RV-Archive.digest.vol-ef
February 08, 1998 - February 14, 1998
| Subject: | Rolling tank trailing edges? |
It seems that many RV's tank skins have a scalloping between the screws on the
trailing edge, can this not be prevented be rolling the trailing edge down
slightly with a dowel (broomstick) so that the skin conforms to the slope of
the airfoil?
Bernie Kerr RV6A SE FLA working on fuselage ( but tanks are not finished)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Perri <jperri(at)interserv.com> |
Sam, I would agree that you should make your RV IFR capable. I have
flown IFR in my RV-6 many times and could publish another horror story
for your Web Page but I'll just give you a few words of caution. I
originally tested the RV in IFR during some of the frequent inversions
we get in the Salt Lake Valley in the winters. This is not much risk due
to the thin layer of the inversion generally 500 to 1000 ft. thick, then
severe clear. The other feature is the lack of air movement. This proved
fun and gave me a chance to use all that fancy stuff on the panel. Then
once I came into SLC International in a real rain storm with low
visibility. Not much problem except that with the low wing loading the
RV was not as good of IFR Platform as I would have hoped. Later that
same month I encountered a situation which caused the canopy to frost
over. This was not horribly critical since I could go lower and warm up
to defrost. It did however give me cause to think about adding a heated
pitot and defrost for that big bubble. Add all the equipment you can
afford both in dollars and weight. Enjoy flying and be careful out
there.
JMP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick and Barbara Osgood" <randbosgood(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing skin edge rolling |
>Hi folks, Do I need to roll the edges of the wing skins where they butt
>up to each other to prevent the edge from lifing? Thanks, Dave
>RV-6A wings
Hi Dave... I would recommend rolling them. They will lay flater and have a
much cleaner
joint between skins.
Rick
RV6A (working on wings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick and Barbara Osgood" <randbosgood(at)sprintmail.com> |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD3470.6B2043A0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD3470.6B2043A0
Can anyone clear up a question for me???
I bought a RV6/6A wing kit and in it was the fuselage longerons of =
course. My question is:
a) How many total pieces of fuselage longeron or similar pieces should =
be in that spar box?
b) How long are those pieces?
I have:
a) 2 14 foot longerons
b) 6 12 foot longerons
c) 2 10 foot longerons
Thanks
Rick=20
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD3470.6B2043A0
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Can anyone clear up a question for=20
me???
I bought a RV6/6A wing kit and in it =
was the=20
fuselage longerons of course. My question is:
a) How many total pieces of fuselage =
longeron or=20
similar pieces should be in that spar box?
b) How long are those =
pieces?
I have:
a) 2 14 foot=20
longerons
b) 6 12 foot=20
longerons
c) 2 10 foot=20
longerons
Thanks
Rick
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01BD3470.6B2043A0--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert dziewiontkoski" <dzflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Vortex Generators |
I just read a very interesting article RE: Vortex Generators at AVweb.com.
Was wondering if any RV builders are using them.
If they truly are such a great thing, why aren't they included in EVERY
design?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chester razer <razer(at)midwest.net> |
| Subject: | Pitot-Static System |
Is a 24 month re-cert. of the pitot static system required if the
aircraft (RV) is VFR only. And is the holder of a repairmans
certificate able to do the 24 month or initial certification providing
it is for the aircraft he built?
--
Abby Razer
Barbara Razer
Molly the Dog and
Chet Razer
razer(at)midwest.net
http://scribers.midwest.net/razer/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jpl(at)showpg.mn.org (Joe Larson) |
> [extensively trimmed comments regarding planned VFR, with IFR contingency]
I just finished my instrument rating in December. Obviously, I'm not
an expert, but at least my training is current. Also, I had a talk with
a guy last week who related a *very* scary incident regarding a VFR flight
into IMC. Neither he nor his aircraft are IFR enabled.
My RV *will* be IFR enabled, and I intend to fly it in the same sorts of
situations where I would be willing to fly a C-172. That is, my skills
are sufficient to climb through a layer or shoot an approach, possibly to
minimums (depending on the situation -- minimums at night on an NDB are
a lot different for me than day on a glideslope). I'll have a Navaid
wing level, the basic IFR instruments, a VOR w/ glideslope and an IFR
GPS. I might not have all of them from flight 1, but they'll show up
during the first two years.
Now, my 2 cents for those who are not planning a full IFR panel:
1. Make sure you have enough instruments that you can keep the wheels pointed
to the ground in IMC. You don't need an AI and a DG.
2. Make sure you have enough skill to fly YOUR PLANE with YOUR INSTRUMENTS
in IMC. This will require recurrent training if you don't frequently
fly IFR.
What does this really mean? Well, you don't really *need* the 4 extra
instruments -- DG, AI, VSI and turn coordinator. But you better be able
to fly in the clouds with what you do install. And you'll need at least
an AI or a turn coordinator, and I would take the latter.
If you have the navaid wing leveler, you have enough, provided it's
reliable and you know how to use it.
Get training. Get training. Get some training.
My 2 cents...
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Spruell" <sspruell(at)idexsystems.com> |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD3489.814CCD60"
Importance: Normal
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD3489.814CCD60
Rick,
The 2 14' pieces are the longerons. Don't cut those. Everything else is
reinforcement angle for the spars, ribs and tanks.
Steven Spruell
RV-6A N316RV (Fuselage)
Houston Bay Area RVators
http://www.iwl.net/customer/markr/hbar
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick and Barbara
Osgood
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 9:03 AM
To: RV-list
Subject: RV-List: RV6A longerons
Can anyone clear up a question for me???
I bought a RV6/6A wing kit and in it was the fuselage longerons of
course. My question is:
a) How many total pieces of fuselage longeron or similar pieces should
be in that spar box?
b) How long are those pieces?
I have:
a) 2 14 foot longerons
b) 6 12 foot longerons
c) 2 10 foot longerons
Thanks
Rick
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD3489.814CCD60
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Rick,
The 2 14' pieces are the =
longerons. =20
Don't cut those. Everything else is reinforcement angle for the =
spars,=20
ribs and tanks.
Steven =
Spruell
RV-6A N316RV =
(Fuselage)
Houston Bay Area RVators
http://www.iwl.net/custom=
er/markr/hbar
-----Original=20
Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com=20
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick =
and=20
Barbara Osgood
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 1998 9:03=20
AM
To: RV-list
Subject: RV-List: RV6A=20
longerons
Can anyone clear up a question =
for=20
me???
I bought a RV6/6A wing kit and =
in it was the=20
fuselage longerons of course. My question is:
a) How many total pieces of =
fuselage=20
longeron or similar pieces should be in that spar box?
b) How long are those =
pieces?
I have:
a) 2 14 foot=20
longerons
b) 6 12 foot=20
longerons
c) 2 10 foot=20
longerons
Thanks
Rick
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BD3489.814CCD60--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A longerons |
randbosgood(at)sprintmail.com wrote:
> Can anyone clear up a question for me???
>
> I bought a RV6/6A wing kit and in it was the fuselage longerons of course.
> My question is:
>
> a) How many total pieces of fuselage longeron or similar pieces should be
> in that spar box?
> b) How long are those pieces?
>
> I have:
> a) 2 14 foot longerons
> b) 6 12 foot longerons
> c) 2 10 foot longerons
________________________________________________________________________________
<http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4809/bunny2a.htm>:
The 14'2" pieces of .125" (1/8") angle are the longerons, and are
clearly labelled as such. The 10'10" pieces are spare offcuts (25' -
14'2" = 10'10"); despite the label on them, they're not used for the
firewall, which is now all precut according to Vans. Cut the bellcrank
support angles from one of them.
IIRC, the 12' pieces are .063" (1/16") angle, not .125", and used for
making spar spreader angles and rib reinforcing angles.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
Listers,
There is an old Piper Apache at the local airport. The owner is considering
parting it out rather than selling it outright. He is in the middle of a
messy divorce and his wife who is listed on the title refuses to sign off on
a sale of the complete aircraft out of spite, but he does have permission
from the court to sell it in parts.
The airplane has not flown since Oct 97. When annualed at this time it was
found to need an AD on the carbs, and possibly on the oil pumps, and props
as well. The owner hasnt done this and the plane has sat un-cowled since.
The engines are 150hp O-320's carbureted and with conical mount (not sure of
exact model as the engines were wrapped in a tarp). Engines are complete
with accessories and Hartzell HC-82VL-2C constant speed props.
Another twist to this. The original logs were lost in a bankruptcy sale of
the aircraft in 1990, so it has new logs that were started as of that time,
with a sworn affadavit added to attest to time since overhaul and compliance
with AD's. The current owner claims 1185 hours since overhaul based on this
affadavit. This also explains the confusion about whether or not all AD's
have really been complied with.
My questions are, will the prop work on my RV, and what should this engine
prop combo be worth? The owner has no idea what price to put on this stuff
and frankly neither do I.
If I can get further info I will post it here, and of course if others are
interested, I will only be needing one of these so perhaps the other one
could help someone else on the list if the deal is right.
Mike Wills
RV-4(fuse on order)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Certification (Flying) |
Forgive my ignorance but this thread brings up a question. I expect that
when my RV is completed that it will be far more capable as an airplane than
I am as a pilot. Part of the reason for my choice of an RV was to have an
airplane I can grow with. I'm not sure that I will be capable/confident in
my abilities as a pilot to test all the capabilities of the airplane during
the test phase. Does this mean that if, at some point after my test period
is complete and my skills grow, that I cant do these more advanced
manuevers, and that there is no way to revise the operating limitations of
the airplane?
Mike Wills
RV-4 (fuse on order)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>
>If you are finished with your test flight hours but want to, say, test it
>further doing spins because those weren't done in the initial test period,
>you are restricted once again to your test area for that flight testing.
>Michael
>RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
>Flying (expanding the envelope)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <huffaker(at)utw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and Gyros |
On Sun, 8 Feb 1998, Joe Larson wrote:
[much snippage]
>
> Now, my 2 cents for those who are not planning a full IFR panel:
>
> 1. Make sure you have enough instruments that you can keep the wheels pointed
> to the ground in IMC. You don't need an AI and a DG.
>
> 2. Make sure you have enough skill to fly YOUR PLANE with YOUR INSTRUMENTS
> in IMC. This will require recurrent training if you don't frequently
> fly IFR.
>
> What does this really mean? Well, you don't really *need* the 4 extra
> instruments -- DG, AI, VSI and turn coordinator. But you better be able
> to fly in the clouds with what you do install. And you'll need at least
> an AI or a turn coordinator, and I would take the latter.
I'm a strictly VFR pilot, occasionally night, so had been planing to
maybe put in only one gyro for "just in case". Because of statements like
this, and others (more resistant to acro, cheaper, no vacum system) was
thinking to have a turn cordinator. However, had an experience the other
day that caused me to rethink a little.
Was in a 172, in medium to severe turbulance (downwind of mountains).
The turn cordinator was bouncing stop to stop, would never have been able
to stay right side up by reference to it, but the AI was solid as a rock,
only moving when the actual attitude changed. Is this typical? Maybe
some of you guys who fly IFR could comment. Maybe this plane (a rental)
just has a bad gyro?
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (huffaker(at)utw.com)
President and Founder Friends of P-Chan
RV-8 80091 Mounting 1st aileron to wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6A longerons |
The 14 footers - put them in a safe place - you will not use them on the wing.
BSivori(at)AOL.COM
N929RV ( Reserved )
Wing/Tanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
BIG Snip, all of which I agree with whole heartedly
>What does this really mean? Well, you don't really *need* the 4 extra
>instruments -- DG, AI, VSI and turn coordinator. But you better be able
>to fly in the clouds with what you do install. And you'll need at least
>an AI or a turn coordinator, and I would take the latter.
>
>If you have the navaid wing leveler, you have enough, provided it's
>reliable and you know how to use it.
>
>Get training. Get training. Get some training.
>
>My 2 cents...
>
>-Joe
Dear Joe,
Your comments are very well said and I would strongly second all of them.
The turn coodinator is the one and the training to use it is essential.
Your .02 is worth millions.
May you have many years of fun flying in your RV, even that time in the
clouds.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)petroblend.com (my old netins.net is no longer valid)
www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Certification (Flying) |
Mike,
Your RV will take you from a Student Pilot right through your single engine
commercial, however you will need show the Examiner tha you can fly a
retractable gear plane with a Constant Speed Propeller. It amounted to two
circuits in the pattern with 2 spot landings, I think it was .4 Hours on the
hobbs.
So have no fear about the airplane your building, I just flew Fred Stucklens
RV6A yesterday for the 2nd time in about a month, I own a Seneca but if you
want to have fun - The RV is the way to go. It also give you a great shot in
the arm as far as the building goes, you just seem to get back into it all
over again.
Best of Luck
BSivori(at)AOL.COM
N929RV ( Reserved )
Wings & Tanks
Going Strong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BStobbe <coro_01(at)weblabs.com> |
snip
>Even though you are "experimenting" with your RV, prudence (and the FAA)
>require you to comply with ADs. The one in question in this scenario is:
>AD91-14-22.
>
>This AD deals with any "sudden stoppage", and requires the bolt at the back
>of the crank and the pin that drives the accessory gears be replaced after
>any "sudden stoppage".
snip
Putting prudence aside for a moment to clarify a technical point:
I was under the impression that you only have to comply with ADs if you
want to keep the certified status of the engine intact. Otherwise, it was
my understanding that you can remove the lycoming data plate, sacrifice the
certified status of the engine, and do whatever you wish with it -
including all your own maintenance. Of course, this means that you won't
ever be able to sell it to someone for their Cherokee, which is not a big
concern of mine.
If you decide to keep the lycoming data plate installed, then you are
limited to the maintenance items specified in the FARs - which is the same
stuff you can do on your production Bugsmasher.
I agree with your point though that prudence, common sense, and the desire
to live a long and happy life would dictate complying with the ADs...
