the block against the rear spar (to
simply hold it in place, or you'll need an extra set of hands), where
the strap will run..then put the strap on around the wing. The block
protects the free trailing edge of the skin from the strap when it is
tightened. It's utterly simple and works! I hope this clears up any
questions you may have.
Have fun!
Brian Denk
Albuquerque, NM
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DFaile <DFaile(at)aol.com> |
Instead of using wrist watches velcroed to the panel, how about a solid state
advanced control to time fuel burn. SSAC makes all types of solid state timing
devices. I have seen one in a RV6 under construction that lights a light at
the preset .5 hour to remind the pilot to check/switch tanks. The device that
I am looking at is set by installing a resistor for the time requested. Very
accurate.
SSAC has a web location. http://www/ssac.com.
The paper catalog is a packed inch thick, so I think about any timer you could
imagine will be in there.
Electro Mechanical Drives in Southington CT is a rep. 860 621-7335 FAX 860
621-3684. Nice folks. Sent a catalog right out. Note: Area Code changed from
203 to 860 ( I think they are in the new 860 Area Code).
david faile
CFII/A&P
Eagle II since '82
RV6 started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144 <KBoatri144(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Wingtip Waves/Composites |
I've reviewed the archives on methods to eliminate the waves which become
apparent in Van's wingtips once they see a few heat cycles. Seemingly, the
best idea was to laminate a thin sheet of foam inside the top surface of the
tips.
Anyone who's done this, please give an update. Have any waves appeared in
your wingtips? Exactly what materials did you use? (I'm ignorant on various
composite systems, so go into a little detail on how/why you chose the
materials you used..)
Also, is there a consensus on whether various fill systems stick better to
aluminum or to a primed surface? Finally, are there fill systems you DON'T
want to use on bare aluminum because of corrosion or other reasons?
Thanks,
Kyle Boatright
RV-6 This Century
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Newbie at large |
>Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
>I arrived home this evening to find the boxes containing the tail of my
someday RV-8 sitting in the mudroom.
>
>I have been lurking on this list for the past several months, and I
don't think I would have had quite the gumption to go for it if there
wasn't a group like you to trade thoughts with. I certainly don't think
I'll finish the project without leaning on the smarts of the folks who
have passed before me.
>
>Right now I kind of feel the same way I did when I turned final on that
first solo, and thought to myself, "was this really a good idea?".
>
>Nick Knobil
>Bowdoinham, Maine
>08B
>
Nick,
First of all, WELCOME!! We're a wacky bunch....but there ain't NO better
anywhere. Just keep a few things in mind:
If you look at what's LEFT to do..you'll get bummed out. Focus on what
you have ACCOMPLISHED thus far, take pride in what you've done..and
smile.
The Van's instruction set is not "The Gospel" either. Work ahead,
especially when you have fresh primer left over! A primed part is just
as easy to fit as one still covered with vinyl. Sometimes more so. Make
your time work FOR you..avoid multiple tool changes... for example, do
as much deburring and dimpling per session as you can. The "assembly
line" technique yields consistent results.
Begin with the end in mind. (A Stephen Covey concept). See your intended
results..visualize your shiny new plane...the joy of flying around in
your VERY OWN RV!
Have fun!
Brian Denk
Albuquerque, NM
-8 #379
fitting wing skins
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott.fink(at)Microchip.COM (Scott Fink) |
--IMA.Boundary.733649188
In addition they have a wind-driven generator that can be deployed in
the event of total engine failure(s).
Scott
RV6 drilling left wing skins
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-List: gyros
Date: 12/12/97 3:14 AM
<<
So, are 747's at risk being all electric or do they have vacuum sytems?
hal
>>
Hal,
Airliners such as the 747 use all electric gyro's. But. The captain has his
own set, and the first officer has his or her own set. Each side runs off a
seperate electrical bus. They also have a stanby horizon in the event things
get really ugly. This runs off yet another bus called the standby bus.
Ryan
--IMA.Boundary.733649188
SMTP
-0700
(firewall-user@prometheus-gate.Microchip.COM [198.175.253.129]) by
titan.Microchip.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05704 for
smap (3.2)
by mole with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #2)
From: RV4131rb <RV4131rb(at)aol.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:14:20 EST
Subject: Re: RV-List: gyros
--IMA.Boundary.733649188--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Navaid installation |
>I am about to begin installation of the Navaid servo unit, under passenger
>seat, according to the instructions supplied Navaid by some builders.
>There are two schemes provided. One sits a bit more forward than the
>other. Ron Vandervort, RV-6Q
Ron,
I mounted my servo under the pass. seat and the servo rod went to the
co-pilots stick. Servo location is critical because of the extreme movement
of the control stick. Jerry Springer used a longer push rod and went to the
bottom of the pilots stick which I think is a better idea. I ended up
making little cone-shaped spacers for each side of the two little rod end
bearings so the ball in the rod ends wouldn't bottom out. I will either
adopt Jerry's idea to my second six or install the servo in the wing. You
might check the archives as this was discussed awhile back. If you can't
find anything, I'll look through my saved files and see what I can come up with.
Bob Skinner RV-6 390 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Skinner <bskinr(at)trib.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice On Installing VANS Prop Governor |
Bracket
Ron,
Does the governor control arm fit on a splined shaft? The only one that
I've worked on (on a Mooney) had a drilled head screw that you tightened on
the arm that clamped the arm to a splined shaft. You then saftied the
screw. It was a real pain on the Mooney (everything is a pain to work on on
those birds. It was like trying to safety a screw in the bottom of a coffe
can---not much room to work. This was an early model Mooney and I don't
have any other experience with governors but I'm interested in learning. I
might put a C/S on my next RV-6. If the arm fits on a splined shaft, it
would be easy to re-position the arm. By the way, I was helping do an
annual on the Mooney (my winter job for several years, helping the local
mechanic) but it had been 4 years since the plane was annualed. The guy
flew it anyway. I found the arm just ready to fall off the shaft so had to
re-position, tighten the screw and safety. Didn't look like a very great
set up to me.
Bob Skinner RV-6 390 hrs Buffalo, WY bskinr(at)trib.com
>You know, you can change the position of the gov control levers on most
>governors, I think, by loosening the cover assembly (remove screws) and
>rotating cover and lever assembly to desired clock position.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog <Vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engines for RVs |
<< So I agree 100% with Hal. The major cause of engine failure is simply
running out of gas. In the interests of safety, why aren't we discussing
how to add extra fuel tanks to our planes? >>
IMO, the problem isn't so much not having enough gas. The problem is not
having the gas you thought you had.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
December 11, 1997 - December 14, 1997
RV-Archive.digest.vol-dv