Bruce Stobbe
RV-6
control linkages
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Haan <bobh(at)cdac.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument panel design & spacing |
Is there a standard or recommended or minimum instrument spacing.
Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
instrument panel design?
Bob Haan
bobh(at)cdac.com
Portland, OR
RV6A 24461 Fuse out of jig, working on forward deck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Perri <jperri(at)interserv.com> |
Did the RV Chat spot go away or change? Went there on the new page and
could not find it ...
Thanks
JMP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chris marion <flyrv6(at)cinci.infi.net> |
dear listers,
what are your opinions on the Cleveland tank dies, is this a must for
fuel tanks? or is it just a waste of money?
thanks in advance
chris marion
right wing RV-6a
cinci oh
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bs(at)cbtek.com (Bill Shaw) |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot-Static System |
Chet -
Only the certification of the transponder is required every 24 calendar
months for VFR. I believe that an altimeter check is included with the
transponder work. However, for peace of mind you might want to get your
pitot static system checked as well. I don't believe it's that expensive.
As a repairman, I don't believe your authorized to certify your
transponder. It requires an FAA licensed technician with extremely
expensive equipment to do that job. It's not a job that an A&P or IA is
allowed to do either unless they have specific authorization. I can't quote
the appropriate FAR's off hand. If you have a current copy of FAR-AIM or
Part 43.13, you might be able to find it in there.
Bill Shaw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garrett V. Smith" <GARRETTSMITH(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and Gyros |
Hi Brian:
Regarding your question,
Was in a 172, in medium to severe turbulance (downwind of mountains).
The turn cordinator was bouncing stop to stop, would never have been able
to stay right side up by reference to it, but the AI was solid as a rock,
only moving when the actual attitude changed. Is this typical? Maybe
Yup, it is typical.
The turn coordinator measures the rate of yaw, you can, and should , check
this on the ground while you are taxiing out prior to an instrument or
night flight. Just ensure that the T.C. is going in the same direction as
you are taxiing in, right turn, needle
right, left turn, needle left. Turn coordinators generally indicate a rate
1 turn, which is 3 degrees /second, that is when you have the needle or
little airplane at the hache mark. The turn coordinator was reacting to the
presence of yaw in the above situation, as a result of the turbulence.
The attitude indicator shows the aircraft attitude with reference to the
horizon and does not indicate yaw, but will show bank angle
(obviously). Test this when you are flying by side slipping, along a road
for reference, the A.I. will indicate the wing and nose low
(watch your airspeed) but the T.C. will not indicate a turn if you side
slip without changing direction.
Hope this answers your question.
Have a good one,
Garrett Smith
Calgary,Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing skin edge rolling |
<19980207.172350.3726.0.DavidDLA(at)juno.com>
| From: | rvpilot(at)Juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Dave,
Yes, but very lightly so it is barely discernable when the light hits it
at the right angle. It is also wise to leave a slight gap between the
skin edges ( on the order of .005 )
If the edges are butted tightly together they often bulge upward when
rivited, having no place else to go when a slight amount of expansion
occurs from riviting close to the edge.
Regards, Bill, N66WD
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: used lyc value |
| From: | rvpilot(at)Juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Hi Mike,
Those engines are most likely 0-320 dash nothing but equivelant to 0-320A
The propellor can be made to work but it is very heavy, much heavier than
the Hartzell that Van sells. Another point- it would not fit in the
stock RV spinner due to the counterweights, the Apache spinner would have
to be used. IMO, this is ugly on an RV. The prop would probably fall
under the latest AD out on steel hub Hartzells. Personally, I wouldn't
touch it with a fork. The engines are probably OK if you don't mind
accepting conical mounts instead of dynafocal. They can be converted to
160HP. I would not pay more than 5K and try to get them for 4K. Hope this
helps.
Regards, Bill RV4 N66WD
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)traveller.com> |
| Subject: | IFR RVs and the FARs |
Thanks to all who responded to my inquiry concerning equipping our RVs
for IFR flight.
After consulting the FARs, here is what I have been able to determine.
This is not conclusive, as I still have some questions about how
Experimental registered aircraft fit into the overall scheme of things.
FAA Advisory Circular 20-27D, Certification and operation of
Amateur-Built Aircraft, section 14, A, 5:
"Depending on the intended operation under FAR Part 91, the following
FAR sections may be applicable:
c. FAR section 91.205, Instrument Flight Rules."
Notice the word "may". What does this mean in the real world?
FAR 91.205, Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and equipment are required:
1) (paraphrasing) all instruments required for day and night VFR
flight.
2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment appropriate to
the ground facilities to be used.
3) gyroscopic rate-of-turn
4) slip-skid indicator
5) sensitive altimeter
6) Clock
7) artificial horizon
8) directional gyro
I have paraphrased some of the above lines for brevity. This leaves the
following for additional consideration by the individual pilot:
1) How many com and nav radios are sufficient for redundancy?
2) DME (required only for flight above 24,000' (leaves me out!)
3) Does the Navaid control unit satisfy FARs for a "gyroscopic
rate-of-turn indicator?
4) Heated pitot tube
5) Which nav system to install; GPS, VOR, Loran, ADF...
6) Certain equipment must be operational to fly ILS approaches to the
lowest minimums.
Oh well, this shows what the VFR-only guys DON'T have to worry about!
Sam Buchanan (still pndering)
sbuc(at)traveller.com
"The RV Journal" http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
| Subject: | RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
To all that have gone before me.
Disclaimer: I have searched the Archives and while the problem is
mentioned there was no definitive answer.
Today I got to the point that it was time to install the seat ribs
between bulkheads f-604 and f-605. When installing the f-616,
617,618,619 seat ribs I noticed that the forward flange is not at the
correct angle and wants to impart a twist to the f-604 web. I have again
verified the tilt in the f-604 bulkhead and found no problems. The
heights of the bulkheads from the longhorn are also correct. In Frank
J's supplement he mentions modifying the forward flange of the seat ribs
so that the f-604 will not twist.
Why do I have this Problem?
If I modify the forward flange, can I flatten the flange out and rebend
it? Or, should I cut it off and rivet a new flange on? I like the new
flange option.
One more question. View F-F` on dwg 33 shows how the f-619 rib is spit
in half. It also shows a huge notch in the bottom of the rib to clear
the spice plate. My ribs came with a smaller notch already in them. Do I
need to enlarge the notch or is the factory notch enough?
Thanks in advance.
Gary Zilik
RV-6A S/N 22993
Pondering over fuselage problems.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | less_drag(at)Juno.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and Gyros |
writes:
(Snip)
>The turn coordinator was bouncing stop to stop, would never have been
able
>to stay right side up by reference to it, but the AI was solid as a
rock,
>only moving when the actual attitude changed. Is this typical? Maybe
>some of you guys who fly IFR could comment. Maybe this plane (a rental)
>just has a bad gyro?
>
> Brian Huffaker, DSWL (huffaker(at)utw.com)
> President and Founder Friends of P-Chan
> RV-8 80091 Mounting 1st aileron to wing.
Hi All,
Kent Rockwell (IFR rated) had a turn coordinator in his RV-3, and
replaced it with a Turn & Bank Indicator. The little airplane on the
Turn coordinator is coupled in yaw and roll axis, the needle on the T&B
just "sees" the yaw axis.
Just my .02
Jim Ayers
Less_Drag(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
chris marion wrote:
>
>
> dear listers,
> what are your opinions on the Cleveland tank dies, is this a must for
> fuel tanks? or is it just a waste of money?
> thanks in advance
> chris marion
> right wing RV-6a
> cinci oh
>
Chris
If I had to do it over agian, I would get the dies....They do make
a difference.
Craig Hiers
RV-4 N143CH
Tallahassee,FL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
<3.0.5.32.19980208182202.0079e760(at)mail.weblabs.com>
>My A+P told me you only have to check the crank runout with a
>dial indicator, not pull the engine apart and send it off, unless
>it shows the crank to be out of tolerance after the strike.
>Several people I have talked to that have certified engines on
>their planes, who have had prop strikes with wood props said
>their engines showed no damage at all (after use of dial
>indicator) and never were torn apart. So, is someone telling me
>I have to tear the engine apart and send the crank off to keep it
>certified, even if the dial indicator shows no out of true
>condition? Does anyone know the accepted tolerance? I would
>like to know myself so when the mechanic does it I'll know what
>he is telling me, too. Thanks.
>Michael
Michael,
I advised that the AD 91-14-22 was applicable in your situation. It does
NOT require removal of the crank, nor is it about bent flanges. It is
about damage to the accessory gear drive which runs your magnetos and oil
pump.
It is applicable to all O-320s and O-360s except the "76" series engines
line O-320H2AD...
Quoting from the AD:
Compliance: Required at each engine overhaul, after a prop strike, sudden
stoppage, or whenever gear train repair is required. A propeller strike
for the purpose of this AD, is defined as a sudden engine stoppage, or loss
of a propeller tip.
To prevent loosening or failure of the crankshaft gear retaining bolt,
which may cause sudden engine failure, accomplish the following:
----------End Quote-------------
So if you have a data plate on your engine, then you *MUST* comply with
this AD. If you have removed your data plate, and surrendered it and the
official Lycoming log book to the FSDO, then you may feel free to not
bother with this inspection. Please don't fly over my house if the latter
condition is true.
If your A&P doesn't know about this AD, then he must be pretty green. Go
to an IA, and get a copy of the AD, read it for yourself.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rolling tank trailing edges? |
<19980208.210655.10686.1.rvpilot(at)juno.com>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)Juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>
>Bernie, Those skins seem to lay down better if the # 8 dimples are
>set rather
>firmly with the avery "C" tool rather than using a hand squeezer. Any
>final waviness can be cured by bending down between the screw holes.
>Regards, Bill N66WD
Thanks Bill, That was the other thing I ment to mention in my post but
forgot. Give it a couple of good hammer wacks to get a cleanly formed
dimple on the .032
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: used lyc value |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)Juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
> My questions are, will the prop work on my RV, and what should this
>engine
>prop combo be worth?
I know of at least one RV-4 that used an apache engine and prop.
I believe the prop can't use the standard spinner. It had a very unusual
look with that apache spinner mounted up front (my opinion).
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chester razer <razer(at)midwest.net> |
if you dont use them youll have to grind down to tops of the rivets a
few thousandths.
--
Abby Razer
Barbara Razer
Molly the Dog and
Chet Razer
razer(at)midwest.net
http://scribers.midwest.net/razer/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <dwalsh(at)ecentral.com> |
I do not wish to enter a urining contest regarding FARs; however would
like to offer some two cents worth on flight testing, which I feel is
much misunderstood.
In the case of van's RV series I personally think it is an excellent
idea to test under high g loads fairly early in the test period, after
making sure you are under the "aerobatic weight" as I did. I did not do
this because I thought the FAA required it or because I enjoy doing high
G manuevers. Far from it. My hemmorhoids got all the Gs they needed
thirty years ago, and I am not looking to wear out my beautiful airplane
early. Here is why I think it is a good idea:
This is not to check to see if the wings come apart! I have no doubts
whatsover about the primary structure of the plane which has been shown
to be good if built to plans. What is not covered in the plans or in
Van's tests, is the individual mounting of many components in your
custom installation, such as radios, instruments, firewall items, etc.,
etc. If you have not properly designed or installed anything this is
the time to discover if it is going to come loose, or otherwise fail.
Even if you don't intend to ever exceed two Gs, the plane is capable of
easily generating 6Gs at any speed about 134MPH, and someday you may
need it. I have come within a whisker of 4 Gs while dodging student
entries in the traffic pattern.
This is my opinion and why I hold it. I have no claim to FAA knowledge
or experience with which to try to match any one else.
D Walsh RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rolling tank trailing edges? |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)Juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>
>It seems that many RV's tank skins have a scalloping between the
>screws on the
>trailing edge, can this not be prevented be rolling the trailing edge
>down
>slightly with a dowel (broomstick) so that the skin conforms to the
>slope of
>the airfoil?
>
>Bernie Kerr RV6A SE FLA working on fuselage ( but tanks are not
>finished)
>
>
>
Most of the scalloping is caused by the deformations that result from
making such large dimples (#8 screws) in the .032 tank skins.
What I prefer to do is wait until the tank is completed with all the
screw hole dimpling done. Then using your thumbs and fingers put a small
curve in the skin between each screw hole. You are trying to make the
skin have a scalloped condition that is the reverse of what you described
so that when the screws pull the dimples down tight. there is a preload
on the portion of the skin that is between the holes which then holds it
down tight. You can work on the tank and then install it with clecos to
check it. Remove and do some more where necessary.
The area on RV-6/6A and RV-4 tanks near the root that has no screws along
the edge you can also work a gentle curve into the skin with your hands
to give it a preload and make it lay down tight.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)MCI2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
> Today I got to the point that it was time to install the seat ribs
> between bulkheads f-604 and f-605. When installing the f-616,
> 617,618,619 seat ribs I noticed that the forward flange is not at the
> correct angle and wants to impart a twist to the f-604 web. I have again
> verified the tilt in the f-604 bulkhead and found no problems. The
> heights of the bulkheads from the longhorn are also correct. In Frank
> J's supplement he mentions modifying the forward flange of the seat ribs
> so that the f-604 will not twist.
Gary,
Use caution here - be sure to quadruple check the angle of the bulkhead.
Use alternate methods such as a plumb line and trigonometry to verify the
correct bulkhead angle. Maybe I got lucky, but my seat ribs exactly
matched the proper angle. The baggage ribs were too long, but that is
another story...
> If I modify the forward flange, can I flatten the flange out and rebend
> it? Or, should I cut it off and rivet a new flange on? I like the new
> flange option.
I agree that new flanges are better than modifying old ones. I've used
063 angle for this.
Alex Peterson
6A slider canopy slowed down for basement project...
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
Michael, your A&P can only advise you, he cannot force you to tear your engine
down. I would be careful about entering prop strike info in your logbooks
also. If after he dials it out he wants to pull the engine down I would get
some more opinions first. Frankly, If I understand the situation, I would dial
the engine and if it is within limits I might want to forget the whole sorry
incident. If something is entered in the books I would put it as incidental to
other maintenence that the crank was dialed and found to be witin limits and
no more. You are the Repairman for your aircraft so it is you that has the
final say. However, I believe to maintain your engines certified status all
work above preventive main. must be done by and signed by an A&P. JR A&P,
plain and simple works best.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and Gyros |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)Juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>Hi Brian:
>
>Regarding your question,
>
>Was in a 172, in medium to severe turbulance (downwind of mountains).
>The turn cordinator was bouncing stop to stop, would never have been
>able
>to stay right side up by reference to it, but the AI was solid as a
>rock,
>only moving when the actual attitude changed. Is this typical? Maybe
>
>Yup, it is typical.
>The turn coordinator measures the rate of yaw, you can, and should ,
>check
>this on the ground while you are taxiing out prior to an instrument or
>night flight. Just ensure that the T.C. is going in the same direction
>as
>you are taxiing in, right turn, needle
>right, left turn, needle left. Turn coordinators generally indicate a
>rate
>1 turn, which is 3 degrees /second, that is when you have the needle
>or
>little airplane at the hache mark. The turn coordinator was reacting
>to the
>presence of yaw in the above situation, as a result of the turbulence.
>
>The attitude indicator shows the aircraft attitude with reference to
>the
>horizon and does not indicate yaw, but will show bank angle
>(obviously). Test this when you are flying by side slipping, along a
>road
>for reference, the A.I. will indicate the wing and nose low
>(watch your airspeed) but the T.C. will not indicate a turn if you
>side
>slip without changing direction.
>
>Hope this answers your question.
>
>Have a good one,
>
>Garrett Smith
>Calgary,Canada
>
>
>
>From my understanding everything you said is correct except implying the
instrument having a needle that swings left or right.
I believe this would be what is referred to as a turn and bank which is
not the same as a turn coordinator.
I think a turn and bank shows indication of movement in roll.
Compared to the T.C which indicates movement in Yaw and I believe a
certain amount of roll factored in.
Can anyone comment further?
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
<34DE63F6.ABB6E1CC(at)datastar.net>
| From: | smcdaniels(at)Juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
writes:
>
>My A+P told me you only have to check the crank runout with a
>dial indicator, not pull the engine apart and send it off, unless
>it shows the crank to be out of tolerance after the strike.
>Several people I have talked to that have certified engines on
>their planes, who have had prop strikes with wood props said
>their engines showed no damage at all (after use of dial
>indicator) and never were torn apart. So, is someone telling me
>I have to tear the engine apart and send the crank off to keep it
>certified, even if the dial indicator shows no out of true
>condition? Does anyone know the accepted tolerance? I would
>like to know myself so when the mechanic does it I'll know what
>he is telling me, too. Thanks.
>Michael
>
>
>
>
A common misconception is that the only damage that a crank shaft occurs
from a prop. strike is a bent crankshaft flange.
The possible hidden damage is what often is over looked.
When an engine is running fast and the prop suddenly stops, the inertia
of the crank shaft, and the accessories that are being driven by it,
attempt to keep the crank shaft turning. This puts a major twisting load
on the crank which can cause internal stress fractures.
Not to mention the loads it puts on the accessory gears and such, on the
back of the engine when everything comes banging to an instant stop.
It is for this reason that a tear down and full crank inspection is
required for a sudden stop. There have been instances of crank failures
even though the crank flange dialed perfectly (Lycoming cranks are pretty
tough).
I think it is doubtful that you got the type of sudden stoppage with the
wooden prop that is a factor in this type of scenario.
IMO with the wood prop. I think it is a lot more likely that you caused
some internal damage (or to magnetos, etc.) than it is that you bent the
crankshaft flange. If you only got 4 inches or so of each blade, and the
engine kept running My gut feeling is that you are probably ok, BUT if
you follow the recommendations of Lycoming this incident would probably
warrant a tear down.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
<>
I just spent the last couple of days installing my seat ribs & the forward
flanges line up perfectly with the 604. Even the 606 bulkhead came out level
when installing the baggage compartment floor ribs. I can't think of anything
unless your top to bottom 606 measurements are reversed. I also looked at
the notches in the 619's & determined, but not positive, these were for
clearance for nuts. Will modify later if needed.
Larry A. --- RV6A 180 HP CS prop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
<< If they truly are such a great thing, why aren't they included in EVERY
design? >>
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BPattonsoa(at)aol.com |
About time to get our build a tow bar for the -6A. Before I tackle this job,
designing, buying material and fabricating at least three of them, any advice?
Is there a Cessna bar that adapts with only minor mods?
Any thing out there, in the Hardware store that provides a good head start?
Any reasonable priced bars for sale among the builders?
Folding handle, plug in handle, aluminum, steel ??
Bruce Patton
(Just finished sanding all the fiberglass parts, ready for paint. Need to
move things around so I can get the Glider in the shop for its annual two
weeks, and then start building the Spray Booth!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
robert dziewiontkoski wrote:
>
>
> I just read a very interesting article RE: Vortex Generators at AVweb.com.
>
Bob
There is a person with an RV6 that is testing the "Vortec Generators" as
we speak. He is compyling data to determine if they make any significant
peformance inprovements to the Rv. I spoke to him last week and it looks
good so far. I plan to use them if it turns out they warrant the cost
I'll let you know soon.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derek Reed <dreed(at)cdsnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A longerons |
--------------0F1CAD71F478A05F929BE54B
Rick and Barbara Osgood wrote:
> Can anyone clear up a question for me??? I bought a RV6/6A wing kit
> and in it was the fuselage longerons of course. My question is: a) How
> many total pieces of fuselage longeron or similar pieces should be in
> that spar box?b) How long are those pieces? I have:a) 2 14 foot
> longeronsb) 6 12 foot longeronsc) 2 10 foot longerons ThanksRick
I asked 'Vans support 'this identical question this week[phone] they
told me they didn't have any idea of what was needed as there were
several different ways the kit was configured over the years.They said
just don't use the .125 angle as that was needed for the Fuselage.Also
just go ahead and use what was needed of the .060 angle for the wing
construction and that there was nothing of the .060 angle over 3 ft
pieces needed in the fuselage! Guess this doesn't answer your question
,neither did it answer mine!
Derek Reed OR RV6A
--------------0F1CAD71F478A05F929BE54B
Rick and Barbara Osgood wrote:
Can anyone
clear up a question for me??? I
bought a RV6/6A wing kit and in it was the fuselage longerons of course.
My question is: a)
How many total pieces of fuselage longeron or similar pieces should be
in that spar box?b) How
long are those pieces? I
have:a) 2
14 foot longeronsb)
6 12 foot longeronsc)
2 10 foot longerons ThanksRick
I asked 'Vans support 'this identical question this week[phone]
they told me they didn't have any idea of what was needed as there were
several different ways the kit was configured over the years.They said
just don't use the .125 angle as that was needed for the Fuselage.Also
just go ahead and use what was needed of the .060 angle for the wing construction
and that there was nothing of the .060 angle over 3 ft pieces needed in
the fuselage! Guess this doesn't answer your question ,neither did it answer
mine!
Derek Reed OR RV6A
--------------0F1CAD71F478A05F929BE54B--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derek Reed <dreed(at)cdsnet.net> |
Craig Hiers wrote:
>
>
>
> > what are your opinions on the Cleveland tank dies, is this a must
> for
> > fuel tanks? or is it just a waste of money?
What are 'Tank Dies',what do they do?
Derek Reed OR RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jharmstrong(at)attmail.com (Jack H Armstrong) |
Phone: 540-338-7715
| Subject: | Willing to help (want to learn) |
Folks,
As a new pilot, new member to the list and an RV wannabe, I would
like to offer my help in exchange for some experience with RV's. I will
be in San Fran/Livermore area on business from Feb 9-20, and most of my
free time will be on the weekend. From looking at some of the postings,
it appears that there is an active contingent of RV builders in the
SF/Livermore area and I would love to use the weekend "learning RV".
Please reply to:
jharmstrong(at)mail.att.net
Thanks in advance,
Jack
Jack Armstrong
N3005X
Hamilton, Virginia
________________________________________________________________________________
I ordered a set of Tank Dimple diew from Avery - What I think I got was
another set of 3/32 Dimple Dies.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
<< I noticed that the forward flange is not at the
correct angle and wants to impart a twist to the f-604 web. I have again
verified the tilt in the f-604 bulkhead and found no problems >>
I to am just installing the seat ribs. There is not a problem with the angle
on the ends of the ribs on our kit, so would be very suspicious that something
is not yet in the correct position. If the the 605 is vertical and the heights
from the jig face are correct, it must be the angle. Check that the firewall
is vertical and redo the measurements to 604. If that doesn't work get another
pair of eyes to look at it. Often that works for me ,because I am assuming
something that should'nt be assumed,etc.
A mistake I just made is when lining up the seat ribs for drilling to the 605
BH, I clamped the both the horizontal flanges to the flange on 605 and the
ribs end up not really faired for the bottom skin because of the steep angle
of the cockpit floor. Should have just clamped the rib so that the bottom skin
was faired when drilling.
Sorry for the long winded post
Bernie Kerr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net> |
| Subject: | Left elevator skeleton rivets |
My RV-8 prints seem vague on the type, size and number of rivets to be
used to attach the E-605 inner elevator rib to the E-606 sub spar. I
would ASSume that 2 AN470AD4-4 rivets should be used. Is this correct?
Does anyone have suggestions regarding drilling these 2 parts
together? I wish to avoid introducing a twist in the elevator and/or
trim tab alignment to the elevator.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 getting off my dead as*, the wings should be here soon. :-)
Boca Raton, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
Michael;
My Lyc. Direct drive overhaul manual on page 1-3, Service table of limits,
Part 1 Direct drive engines, Section 1 Crankcase, Crankshaft, Camshaft.
Ref. new 508, ref. old, 607. Chart -All, Nomenclature -Crankshaft Prop.
Flange Run-out. Clearances Mfg. Min& Max.-.002. Serv. Max.- .005
I would take it that on a runout dial, your max limit is .005.
Good luck on the reading.
John C Darby Jr.
RV6 N61764 sold
Stephenville TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael C. Lott <lottmc(at)datastar.net>
Date: Sunday, February 08, 1998 22:01
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop job.
>condition? Does anyone know the accepted tolerance? I would
>like to know myself so when the mechanic does it I'll know what
>he is telling me, too. Thanks.
>Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cabe" <robert.cabe(at)usaa.com> |
Jerry,
Good answer. How would you test the negative G limit???
Bob
----------
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com>
> Well Gil normally I have alot of respect for what you say, but your
> are putting your own interpretation on this one.
> They don't say fly the airplane to the design g limits.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <rv8er(at)doitnow.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
Check out www.panelplanner.com
They have a panel planning software that is EXCELLENT! It has a very large
database (virtually any kind of instrument you can imaging) of equipment
that you can place on templates for panels. (including RV's) It will
calculate weight, price, amps, and even allow you to export the file to
autocad, so that you can have a computerized machine shop cut your panel.
Highly reccommended for about $100
>
>Is there a standard or recommended or minimum instrument spacing.
>
>Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
>internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
>instrument panel design?
>
>Bob Haan
>bobh(at)cdac.com
>Portland, OR
>RV6A 24461 Fuse out of jig, working on forward deck
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Hawkins <jah(at)adobe.com> |
Why don't you guys using Variprime just call DuPont and
ask???
DuPont - Customer Services - 800-338-7668
-Jeff
RV-8 #80563
Suwanee, GA
>
>>The label has the following statement:
>>
>>615S Variprime Self-Etching Primer, Variprime is a two component, fast
>drying,
>>self-etching enamel primer with excellent corrosion resistance for
>refinishing
>>passenger cars or commercial vehicles with any topcoats. To be used only
>with
>>616S variprime converter.
>
>
>I just looked at my brand new can of Veriprime, and this statement is
>absolutely, positively, NOT on it. Perhaps it's on some sort of additional
>data sheet that you may have obtained, or they have more than one version of
>the label. Of course it does say "Not for sale or use by the general
>public". I guess that means I didn't really buy it, and I certainly can't
>use it :-)
>
>Rusty
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick and Barbara Osgood" <randbosgood(at)sprintmail.com> |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD3533.E0D372C0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD3533.E0D372C0
Thanks to all who answered my (extra lengths) of longerons. As I sum it =
up, I only need the
2 14' pieces and the rest are up for whatever I need. As I calculate =
this out... I have about 65 feet
of angle I dont need.... Maybe a garage sale is in order 8>)
Thanks
Rick
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD3533.E0D372C0
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Thanks to all who answered my (extra =
lengths) of=20
longerons. As I sum it up, I only need the
2 14' pieces and the rest are up for =
whatever I=20
need. As I calculate this out... I have about 65 feet
of angle I dont need.... Maybe a =
garage sale is=20
in order 8>)
Thanks
Rick
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BD3533.E0D372C0--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)Meridium.com> |
| Subject: | Left elevator skeleton rivets |
I used three AN470AD4-4s. I used a 12 inch #30 drill to drill the holes
while the horizontal stabilizer was in the jig. You will still go in a
bit at an angle, but with a 12inch drill the angle will be very slight.
I put three in mostly to be able to cleco the center hole and rivet the
two sides. I just decided to put a rivet in that center hole rather
than leave it for ventilation??
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Kuss [SMTP:chaskuss(at)miami.gdi.net]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 8:23 AM
To: smcdaniels(at)Juno.com
Cc: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Left elevator skeleton rivets
My RV-8 prints seem vague on the type, size and number of rivets
to be
used to attach the E-605 inner elevator rib to the E-606 sub
spar. I
would ASSume that 2 AN470AD4-4 rivets should be used. Is this
correct?
Does anyone have suggestions regarding drilling these 2 parts
together? I wish to avoid introducing a twist in the elevator
and/or
trim tab alignment to the elevator.
Charlie Kuss
RV-8 getting off my dead as*, the wings should be here soon. :-)
Boca Raton, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bs(at)cbtek.com (Bill Shaw) |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and the FARs |
RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan
After consulting the FARs, here is what I have been able to determine.
This is not conclusive, as I still have some questions about how
Experimental registered aircraft fit into the overall scheme of things.
FAA Advisory Circular 20-27D, Certification and operation of
Amateur-Built Aircraft, section 14, A, 5:
"Depending on the intended operation under FAR Part 91, the following
FAR sections may be applicable:
c. FAR section 91.205, Instrument Flight Rules."
Notice the word "may". What does this mean in the real world? - Depends on
what IFR facilities you plan to use. In any evernt, you know the FAA, they
LOVE AMBIGUITY!!! It in polite terms is called, CTA (covering their ass!!!)
FAR 91.205, Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments
and equipment are required:
1) (paraphrasing) all instruments required for day and night VFR
flight.
2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment appropriate to
the ground facilities to be used.
3) gyroscopic rate-of-turn
4) slip-skid indicator
5) sensitive altimeter
6) Clock
7) artificial horizon
8) directional gyro
I have paraphrased some of the above lines for brevity. This leaves the
following for additional consideration by the individual pilot:
1) How many com and nav radios are sufficient for redundancy? Only
required to have one-two are nice!
particularly if you're on an ILS approach and the glideslope goes
belly up-but then, you could make a Localizer approach.
2) DME (required only for flight above 24,000' (leaves me out!) These are
required on VOR-A approaches, which only get you to the airport
vicinity and it's visual from there or a missed approach
3) Does the Navaid control unit satisfy FARs for a "gyroscopic
rate-of-turn indicator? If memory serves, I believe it replaces the
Turn Coordinator
4) Heated pitot tube - Nice in clouds in near freezing temps
5) Which nav system to install; GPS, VOR, Loran, ADF... You may want to
consider installing more than one e.g., VOR and glideslope combination
is available in one indicator, IFRcert GPS is nice but expensive, ADF
is still functioning but is in the process of being phased out and is more
difficult to fly in a crosswind situation, the Loran is kind
of up-in-the-air at the moment, it may or may not survive the current
flap about so-called outdated systems. In addition, many marine interests
have depended upon Loran for navigation but there going to GPS as
well. I think I would hang on to the ILS for precision approaches for
the forseeable future until the problems with GPS get sorted out.
6) Certain equipment must be operational to fly ILS approaches to the
lowest minimums. - Excluding Category I and Cat II approaches which
require that both aircraft and pilot be certified for these
approaches, you need glideslope receiver, marker beacon receiver, and a
two-way radio, of course.
Oh well, this shows what the VFR-only guys DON'T have to worry about!
Sam Buchanan (still pndering)
sbuc(at)traveller.com
I can't remember if you said you were IFR rated or not. In any event, I
hope this doesn't come over as speaking down to you! Secondly, this may not
be an all-inclusive listing as I am a low-time instrument pilot myself!
Hope this helps
Bill Shaw
"The RV Journal" http://www.ath.tis.net/~sbuc/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
rv-list
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | F683 console assembly |
I've been looking at and prepping for installing the console in my -6A.
Per the manual, the F683A attaches to the seat floors and seems to
do it via an overlap of the F683A over the seat floor skins. Then, the
F683Bs attach to the F683A to most likely give it plenty of strength.
1. Are the F683Bs riveted to the F683A? Per the drawings, I'm led
to believe they are.
2. If #1 is true, how in the world do you get the floors out when you
need to to an inspection? The seat floors have wide flanges that
would get in the way of things and pretty much require lifting them
straight up when initially removing them from the floor. If the F683 is
in the way, there is no way to lift them up without having all kinds of
problems, if it can be done.
Unfortunately, the plans leave this area much to one's imagination.
Any help is greatly appreciated. I did find one picture from my "14
Years of the RVator" book that helped some; but, it only gave a clue
to the placement. George Orndorff used an angle on the front of his
instead of using the overlap. In fact, he may not have used the
F683Bs since he used the angles. Not sure on that point.
Jim Sears
RV-6A #22220 ( Puzzled!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
Absolutely, this is almost exactly what I was taught in the wire-wrap
and crimp class at Lockheed. That blunt stick would be an orange wood
stick if you can find them but if you can't a shishkabob skewr should
do.
----------
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III[SMTP:nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com]
Reply To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 4:31 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: Wiring Tip
>
>I just thought I'd pass this information along to those of you
who are
>beginning to wire your birds and using shielded cable. I have
had three
>wiring glitches the last of which was a dead right mag and all
three
>were attributed to the same problem.
>
>During initial wiring, after removing the outer jacket from the
ends of
>shielded cable I simply pulled braided shielding back and
installed my
>crimp connectors on the conductor wire and shielding. After
time,
>vibration caused the shielding to "creep" back toward and
inside the
>crimp connector of the conductor and grounded it (not good).
As I
>mentioned the last instance grounded my right mag and it
bacame non
>functional, fortunately it was found during a ground run-up.
Try this for keeping all the braided shield wires out of
harming
ways . . .
(1) Put 1" piece of 3/16" heatshrink over end of wire to
be terminated.
(2) Remove outer insulation to expose shield braid approx 1"
from end of wire.
(3) Push shield braid back slightly so as to "bunch" it up a
bit right at the end of the outer insulation jacket.
(4) Bend braid and internal conductors over right at the end
of the outer jacket to make a "J" shape on end of wire.
(5) Use blunted pick to tease an opening into the side of the
shield braid exposing the wires within.
(6) Use the pick to get under the wires and pull them out
through
the opening.
(7) Pull the shield braid back out straight and twist the
ends just slightly to take care of the "fuzzies"
at the end.
(8) Put piece of 3/16" heatshrink over shield braid leaving
approx 3/16" exposed. Shrink down. Install PIDG or
similar terminal on end of braid.
(8) Install PIDG or similar terminal on center conductor(s).
(9) Slide heat shrink from step (1) so that 1/3 of it's
length is past end of shielded wire's outer jacket
and shrink in place.
This technique prevents damage to center conductor insulation
since only standard strip-and-terminate operations are carried
out. "Fuzzies" from stray shield braid are corraled because
there's
no attempt to "unbraid" or comb out the strands in an effort
to make the center conductor accesable. ALL conductors are
ultimately covered with insulation exposing only the portion
of the terminals necessary for connection.
Bob . . .
AeroElectric Connection
////
(o o)
==========o00o=(_)=o00o==========
< If you do, >
< What you've always done, >
< You will be, >
< What you've always been. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince S. Himsl" <himsl(at)mail.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8/rudder/K-1000-6 |
>>
>>Hello,
>>Is it permissible to enlarge the holes in the K-1000-6 plate nut to
>>accept
>>a -5 rivet instead of the -4?
>>
>>This particular plate nut is at the bottom of the spar at the
>>intersection
>>of R410, R405PD and spar.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Vince Himsl
>>RV8 rudder
>>
>>
>>
>I think it should be ok. The main strength of the rod end (hinge)
>bearing to the spar is the fact that the spar is trapped between the nut
>plate and the jamb nut. The rivets just hold the plate nut (and
>partially the rib) in place.
>Why do you need to do this?
>
>
>Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
>These opinions and ideas are my own
>and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>of my employer.
>
>Why do you need to do this?
ANS: I Riveted the rib to the spar before attaching the R410 brace. Upon
removal of rivets to get at the R410 the hole to K-1000-6 plate nut become
enlarged such that I couldn't meet min diameter spec on the shop head of
the -4 rivet. My choices are either to go with out of spec -4 in enlarged
hole or move up to a -5 rivet. I am tempted to go with the -4 in this case
as it is non critical...I think.
Regards,
Vince Himsl
RV8 rudder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)cendantmobility.com |
The old paint and body guys in the room are chuckling, if only it was that
easy.
>> This is a very clear statement that Variprime is a primer to be used with
any
topcoat. What part of that statement is un-clear to you? <<<
>> Most of us try to post accurate information to the RV-List to help other
builders,.........
Curtis Hinkley
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)cendantmobility.com |
Hi Von,
I had the same problem on my 6 tanks. A combination of moving the ratchet
straps to the bottom side so that it was pulling the skin toward the bottom,
and starting to ratchet the skins toward the bottom with the skins sitting
with about a 1/2 inch bias toward the bottom seemed to help.
>>Listers; I am installing the left tank skin and am having a heck of a time
getting the skins to meet up with the lower main skin on the other side. <<
on the
wings as Vans has already done for us. I do not think that G testing is
a reqired manuever such as stalls or turns.There is no performance range
here only whether the wings stay on or fall off. No new manuevers would
be allowed by doing this. Most people would be unsafe pulling 6g. Lets
be safe while doing uor flight testing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)cendantmobility.com |
| Subject: | Rolling tank trailing edges? |
Hi Bernie,
I rolled mine exactly as you describe. It does lat flat along the spar,
however it still has that "puffy" look around the dimpled screws. The c/s
ones look fine and that alone drives me nuts. BTW I used the Cleveland edge
tool to ensure the edge lays down. It does make the edge lay down uniformly.
Sounds like you are on the right track.
Eric Henson
>>It seems that many RV's tank skins have a scalloping between the screws on
the
trailing edge, can this not be prevented be rolling the trailing edge down
slightly with a dowel (broomstick) so that the skin conforms to the slope of
the airfoil?<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
<< Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
instrument panel design? >>
I think it's 3/8" of an inch. Before you start cutting metal, I would suggest
that you have your instruments in hand so you can besure that all will fit.
Also keep in mind that some instruments will sit very deep in your panel.
Before I did my panel I created "standard" instrument icons and did a full
size drawing (using Freelance Graphics) and printout of the panel to see if I
would like it. It did change several times before the final version but the
end product is a panel that I love.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A Tow Bars |
<< About time to get our build a tow bar for the -6A. Before I tackle this
job,
designing, buying material and fabricating at least three of them, any
advice?
Is there a Cessna bar that adapts with only minor mods?
Any thing out there, in the Hardware store that provides a good head start?
Any reasonable priced bars for sale among the builders?
Folding handle, plug in handle, aluminum, steel ?? >>
Why don't you just buy the one that Ken Barto sells for the RV-6A. He
actually has three models of essentially the same design and uses the three
bears marketing approach. I believe the papa bear is .065" wall, the mama
bear is .058" wall and the baby bear (for lightest carry on) is .049" wall.
One of these is just right for you.
Ken's number can be had by printing out the RV Builders' Yeller Pages at
http://www.sound.net/~hartmann/yelrpage.htm
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
rv-list
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | F83 console puzzle continues.... |
I went back out to the shop after my first questions pertaining to the
F683 assembly and set up my blocks of wood to simulate the spar.
I put the bolts through them and the splice plates to get a good feel
for the fit. I then marked the center line on the floor skin. When I
looked down from the top of the F683A, it became immediately
apparent that someone has changed the design of the F683 and
didn't change the DWGs to reflect it! Per my drawings, the F683Bs
should bolt up to the spar at the third bolts from the center, top and
bottom. The flanges should also be pointing to the center. Now,
there is no way that can happen. It appears that the flange on the
F683A is bent so that the F683Bs will be attached at the top using
the third bolt out and at the bottom using the fourth bolt out. The
flanges on the F683Bs will now be pointed to the outside. So, just
how does it fit? Do I bend the flanges on the F683A some more so
that I only use the third bolts out? It appears that I can't use the
flanges pointed inwards because of the F683A's width and the fact
the F683As are labeled accordingly.
Why is it that such a simple thing has to be made so difficult? I've
wasted a good deal of time on this one, today. I had hoped for some
good progress after losing out on some time last week because I had
to shovel out! The snow got pretty deep here in KY :-(
Jim Sears
RV-6A #22220 (Still puzzled.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | rv-8 elevator trim |
What is the world's wisdom concerning the electric trim versus manual for
rv-8 elevators?
I've heard that the rv-4 is very sensitive to the manual elev. trim. Is the 8
trim the same setup? I would prefer (for simplicty) to go with the manual
trim, but would appreciate hearing from those who have "been there"
Thanks.
HILLJW(at)AOL.COM
RV-8 TAIL KIT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Willing to help (want to learn) |
<< Folks,
As a new pilot, new member to the list and an RV wannabe, I would
like to offer my help in exchange for some experience with RV's. I will
be in San Fran/Livermore area on business from Feb 9-20, and most of my
free time will be on the weekend. From looking at some of the postings,
it appears that there is an active contingent of RV builders in the
SF/Livermore area and I would love to use the weekend "learning RV".
Please reply to:
jharmstrong(at)mail.att.net
Thanks in advance,
Jack
Jack Armstrong
N3005X
Hamilton, Virginia
>>
Jack,
I have a very good freind finishing a 6A in Livermore. If you give
him a call I am sure he wouldnt mind showing off his project. He is not
currently on the internet so give him a call. His name is John McCallister
(510)-606-0421. Tell him Ryan sent you.
Ryan Bendure
Thornton Co.
RV4131RB(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A Tow Bars |
| From: | ebundy(at)Juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
>About time to get our build a tow bar for the -6A. Before I tackle
>this job, designing, buying material and fabricating at least three of
them, any
>advice?
Yep. Get one of the cheapie Cessna "Y" tow bars. My friendly IA gave me
one that they didn't need any longer and it works great. The holes in
the end are just the rights size for the bolt in the nose gear axle. If
I remember correctly, I needed to pull the two legs apart slightly wider
than stock. Make sure you get one with a telescoping handle so it will
fit in the baggage compartment. Even if you have to buy one new I think
they are only around $30 or so.
BTW, if anyone is interested I have a new web page up that shows some of
my RV construction, skydiving stuff, and other info.
Ed Bundy RV6A - Eagle, ID - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy@juno.com - http://members.aol.com/rv67em/
-
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cabe" <robert.cabe(at)usaa.com> |
I'm struggling with the oil cooler location.
For those of you that have installed yours already:
1. Which location do you prefer, left rear baffle or fire wall??
2. Advantages/disadvantages of the two alternatives??
Thanks,
Bob
RV-6; O-320
---
"The opinions expressed herein are solely the author's
and are not necessarily the opinions of USAA."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)Meridium.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument panel design & spacing |
I got most of mine from www.gulf-coast-avionics.com
<http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com> . They have full size pictures of
most of the stuff. If you are a little computer literate you can cut
and past these into a program that will allow you to scale them to the
dimensions that you require.
Have fun!
Gary Fesenbek
RV6AQ
Roanoke, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: RV6junkie(at)aol.com [SMTP:RV6junkie(at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 12:33 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Instrument panel design & spacing
<< Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available
via the
internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and
plan the
instrument panel design? >>
I think it's 3/8" of an inch. Before you start cutting metal, I
would suggest
that you have your instruments in hand so you can besure that
all will fit.
Also keep in mind that some instruments will sit very deep in
your panel.
Before I did my panel I created "standard" instrument icons and
did a full
size drawing (using Freelance Graphics) and printout of the
panel to see if I
would like it. It did change several times before the final
version but the
end product is a panel that I love.
Gary Corde
RV-6 N211GC - NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying/G load testing/chatter |
Listers:
Not all kitplanes are of the same caliber as the fine products fron Van's.
Some specify G testing during the flight test phase- for example, the Pulsar.
A friend (engineer, very careful) had completed his Pulsar, and asked me to do
the G test on the thing. I had watched his building process, and he had been
doing a fine job. The "test" was to be to 4G's, and I did not consider this to
be excessive for the a/c. We loades the a/c to gross, set up the calibrated G
meter, and away I went. Of course, I was wearing a 'chute! This little bird
had almost no inertia, so I had to dive for enough speed to GET 4 G's from the
thing (in a slightly climbing turn), before it got too slow. Well, everything
went fine (I thought), and the landing was uneventful.
Post-flight inspection revealed a 18"crack and de-lamination in the bottom
skin, about where we would have the seam between the tank skin and the main
skin, just outboard of the fuse. Oh boy. The fix was fairly easy, and the
result was a factory "AD" for existing a/c, and those under construction.
The a/c was supposed to much stronger than it actually turned out to be.
Believe me, this flight didn't make me feel superhuman, or anything of the
sort. Just lucky. Looking back, I can't say that the failure would have been
"soft", had it occured. Fiberglass doesn't bend with an overstress, it breaks.
How about our birds? I think the opposite is true- these a/c seem to turn out
stronger than one would think. The wonder of aluminum, eh? I don't think the
"G" test is necessary on these RV's- they will take most of what we mortals
can dish out, except abrupt turning pull-ups at Vne (take it easy on those
pull-ups following those low approaches, fellas), and maybe some of our
landings. ;-)
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: rv-8 elevator trim- man or elec? |
<< What is the world's wisdom concerning the electric trim versus manual for
rv-8 elevators?
I've been considering this one (iIve flown with both types): I would suggest
that the elec system is lighter, and maybe a bit easier to install. In the
event of an elec system meltdown, you will be without trim, but that's a very
small thing to worry about. The difference between cruise trim and pattern
trim is very slight. I *have* found that the elec system is diffucult to get
just right for cruise, but this might be something I'm just not used to. If I
put one on my next bird (mine has man trim), I'll use one of the Matronics
speed controls.
I've heard that the rv-4 is very sensitive to the manual elev. trim. Is the
8
trim the same setup? I would prefer (for simplicty) to go with the manual
trim, but would appreciate hearing from those who have "been there"
Yes, it is sensitive. But, so is the rest of the a/c! It's easy to get used
to. I guess it's sort of like comparing elec windows to manual- which do you
prefer?
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
>
>
><< Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
> internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
> instrument panel design? >>
>
>I think it's 3/8" of an inch.
The bible vol. II (aka, Bingelis, T., "Sportplane Construction
Techniques") quotes an absolute minimum of 3.375 inches center to center
instrument spacing (for 3 1/8 instruments), but reccommends 3.5 inches for
a stiffer panel. Some local RV builders have used the closer spacing and
puchased thicker aluminum for their instrument panels, but the 3.5 inch
dimension gives a little better access for easier installation.
These three books by Tony Bingelis should be on every kitbuilders
bookcase, there is a great wealth of knowledge in them.
Gil (get the Bingelis books) Alexander
... tip-up latch mechanism
*** snip ***
>Gary Corde
>RV-6 N211GC - NJ
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael C. Lott <lottmc(at)datastar.net>
Date: Sunday, February 08, 1998 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop job.
>
>My A+P told me you only have to check the crank runout with a
>dial indicator, not pull the engine apart and send it off, unless
>it shows the crank to be out of tolerance after the strike. [Much editing]
>>Michael
>
Michael,
May I suggest that you refer the problem to your insurance company. They
will tell you whether they will pay for a dial gauge run-out check or a
teardown.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com>
Date: Sunday, February 08, 1998 9:11 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-6 Seat Rib Question
>
. When installing the f-616,
>617,618,619 seat ribs I noticed that the forward flange is not at the
>correct angle and wants to impart a twist to the f-604 web. I have again
>verified the tilt in the f-604 bulkhead and found no problems. The
>heights of the bulkheads from the longhorn are also correct. In Frank
>J's supplement he mentions modifying the forward flange of the seat ribs
>so that the f-604 will not twist.
>
>Why do I have this Problem?
ANS: Because the ribs do not fit as supplied. I rebent my flanges to fit,
but making new flanges is also acceptable.
>One more question. View F-F` on dwg 33 shows how the f-619 rib is spit
>in half. It also shows a huge notch in the bottom of the rib to clear
>the spice plate. My ribs came with a smaller notch already in them. Do I
>need to enlarge the notch or is the factory notch enough?
ANS: The drawing incorrectly depicts the ribs as currently supplied. The
degree of additional cutout will be determined after you have mounted the
control assembly. You should ideally wait until the wings are in so you
can carve out the minimum metal to achieve full measured control surface
deflection -- I carved earlier. I would also suggest following FJK's advice
on providing two removeable ribs. I find it much harder to remove the
control assembly with only one rib removed. Finally, consider using AN3
bolts (with appropriate nut plates) instead of screws as called out because
it is much easier to get a socket wrench on a bolt head in the narrow
confines of the ribs than to get in with a stubby screwdriver.
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage (about 200 building hours ahead of you)
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
<< what are your opinions on the Cleveland tank dies, is this a must for
fuel tanks? or is it just a waste of money?
>>
A must? No way. I didn't use them on my first RV and it flew okay. But I
did shave those tank rivets.
Waste of money? I don't thinks so. The tank rivets on my second RV now fit
much nicer than without these dies. I've also used these dies on the
substructure of the other skins and I believe the skins lay better as a
result.
It's all asthetics. How important is splitting that hair?
Rick McBride
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHink11769(at)aol.com |
The old paint and body guys in the room are chuckling, if only it was that
easy.
Eric,
I used to be one of those guys chuckling. The old paint and body guys
learned that Variprime did not provide any protection against moisture the
first time they painted a car fender then rolled it out of the shop for the
night before they applied a sealer. When they came in the next day the dew
or rain had caused the unprotected steel to rust right through the
Variprime which they then had to fix on their own time.
I realized that I was chuckling at the thought of people that were smart
enough to learn how to build an RV and yet would not take the time to
research how to properly use Variprime. I also realized that while the
RV-List has be very helpful to me in building my RV8 I should not let
misinformation on Variprime continue. This thread has gone on for years
and every time it comes up the old timers on the list with allot of RV
building experience we all look up to who are not sealing there
Variprime take cheep shots at those of us that are trying to educate new
builders on the proper use of Variprime.
The facts are easy, DuPont recommends that Variprime be sealed with a
topcoat to provide moisture/corrosion protection. The only reason we are
painting
the inside of our RV's is to provide a little more corrosion protection, if
you do not
seal Variprime then you have not done that.
This thread should only be put to rest when there is no confusion about the
need to
seal Variprime. Is it bed time yet?
Curtis Hinkley
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and the FARs |
> 2) DME (required only for flight above 24,000' (leaves me out!) These are
>required on VOR-A approaches, which only get you to the airport
>vicinity and it's visual from there or a missed approach
A VOR-DME approach requires DME. A VOR-A approach is a typical VOR approach
that is not aligned with a runway. While it only gets you to vicinity of an
airport, it does not automatically require DME.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
> I went back out to the shop after my first questions pertaining to the
> F683 assembly and set up my blocks of wood to simulate the spar.
[big snip]
> Why is it that such a simple thing has to be made so difficult? I've
> wasted a good deal of time on this one, today. I had hoped for some
[snip]
Actually Jim, the correct way to do it is in the plans, if you just
know where to look. And also which drawing is right as opposed to
the one that is wrong. And also the right one isn't quite right,
and is too vague anyway.... Got it?
Seriously though, I went through the same thing and ended up having
to make new parts. Oh well, I had plenty of mat'l, and it helped
make me feel I was justified in purchasing that hobbyist's bending
brake.
Without having my plane here at work I can't say for sure which
holes were used, but if you do what I did it'll become obvious. All
you need to know is this: At the top, the width is fixed by the
F-683A. At the bottom, the side pieces (f683Bs?) go right on the
inside of the floor stiffening angles, and although it isn't shown
on the plans, I believe they are supposed to be attached to the
stiffening angles with two AN-3 bolts w/self locking nuts on each
side, similar to how two gusset plates on the outer stiffening
angles are attached (section E-E', dwg. 46 -- you didn't miss that
did you?) I won't do this until the spar is on, since I can't be
exactly sure about the thickness of the spar even with the fake wood
spar.
Once you poition them that way, it should be clear which holes in
the spar are used.
Does that clear it up? It bears mentioning that I have seen a number
of variations on various planes, which I suspect is just a result of
this area being so "open to interpretation". But this one seems to
me to make the most sense to me.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | avionics For Sale (?) |
As I near completion of my 6A I am actually considering removal of some
avionics to clean up and simplify the layout and maybe shed a few needless
pounds... I installed an audio panel/intercom and a 760 nav/comm with G/S
althought I am not IFR certified and neither will the plane be. The trade
would net me a comm-only radio and perhaps an upgrade to a _stereo_ intercom.
If I'm going to do this, I want to do it soon so my project is not needlessly
delayed. Despite building my panel with a dozen Molex connectors to make it
readily detatchable for upgrades/repairs, I still dread making any major
changes after the fwd skin is riveted on and all that access to the rear of
the panel is lost for good! So here's a trial balloon to see if the upgrade
is economically feasible. I'm NOT doing this if the removed equipment will
end up on my shelf!
FOR SALE: TERRA TXN 960 Nav/Comm/ECDI (Tri-Nav-C)
with triplexer for taking the Nav and G/S signals from
one antenna
and of course the tray and manual included// removed in
working
condition and tests okay//no tags.
RST Engineering Audio Panel and intercom, currently at
the factory
for alignment after expert construction by yours truly.
Prices on Request off-list. Can't sell one without also selling the other
(Not necessarily to the same party). Some restrictions apply. Void where
prohibited. Actual mileage may vary. See store for details. Member FDIC.
Bill Boyd
getting close/getting giddy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denny Harjehausen <harje(at)proaxis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
At
>Why is it that such a simple thing has to be made so difficult? I've
>wasted a good deal of time on this one, today. I had hoped for some
>good progress after losing out on some time last week because I had
>to shovel out! The snow got pretty deep here in KY :-(
>
>Jim Sears
>RV-6A #22220 (Still puzzled.)
Jim, you are just in time for two of us here in Oregon as we are
both just now getting ready to work on that area. We are both modifing that
area. But keep us posted on how you come out with.
Have a Great Day!
denny-->> RV-6
harje(at)proaxis.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Bishop <wemkbish(at)nponline.net> |
Robert Cabe wrote:
>
> Suggestions please.
>
> 1. I'm using Van's oil cooler and baffle kit on an RV-6 with an O-320.
>
> 2. How do you install the oil cooler on the back of the left side of the
> baffle?
I used four AN3-41 bolts with alum. tubing between the flanges of the cooler. This
is to prevent the flanges from bending when tightenting the bolts. Two bolts thru
the angle at the left rear corner and the other 2 where they the cooler leaves
them. I did add a .040" plate where the other two bolts come thru and extended
it
to the right with a bend to rivet to the jog in the rear of the baffle.
>
>
> 3. The plans that come with the baffle kit say on page 7 that Part 4
> requires that you must increase the angel of the flange from 90 to 115
> degrees. Why???
I was puzzled at this too. As I recall, I left every thing at 90.
>
>
> 4. How do you attach the oil cooler to the that flange??
>
> 5. How do you reinforce the baffle so that both sides of the oil cooler
> can be attached to the baffle?
>
> Please provide any other helpful hints you may have.
I have added a ball valve to the top oil line to the oil cooler with a choke
cable to the cockpit for temp. control of the oil. It is a tight fit, but it can
be done.
Good luck.
Warren Bishop RV-6 installing systems
>
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
> San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owens" <owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | RV-6(a) Fuse Jig avail. |
Hi All,
My "hell for stout" aluminum fuse jig is looking for it's next fuselage to keep
it company. I need to keep ownership of it for a couple of reasons, like, ah,
I got the material from the scrap bin at work with the permission of my boss,
as long as I let him use when he's ready. That could be a while. So in the
mean time, I'm willing to loan (with no charge) it out to someone who is ready
to build their fuselage, and who will take good care of it. They will also
need to pick it up, and deliver it back in good condition when there finished,
so the next fuse in line can be built.
So, if your ready to build, it's located in the San Fernando Valley just north
of Los Angles, CA.
E-mail back to "owens(at)aerovironment.com", not to the list.
Laird Owens
RV-6 #22923 making airplane noises in the seat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: avionics For Sale (?) |
<< I still dread making any major
changes after the fwd skin is riveted on and all that access to the rear of
the panel is lost for good! >>
Not to bust your bubble, but many folks I have visited at your stage of the
project have opted to allow access by installing nutplates and countersunk
screws instead of rivets in the area you describe. It's not too late to make
a small change in the plans.
Jim Nice
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
Tank dies from Cleaveland...questions.
Are these for dimpling the tank mounting screw holes?
Are they usable elsewhere in the building project?
What rivets need 'shaving' if these dies are not used?
These questions may be answered on Friday when I pick up my wing kit, but I
would like to know now so I can order them if needed.
Thanks
Dennis Clay
RV-8 #80473
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pitot tube mount by Gretz Aero |
| From: | gretz-aero(at)Juno.com (Warren Gretz) |
I will admit it right away, I am a klutz when it comes to computers!! I
was ready to respont to an e-mail I just got when I managed to erase it.
It was not on the RV-List. I now do not have the address to the person
that had asked me a question about my pitot tube mounting bracket kits!
If the person who sent it to me reads this, I am sorry!
The question to me was; Can a person install my pitot tube mounting
bracket kit to a finished RV? The answer; Yes, one can install the
mounting bracket to a finished RV, but it is harder to do.
If this person has further questions about my products, please contact
me. I will attempt to not get too close to the delete key this time.
Warren Gretz, (Gretz Aero)
3664 East Lake Drive
Littleton, CO 80121
(303) 770-3811
gretz-aero(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | How do I use the 3 inch panel punch? |
Hi all,
I can use my FBO's panel punch but I don't really know how to use it.
I will drill 5/8 inch holes at center of each instrument - 3.5 inches on centers
thanks to today's mail.
Should I take my 3/8 inch air ratchet and sockets(?) or do I use a hand wrench
or what?
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Looking for an airport & sweating canopy
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Bishop <wemkbish(at)nponline.net> |
Robert Cabe wrote:
>
> I'm struggling with the oil cooler location.
>
> For those of you that have installed yours already:
>
> 1. Which location do you prefer, left rear baffle or fire wall??
> 2. Advantages/disadvantages of the two alternatives??
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
> RV-6; O-320
I chose the left rear baffle because of shorter oil lines and easier mounting (I
thought). It will rob a little air from the #4 cyl., but apparantly that isn't
a
problem. The problem with mounting it on the firewall (at least in my case) is
that I have enough stuff on the firewall or coming through it. Also, you have to
run a 3" min. (4" is better) SCAT tube to it. I havn't flown yet, but am satisifed
with my decision so far.
Warren Bishop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)cendantmobility.com |
| Subject: | Oh-no! Veriprime |
Curtis,
Of course it has to be topcoated, the point was, it probably won't adhere to
veriprime. Your comment was:
>> This is a very clear statement that Variprime is a primer to be used with
any topcoat. What part of that statement is un-clear to you? <<<
Go drop $500.00 + for a nice gallon of durethane and top coat over the VP.
Most top coats now days are designed for their own primers, VP is pretty
wimpy, most finish coats are going to either eat it or fail to chemically
bond. It's a pretty mute point, if you convert the metal and seal it with
anything, it should outlast you and I.
>>This thread should only be put to rest when there is no confusion about
the
need to
seal Variprime. Is it bed time yet?<<<
Nope, I sense non-believers in the congregation, put on the coffee.
Ahhhhhhh, I'm in a primer debate. I'm sending Matt the $5.00 fine.
Curtis Hinkley
RV8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
Another item for sale as I draweth near to completion:
Electro Systems starter- 12 v - 149 tooth p/n 2064
removed working condition from C-172 and rebuilt by A&P 12/96 as part of my
O-320 engine overhaul. First installed 7/88. TT in service to date: 510 hrs.
Will sell for essentially core value; now have metal prop and don't need the
fwd ballast! (I'll go with a lightweight aftermarket starter.)
Reply off list to SportAV8R(at)AOL.com
Bill Boyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com> |
I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
Well folks, gulp....here it goes
Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
thank you
Martin
8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
"We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin Quartim wrote:
>
>
> I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
> research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
> researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
> and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
>
> The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
> fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
>
> Well folks, gulp....here it goes
>
> Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
> am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
> It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
> planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
> only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
> will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
>
> I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>
> thank you
>
> Martin
>
> 8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
> "We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
>
I'm from the 103Fis F-86H 1959
Ok now I'll try to give you my opinion as to why I picked the RV over
the Lancair. I know this is going to become a great list because I'm
sure there are some strong feelings here. Personally I don't like to
work with fiberglass or composites. I learned that early on building
radio control models in the 1/4 scale class. But that wasn't the only
reason, All i've ever flown have been either aluminium or fabric covered
aircraft and the track record is very good on durability with proper
care. Proper care may be the key; but I'm still uneasy about that since
most plastic airplanes are painted white to prevent ultraviolet light
from breaking down the composites.We don't have worry about that with
metal. Though we have to be concerned about corrosion. We also don't
have to wear masks all the time so we don't breath in the fibers while
sanding and drilling. We don't have to worry about the mixture of the
resins even though they have the proper pumps to help you. The problem
is in the mixing, is it mixed enough or not? If its not you wont know it
it for a while then "bang". Was the temperature right at the time
cureing. Rivets are easier and more forgiving since if you screwed up
just drill it out and try again. The fact is you can see the screw up
you can't when you mix epoxy.
Finally, I had a diving board out at the pool. It was painted white and
put away and covered in the winter. It was 2in. thick and was made of
fiberglass and many layers. This summer after 12yrs of service it broke
in half when some active boys jumped on it. Is that what will happen to
a wing in 12yrs? I don't know that and I don't want to find out.
I may go 25-50-75mph slower than a Lancair but I think My Rv will be
here for a long time. We still have Ford Tri-Motors, DC-3, DC6 and many
other metal planes around that are still airworthy. I won't be around
long enough to see if the plastics are in as good shape in the same time
frame. I just don't want to be one of the test pilots.
MY OPINION ONLY
Don
Call sign "MONGO"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
Vanremog(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> << If they truly are such a great thing, why aren't they included in EVERY
> design? >>
>
> -GV
>
GV,
They do have them for many types out there from Aeroncas, Pipers
Cessnas and many twin's. They have just started testing with a few
selected homebuilts and they should have results soon. For the aircraft
mentioned the performance enhancements have been very impressive. It
remains to be seen if the better designs of the homebuilts will produce
the same.
Will let you know
DON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
RV6junkie(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> << Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
> internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
> instrument panel design? >>
>
>
I can direct you to a a piece of software that I purchased at Sun&Fun
last year that called "Panel Planner" it a great program that consists
of about all the hardware,avionics and controls used in an airplane. He
also has many templates of instrument panel for RV's. you can creat a
fuull size panel in color with all your equipment and alos create a
demensional template for cutting. I used it and it was a piece of cake.
You can try out different senarios before settling on a final panel.
The cost is $99.00 for the basic program to $199.00 for the Pro copy.
They also have a web page WWW.panplnr.com
DON
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jpl(at)showpg.mn.org (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Re: Certification (Flying) |
> I'm not sure that I will be capable/confident in
> my abilities as a pilot to test all the capabilities of the airplane during
> the test phase. Does this mean that if, at some point after my test period
> is complete and my skills grow, that I cant do these more advanced
> manuevers, and that there is no way to revise the operating limitations of
> the airplane?
This came up about a year ago. According to the conversation at that point,
you have two choices:
1. Buddy up with a more experience pilot to test the more advanced
manuevers during the initial testing period.
2. If you want to add more testing down the road, the procedure is as
follows (roughly, anyways):
A. Land the airplane at the airport listed as your original break-in
airport -- where ever you do your first flight.
B. Make an entry in the aircraft log book stating you are returning
the airplane to testing.
C. Do your testing under the same guidelines as the initial testing --
same airspace restrictions, no passengers, etc.
D. When done, land, make another entry in your aircraft log returning
to normal service.
Thus, yes, you can go and do additional manuevers, but you have to do them
in the same place as your original testing.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jpl(at)showpg.mn.org (Joe Larson) |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and the FARs |
>
> Thanks to all who responded to my inquiry concerning equipping our RVs
> for IFR flight.
>
> [snip]
>
> I have paraphrased some of the above lines for brevity. This leaves the
> following for additional consideration by the individual pilot:
>
> [snip list of avionics]
Here's what I'm tentatively planning:
1. All the required items -- clock, AI, DG, etc. These are listed in the
FARs, so I won't repeat. Note: clock has sweep second hand and is near
top center of panel, highly visible without craning my neck
2. *At least* one NAV/COM with VOR and glideslope. This radio will have
flip-flop frequencies so I can switch easily. I *might* have two, but
I'm not sure. The second doesn't require glideslope.
3. IFR GPS. I'll explain why shortly.
4. *Maybe* DME. If I have an IFR GPS, I don't *need* it. However, a DME
is *easy* to use, and a GPS requires a bunch of button pushing. I'm
thinking in a tight situation, I just won't want to dink around with the
GPS.
I recently tried to fly an underequipped airplane to an airport whose only
instrument approach was an NDB. If you page through a set of approach plates,
it turns out that NDB approaches are a lot more common than one would like.
Thus, if I want to be able to fly to all these airports, I better have an
ADF.
Well, of course the FAA is replacing all these approaches with GPS overlays.
So that means I need an IFR GPS instead.
Luckily, at the rate I'm building, they'll be pretty reasonably-priced by the
time I need one :-)
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvator97(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Isn't a Lancair kit over $25,000? If so, this is twice as much as an RV.
I think that the REAL question is which type of material YOU are most
comfortable working with, metal or composite?
Walt RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvator97(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
I've thought about your question some more, so here goes:
You must throughly analyze as much info on each aircraft as you can get your
hands on, talk to as many builders and flyers as you can find, look at as many
planes of each type as you can find, and eventually you will come to realize
which one is the right one for YOU. It will be very clear. I wouldn't commit
to one or the other until it is.
Walt (again) RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: rv-8 elevator trim- man or elec? |
I have an RV-4 with over a thousand hours on it, and the manual elevator trim
is simple, light, cheap and effective, and dependable. Not sensitive at all in
my opinion. Why complicate matters unecessarily with electric trim? Now
electric flaps is a must have in the RV-4 because of being in the way of the
passengers foot, and other minor problems. That is partially why the RV-8 is
electric flaps standard. Just an opinion.
Von Alexander
RV-4 N107RV
RV-8 #544
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
>
>Isn't a Lancair kit over $25,000? If so, this is twice as much as an RV.
>
>I think that the REAL question is which type of material YOU are most
>comfortable working with, metal or composite?
>
> Walt RV-6A
>
Standard kit $23,900.00
Fast Built $28,900.00
Carbon Fiber FB $34,400.00
I have no experience working with metal or composite.
Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
>
>I've thought about your question some more, so here goes:
>
>You must throughly analyze as much info on each aircraft as you can get your
>hands on, talk to as many builders and flyers as you can find, look at as
many
>planes of each type as you can find, and eventually you will come to realize
>which one is the right one for YOU. It will be very clear. I wouldn't commit
>to one or the other until it is.
>
> Walt (again) RV-6A
That is exactly I am doing now :)
So far I am finding a lot more help from RV builders then Lancair.
Thank you,
Martin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
eventually you will come to realize
>>which one is the right one for YOU. It will be very clear. I wouldn't
commit
>>to one or the other until it is.
>>
>> Walt (again) RV-6A
>
>That is exactly I am doing now :)
>
>So far I am finding a lot more help from RV builders then Lancair.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Martin
Martin,
You've already seen just how motivated, friendly, and energetic the RV
building club is! We are proud of Van's designs and I, personally, just
LOVE to see new faces here. It's a family affair, and through the
sharing of our techniques and building experiences, we create better
aircraft than we could do on our own. I spent over a year going over
various aircraft kit designs, biplanes, metal, composite, fabric, the
whole spectrum..and nothing that I found offered more performance for
the dollar spent than the RV. My objectives are primarily sportsman
aerobatics, and fair-weather VFR cross country with flexible schedules
to stay out of nasty wx. The composite aircraft sure are sexy to look
at..but all that sanding, filling and resin mixing...not to my liking.
A recent death of a local aerobatic pilot in a brand new Sukhoi Su-31
due to wing delamination failure (or something like that) also greatly
influenced my decision to avoid composite structures. I just don't feel
comfortable with the subtle nuances of multi-layer layups, cure times,
mixing ratios, etc.
So, enough bandwidth for me. Just search your heart for what you REALLY
feel will make you smile when you're airborne...that's what it's all
about..because we're CERTAINLY not in this for the money!
Best of luck to you
Brian Denk
RV-8 #379
wings underway
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Royce Craven <roycec(at)ozemail.com.au> |
| Subject: | RV 6A - Cowl fixture |
A question for thoes that have mounted the lower cowl without hinges on the
bottom of the firwall.
Did you use screws and nutplates? ... What size?
Did you use camlocs? ...... What type (4002, 2600 2700 etc) and size??
I have put two strips of 0.63 al. on the firewall.
Has anyone put extra 'glass' on the lower cowl near the air outlet??
Thanks
Royce Craven
RV6A - cowling
Melbourne Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
OK, what you said made sense. No, I didn't spot the part on DWG 46.
I was concentrating on the ones around DWG 32 and 49. I did look in
that area and must have overlooked it. Now, how did you handle the
conection to the floor, itself. Did you use a tab that overlapped the top
of the floor; or, did you use the Orndorff method and use some angle
stock and just butt up to the floor? I think I'll use the angle; but, that
could cause a problem too because one can't get to the screws on the
underside or will have the same problems with the top in that it will be in
the way. I want to be able to get the floor off for inspections. That's
my biggest rub, right now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do I use the 3 inch panel punch? |
Hi Hal,
Some of the punches & dies work with a ratchet or open end wrench - this is
the dark ages, The new sets or the more expensive ones have a Hydrolic Punch.
You cut your 1/2 or 5/8 KO out of the middle put in your die & punch, turn the
valve
and 6 or 7 pumps on the handle & it pops it out.
I am an electrical contractor and have both the Hydrolic & Dark Age method,
there are several styles of Hydrloic units out there - some designed for real
close quarter
work. If they have the old style, it not that bad you just need to apply some
strength.
Good Luck
BSivori(at)AOL.COM
N929RV ( Reserved )
Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fesenbek, Gary" <gfesenbek(at)Meridium.com> |
| Subject: | IFR RVs and the FARs |
Snip>>
However, a DME
is *easy* to use, and a GPS requires a bunch of button
pushing. I'm
thinking in a tight situation, I just won't want to dink
around with the
GPS.
Snip<<
Not only that my DME does not require software updates every
month like my IFR GPS does.
Gary Fesenbek
RV6AQ
Roanoke, VA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wstucklen1(at)Juno.com (Frederic W Stucklen) |
Bill,
They look identical, but the tank dies are just a pubic hair deeper...
Fred
>
>I ordered a set of Tank Dimple diew from Avery - What I think I got
>was
>another set of 3/32 Dimple Dies.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas G. Murray" <dgmurray(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin Quartim wrote:
>
>
>
> The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
> fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
>
> Well folks, gulp....here it goes
>
> Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>Martin,
Why would you want a piece of tupperware made of compost that needs only white
paint and an expensive hangar
when you could have a great all metal durable aircraft that doesn't need to be
babied all day to stay in one
piece? :-) Those prices you quote are about correct for an RV but miss the mark
quite a bit for the Lancair.
Those plastic craft usually come in at $80,000 to $120,000 + to complete and only
fly faster by 30 knots. My
question is - Should 30k cost an extra $50,000? I also would really like to see
a Lancair follow an RV into
some of the short strips we like to frequent.
But, you know what they say, build what your heart desires cause you got
to live with it when your
done!
The most important thing is to HAVE FUN FLYING!!! :-))
Doug - RV-6 canopy frame now primed & waiting for rivets.
> am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
> It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
> planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
> only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
> will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
>
>
>So far I am finding a lot more help from RV builders then Lancair.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Martin
>
I don't know where you live but here in New England some of the best places
to fly to are around 2,000 ft long. Many types claim they can get into
fields this small but an RV can get you in and out even when you're tired
and not break a sweat. That's why I'm building a -4, which is known by all
to be the best RV model there is. You may hear from a few who are still
unwilling to admit this so just ignore them.
The Lancair will be a bit faster. I honestly can't think of any other
advantage they have.
Good luck with your decision and take your time making it.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
Listers, please excuse the message I sent earlier (see below). It had
some misleading statements because I actually meant to send it to an
individual lister. However, I've done some more looking.
I looked at DWG 46, per a suggestion. It refers to the F699s only.
I've got those in place already. DWG 32 does not show bolting the
bottoms of the F683Bs to the angle stock in the fuselage floor to tie
them together; but, I have to agree that it's meant to be since mine
seem to fall into alignment, sort of, with the angles. This is all
goodness since it does answer some questions that the manual
completely ignored. However, the rub is still there. DWG 49 shows
a 3/4" tab on the back of the F683A that must get screwed to the
top of the seat floors to tie things together. If I do that, I will not be
able to get the seat floors out since I have the manual aileron trim
shaft that prevents that from happening unless I lift the floor straight
up at the front of the floor. One thing I think I should do is trim one of
the floor flanges at the front so that the floors are flush at the flange.
That would make for a better fit of the F683A and would allow me to
use a piece of angle. The rub with using the angle is that there is
very little room for a screw inside the F683A because of the plumbing
if I want to hide the angle. Of course, I can extend tabs out from the
angle to give me some meat to drill through for the screws. That
would also make things easier to get to at annual time. With that
said,
1. Cut one of the flanges on the seat floors to make it flush along the
front.
2. Cut a piece of angle that will have tabs long enough past the
F683A so that easier screw mounting can be done. Only two screws
due to the plumbing under the F683A.
3. Trim the angle under the F683A where the valve overlaps the
angle somewhat. Also trim the tab back until it's flush with the edge
of the angle.
4. Fit the F683A and angle to the seat floor and drill for screws.
5. Drill for the spar bolts so that the F683Bs will contact the angles
on the fuselage bottom. I plan to mark them and drill in the drill press.
6. Drill the F683Bs to the F683A.
7. Drill pilot holes for the bolts in the F683Bs and angles like the
F699s. To be finished later when the spars are in place again
8. Finish the console assembly.
That sure is a lot more to do than the plans show, huh? What do
you think?
>OK, what you said made sense. No, I didn't spot the part on DWG
>46. I was concentrating on the ones around DWG 32 and 49. I did
>look in that area and must have overlooked it. Now, how did you
>handle the conection to the floor, itself. Did you use a tab that
>overlapped the top of the floor; or, did you use the Orndorff method
>and use some angle stock and just butt up to the floor? I think I'll
>use the angle; but, that could cause a problem too because one
>can't get to the screws on the underside or will have the same
>problems with the top in that it will be in the way. I want to be able
>to get the floor off for inspections. That's my biggest rub, right now.
Jim Sears
RV-6A #22220
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin,
Take note of one fact....RV builders DO NOT have to defend one aspect of
the airplane they have chosen to build.
i.e.: Materials used in construction
Construction technique
Design configuration
Performance (As published by kit Mfger.)
Engine (As suggested by kit Mfger.)
And I'm probably overlooking a few. One other consideration. Just try to
find an unhappy RV builder who has completed his mission! (Just my
opinion) Al
>
>I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
<< The most important thing is to HAVE FUN FLYING!!! :-)) >>
I might point out that the above is the focus of the discussion- agreed?
Next step: Get a ride! Get your mitts on the stick of both, and measure the
"fun factor" of each. Compare with your expected mission profile, and there
you have it.
$$$ doesn't enter into the equation- you WILL find a way to pay for the
desired toy.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
> Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
Go fly both. That will help. More importantly, land both. You will find
the Lancair is a HOT little airplane both in the air and on the ground.
Lands FAST. Which is something you will not want to be doing after a
flameout. I once read a pilot report on the Lancair in which the
demonstrating pilot would not let the reporting pilot land the airplane. (!)
What do you want your airplane for? Just cross country? Back country strip
landings? Aerobatics? Compare what airplane is used for what activities.
Simplicity of design. Lancairs have folding gear: more complex, more
maintainance, higher insurance, the chance of landing with them folded.
RV's have GREAT performance with the gear fixed.
Hang with the pilots who fly both. Who would you rather hang/fly with?
How many of each design are flying? Van wins there. Tells you what a lot
of other pilots decided, thinking of the same questions you are.
I once was trying to decide between the -4 and the Glasair. I made the
right choice, NO doubt. Love my -4.
Michael
RV-4 N 232 Suzie Q
Flying (gently expanding the envelope) ;>/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TOMMY E. WALKER" <twsurveyor(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com>
Date: Monday, February 09, 1998 10:24 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV x Lancair
>
>
>I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
>research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
>researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
>and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
>
>.
>
>Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
>I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>
Martin, Two Years ago I was faced With this same question "Plastic Or
Metal"
After 6 months of much thought and "tire kicking" I ordered my
6-A Tail
Kit form Van. After 18 months of being an RV builder, much
more
thought and "tire kicking", I KNOW I made the right decision!
> GOOD LUCK,
Tommy Walker
6-A Wings
Ridgetop, Tennessee (GO VOLS)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin,
Havent seen my reasoning in print yet so will give you my $.02. Two primary
reasons for my choice:
1) The RV's were the highest performing aircraft I could find with fixed
gear. I didnt want to deal with the added cost, complexity, extra insurance,
etc.. that comes with owning a retract. Didnt want to have to worry about an
accidental gear up landing either.
2) The RV's (particularly the tandem seat airplanes) scream sport
plane/fighter plane to me. The plastic stuff says pretty but boring go fast
transportation. I wanted a fighter plane!
Of course these arent my only reasons, there are lots of others. Builder
support, factory support, lots of flying aircraft, etc... But even without
the extra reasons, 1 & 2 above were enough for me.
Mike Wills
RV-4(fuse on order)
willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil
>Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>thank you
>
>Martin
>
>8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
>"We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RBusick505(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
<< >So far I am finding a lot more help from RV builders then Lancair.
> >>
The above statement is single most important reason for my decision to build
an RV. When I started, I was living in a small town in NM (about 40,000) and
there was only 5 RV's under construction, about 80% of all the airplanes in my
EAA chapter. If you need or want help, the RV is the way to go. If you have
built many airplanes and live close to the Lancair factory, then go with the
lancair. Just understand, even a simple airplane is a very daunting
undertaking.
Also consider the amount of time to build, you can easily build an RV under
2500 hours, but most Lancairs I see completed in Kitplanes Magazine take 4000+
and one was over 9000 hours! Even at 2500 hours of building, do you think in
your wildest dreams you will be able to fly your plane 2500 hours before you
die! The ratio gets worse with a more complex airplane.
Bob Busick
RV-6 (Almost as good as an RV-4)
Fremont CA
________________________________________________________________________________
Martin:
I don't know a lot about some of the issues on the rv net, but do believe I
could respond to your dilemma, because I have and fly a two seat lancair, and
I am buildidng a rv-8.
IMHO, both are wonderful airplanes. The lancair is a fun, responsive,
beautiful airplane. I dread having to part with mine, but I have built a
fairly short grass strip on my farm, and the lancair is definitely not made
for that kind of use. It is a great paved runway type plane, but as others on
the net have told you, the rv is much better adapted to short and/or grass
strip use: therefore I'm going through the whole process again.
My lancair has an O-320 lycoming with a three blade, wood, fixed prop. If you
decide to build a lancair, you might want to spend the extra $ and put a
constant speed prop: I believe it would up the performance. Also, if
acrobatics is a major interest to you, I believe the rv might be more
appropriate, although I am not an expert on this subject. I just know that
the lancair is so slick that I am afraid to point it downhill for very long.
Others may tell you more on that. I do think the lancair will give you more
fuel efficiency ie speed for horsepower.
Building concerns? What material do you prefer to work with? Its a lot of
work either way.
Good luck.
HILLJW(at)AOL.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Macintire" <dave_mac(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin Quartim wrote:
>
>
> I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
> research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
> researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
> and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
>
> The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
> fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
>
> Well folks, gulp....here it goes
>
> Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
> am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
> It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
> planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
> only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
> will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
>
> I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>
> thank you
>
> Martin
>
> 8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
> "We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
>
Mark,
Why not build a Glasair? It is a great fibreglass airplane, fast and
sexy. For that matter, how can you resist the sleekness and sex appeal
of the GP4? It is a beautiful wooden airplane that is a work of art!
The point is, it took me over two years to decide which airplane I was
going to build. I was convinced, after seeing a Merritt Island chapter
member's Lanceair that that was the plane for me. One day, I was
re-reading some old AOPA Pilot magazines and I ran across George and
Becky's article about the Van's RV-6A with the accompanying article by
the staff of the magazine about Van and all his planes. The articles
and the idea that I would be building a metal airplane just the way
airplanes have always been built fascinated me. Significant
contributing factors include the high ratio of top speed to stall speed
(4:1 in most cases), reasonably priced kits, build time estimates and
roominess helped my decision.
All the planes are great. If you have a lot of money and the talent,
build a Lanceair IV. Learn to fly it IFR. However, the reality for me
is that the RV-6 maximizes the fun factor while minimizing the cost.
Dave Macintire
RV-6 LE
Orlando, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince S. Himsl" <himsl(at)mail.wsu.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
>
>Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
>thank you
>
>Martin
Hello Martin,
The Lancair is a fine airplane, but I chose the RV8 because of three items.
1. I work out of garage attached to house. Significant dust and chemical
smells were out of the question. Sanding and painting require a patience
level well beyond mine. So all composite type aircraft were out.
2. I can purchase the RV8 incrementally. The completion rate on
homebuilts is roughly 25-30% (don't recall source, EAA Magazine I think).
With the RV8 I could find out with a 'relatively' minor investment of
$3200.00 (Tail kit + tools + minor garage fix up) my chances of being in
the completion group. The Lancair was a pretty much an all or nothing
affair, at least at the time I was deciding. The tools and garage fix up,
except for rivet stuff, I could use on other things to offset the cost.
3. Cost! I believe the Lancair is significantly more expensive.
Even though I am really happy with my decision, I still like to pull out
the Lancair video pack from time to time. One nice airplane! Good luck on
your decision. I would be thrilled to fly, let alone own, either one.
Regards,
Vince Himsl
RV8 rudder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jensen, Keith (MC R&D)" <KJensen(at)simplot.com> |
You commented:
>
> Martin,
>
> Take note of one fact....RV builders DO NOT have to defend one aspect
> of
> the airplane they have chosen to build.
> i.e.: Materials used in construction
> Construction technique
> Design configuration
> Performance (As published by kit Mfger.)
> Engine (As suggested by kit Mfger.)
>
One exception: to topcoat or not topcoat primer ! ;-)
kj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
For those listers who seem interested in my problems with the console
because they have yet to do it:
>1. Cut one of the flanges on the seat floors to make it flush along
>the front.
Done. In fact, I'd suggest that this be done when the floors are
installed. I didn't; but, it looks OK. I may need to shim just a tad on
the left side if it doesn't pull up correctly.
>2. Cut a piece of angle that will have tabs long enough past the
>F683A so that easier screw mounting can be done. Only two
>screws due to the plumbing under the F683A.
Done. I made mine about 1" past the F683. Now that may be too
much; but, it will work. Why too much? I'll explain shortly.
>3. Trim the angle under the F683A where the valve overlaps the
>angle somewhat. Also trim the tab back until it's flush with the edge
>of the angle.
Done. I did leave a little extra where the F683A is butted up to the
left seat floor. If your seat's floors are flush at the front, this will not be
needed. Only for appearance and may be overkill.
>4. Fit the F683A and angle to the seat floor and drill for screws.
Done. I clamped a 1/8" shim on the F683A and made that flush to
the floor tops so I could drop the F683A just below the bend curves
of the floors. I actually drilled out too far because now I'm going to
have to bend the flanges of the F683A to allow more clearance for
the F683Bs. I could have moved the screws in a bit closer, had I
known that. See item 5.
>5. Drill for the spar bolts so that the F683Bs will contact the angles
>on the fuselage bottom. I plan to mark them and drill in the drill
>press.
Bingo! More problems. When I looked down on the bolts stuck
through the spar holes, I discovered the bolts aren't centered One
side will not fit, at all. Now, to make the F683Bs work as braces for
the F683A, I'm going to have to bend the F683A flanges a bit to
allow them to clear the top bolts in the spar. That means I can no
longer use the F683Bs as supports for the fuselage floor angles.
What next? :-( Are you guys sure about using the F683Bs like the
F699s? It makes sense to; but, the angles are all wrong on my parts
vs the locations of the angles in the fuselage floor. At first, I thought
they'd be OK; but, now I don't. Boy, I sure dread running those fuel
lines through there. :-)
>6. Drill the F683Bs to the F683A.
>7. Drill pilot holes for the bolts in the F683Bs and angles like the
>F699s. To be finished later when the spars are in place again
>8. Finish the console assembly.
Jim Sears in Ky
RV-6A #22220 (Scratching my head again!)
________________________________________________________________________________
In terms of bang for the buck, the RV,s are the top dog when comparing cost to
build and resale value. There is also a trend in the insurance industry that
requires owners of high performance homebuilts (right now Glassair III and
Lancair IV) to have their aircraft inspected by an "approved" facility and
also undergo "approved training before they are insurable. I have a friend who
owns and built a Glassair III, also a professional pilot, whose insurance was
cancelled until he met the above qualifications. He had to fly his UNINSURED
airplane to Louisiana from CT. just to have the inspection performed.
If this trend continues, the next batch of planes to require this may very
well include the smaller Lancairs, primarilly due to their high wing loading
and above average pilot ability required. The RV's on the other hand are a
very docile and forgiving aircraft.
Good Luck
Bill Mahoney
Sherman, CT
RV-6 N747W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRAASHMAN(at)webtv.net (Joe Waltz) |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
I can't wait for your answers.
I haven't ordered my kit yet but...
my reasons for RV:
*Proven construction methods.
*New engines/props avail @ good price through Van.
*Lots of local builders (Houston, TX) and lots of builders elsewhere.
*Good support through Van and sites such as this.
*Tandem seating (RV8) is great for aero/formation.
*Resale (look @ Trade-A-Plane)
*Quick build looks great
*Conservative design with superior results.
*Good short field capability for that time the engine doesn't want to
run anymore (i.e. good survivability)
*Easier to repair
*More expertise available for metal vs. plastic.
*More of em @ airshows.
call sign "TRAASH"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: rv-8 elevator trim- man or elec? |
<< I have an RV-4 with over a thousand hours on it, and the manual elevator
trim
is simple, light, cheap and effective, and dependable. Not sensitive at all
in
my opinion. Why complicate matters unecessarily with electric trim? Now
electric flaps is a must have in the RV-4 because of being in the way of the
passengers foot, and other minor problems. That is partially why the RV-8 is
electric flaps standard. Just an opinion.
Von Alexander >>
I have an RV4 with over 450hrs on it, and the electric elevator trim is
simple, light, a little more expensive and also dependable. It is not to
sensitive, as some people claim ( usually those who dont have it or havent
given it a chance). This subject is a 50 50 toss up! Both systems work
equally as well. The reason I went with the electric over the manual is one
less large lever in that small space your sitting in. The electric trim IMHO
is not that difficult to install either. However does require a little more
time to install and a little more attention to detail than the manual.
Ryan Bendure
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV4131rb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
<< That's why I'm building a -4, which is known by all
to be the best RV model there is. You may hear from a few who are still
unwilling to admit this so just ignore them. >>
I agree John.
Ryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Martin:
The comments by Al Mojzisik and others were right on!!! I took a structured
approach, since it is very easy to get taken up with a shiny airplane. I
love them all, sleek, fast, aerobatic, etc. I started a checklist to help
me. In it I defined my flying objectives, including ALL of the criteria
that affected these objectives. I listed this in detail. The following list
by Al is great, but only a start. Although not necessary, I determined a
weight factor for each factor. Then I measured each available kit and added
it up.
I definitely did not start out with an RV-6A in mind. The Vans didn't win
any category. It was just "close to best" in an overwhelming number of
factors. For instance, cross country cruising with my wife is important.
It's nice to be fast - Vans a/c are near the top, but take a look at
anything faster. Some of them can't carry diddly squat. The RV is a flying
station wagon. I didn't have one factor where the Van's performed poorly.
I went to Oshkosh last year with the sole purpose of researching my
checklist. I attended workshops on each construction type, talked to many
builders, vendors, etc., etc. For my needs (my type of building skill, time
requirement, cost, type of flying etc.), Vans was definitely the overall
winner - wasn't that close. You will have to have your own criteria based
upon your own needs.
By the way, go out to the airport and look at the military, commercial and
general aviation aircraft sitting around - DC-3 (early 30's) to the new
stuff. The construction techniques will look pretty familiar to any RV
builder. There is a message there.
Happy Building (it will probably be an RV)!!!
>Take note of one fact....RV builders DO NOT have to defend one aspect of
>the airplane they have chosen to build.
>i.e.: Materials used in construction
> Construction technique
> Design configuration
> Performance (As published by kit Mfger.)
> Engine (As suggested by kit Mfger.)
>
>And I'm probably overlooking a few. One other consideration. Just try to
>find an unhappy RV builder who has completed his mission! (Just my
>opinion) Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: F83 console puzzle continues.... |
[snip!]
> However, the rub is still there. DWG 49 shows
> a 3/4" tab on the back of the F683A that must get screwed to the
> top of the seat floors to tie things together.
[big snip]
I just screwed it to the top of the seat floors; I don't have the
manual trim down there so I can just remove the screws that hold
the fuel valve down and the side screws on the F-683B to take
the plate off.
As far as your proposed solution, you look like you've thought this
through pretty well, and what you propose should work, but I'd like to
suggest a few solutions that may be simpler and/or cleaner.
A) Cut off the seat floor flange in the area of the F-683B and
install F-683B with the tab underneath the seat floor. I have
seen a few that look like they were done this way -- at least
the tab went under the seat floor, I don't know if they slotted
the seat floor or cut the flange all the way off.
B) Bend the back tab of the F-683B down 90 deg. and screw it
to the floor flange (nutplates on the back side of the floor
flange). This assumes you could find two places to drill holes
that are clear of the plumbing.
C) Rivet some small pieces of .063 angle to the outside edges of the
F-683B and screw those to the front of the seat floor flange.
Just a few ideas. Sounds like you have a handle on it now however.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
I have a Sterba 68 X 68 performance prop for sale, $350., that I used on my -4
with an O-320 E2D. Worked great but can't use anymore since I'm installing an
O-360.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark S. Jennings" <markjenn(at)chinook.halcyon.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
You've already gotten alot of good feedback but I'll weigh in.
For the better part of two-years I've been looking at an RV-8 vs. a Lancair
Super ES. (These are not really comparable, I know, but I was also trying
to decide whether I wanted a do-everything bird that could replace my
Bonanza or just get a sport bird for fun flying.)
I decided that I would be happy flying either. What I needed to concentrate
on was which one I was going to be happier with during the construction
phase. So I built an epoxy canoe over last winter and helped a friend with
some riveting work. Both constructions resulted in good results, but I had
much, much more fun riveting than I had doing lay-ups and sanding. I also
hated my garage becoming a toxic waste dump every few days and stuffing my
garbage can full of disposable plastic, brushes, sandpaper, cups, etc. It
really offended my sensibilities about the environment and waste. Wearing a
respirator is no fun either. Some people enjoy working with composites, I
didn't. You should try it and decide for yourself.
Another key factor for me was deciding which one I was more likely to be
successful in completing. Even proven designs like the RV and the Lancair
still have very low completion rates. I wanted to bump my personal
percentage as high as possible. Here again, I felt like the RV was the
better choice. If you get into trouble on the RV, you have tons of people
to turn to: your local A&P who knows sheet metal, all the local RV
builders, this list, Van's etc.
This list is a HUGE consideration. There is nothing comparable in the
Lancair world. They have a lame web site discussion forum which gets about
three messages a month and has little if any participation from builders.
Their other resource is the newsletter which is skimpy. Then there is
rec.avation.hombuilding (may not be exactly right) which is one step down
from CB radio. This list, flawed as it is, gives you a virtual sense of
community as you raise your young bird. In anything, feeling like you are
not alone and working in a team can make a huge difference in your ability
to carry through adversity.
Another consideration are the initial barriers to entry. I wanted to QB, so
with the RV-8, I only have to pony up $2K or so for a tail kit and some
starting tools. Worst comes to worst, I'm out $2K and walk away with a
great experience. With the Lancair, I was looking at ponying up $55K or so.
I'm also concerned about Lancair's stated policy to try and pursue the
certified and kit markets simultaneously. I wonder if they can do this. It
seems to me that the business models are drastically different. I will
predict right here and now that if the Columbia does well, that they will
drop or sell off the kit market. Conversely, if the Columbia does poorly, I
predict they will go bankrupt. Either doesn't bode well for a builder with
a half-completed 320 4-years from now.
I have still not pulled the trigger to order my tail kit, but this has to do
with my time availability, not the RV. I'm waiting to see what the RV8A
looks like and to go fly one this spring at Van's. I'd like to see that the
QB's are flowing in the pipeline and get some early feedback on quality.
But if/when I do pull the trigger it will be an RV (unless something else
comes along).
Again, if I had to give you one thought, I'd say to concentrate on what you
would enjoy building, not flying. A completed RV-8 will be worth 1,000
times more to you than a better flying bird that didn't get done because you
got sick (maybe literally) of pumping nasty smelling toxins into disposable
cups.
Good luck,
- Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com>
Date: Monday, February 09, 1998 10:46 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV x Lancair
>
>
>I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
>research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
>researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
>and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
>
>The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
>fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
>
>Well folks, gulp....here it goes
>
>Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
>am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
>It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
>planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
>only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
>will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
>
>I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>
>thank you
>
>Martin
>
>8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
>"We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Bibb <rbibb(at)fore.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Anybody that asks this crowd about an Lancair vs. RV must have their mind
made up and just want validation... :)
Of course the RVs are the best value, etc. Just plop your money down and get
started!
Richard E. Bibb
RV-4 N144KT
Oak Hill, VA
rbibb(at)fore.com
________________________________________________________________________________
<< Tank dies from Cleaveland...questions.
Are these for dimpling the tank mounting screw holes?
Are they usable elsewhere in the building project?
What rivets need 'shaving' if these dies are not used?
>>
Dennis,
The dies of for the -3 (3/32") rivets. When you rivet the tanks the pro-seal
tends to lift the rivets up off the skin slightly. Some builders will shave
these rivets down but there is really no need to do this unless you're looking
for perfection. The tank dies dimple a bit deeper and allow the rivets to fit
closer to flush. They indeed make a difference.
Some builders have used these dies on substructure which must be dimpled (wing
ribs & fuselage bulkheads). The skins seem to lay a little tighter. Although
it's hard to really tell a difference.
Rick McBride
RV-6 N523JC sold
RV-8 80027 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
<< I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>>
SUPPORT is the "key" word, my friend. There are lots more RV's being built
and flown. I have my doubts about the Lancair completing for only $10,000
more than a similar RV. Method of construction is quite different. Your main
choice will be composite versus conventional construction. Tool cost does not
count, since tools maintain their value, and there is "always" someone looking
for good aircraft tools. GOOD LUCK on your choice!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WstcttPrss(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
In a message dated 2/10/98 3:03:31 PM, you wrote:
<>
Not me. I want both.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair (toxic dump) |
<< I also
hated my garage becoming a toxic waste dump every few days and stuffing my
garbage can full of disposable plastic, brushes, sandpaper, cups, etc. It
really offended my sensibilities about the environment and waste. Wearing a
respirator is no fun either. Some people enjoy working with composites, I
didn't >>
Mark makes a point which I have been meaning to comment on. I worked with the
early epoxies (safety-poxie) and built a composite fuselage. My sensitivity
got so bad that I can not get within a mile of the stuff. Once you start a
composite airplane, the market is very slim to buy a half built kit because
you can not really inspect the quality of workmanship. I would never buy a non
flying composite for that reason. This is not true with metal aircraft. It is
very inspectable.
Bernie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Calculated perf difference for step changes my mind! |
The previous thread of discussion for installing steps got me to thinking
about the step again. So I dug out Mr. Hoerner's fluid-dynamic drag book and
cranked out some numbers. Assumed two steps and a 160knot cruise at 6000 ft.
The Reynold's number is about 200 thousand which is right where the drag
coeficient make's the adjustment between separated and attached flow. I
assumed the worst case of separated flow with a drag coef.=.10. The drag
calculates out to 1.3 pounds or .7 horsepower. If we had two exactly equal
airplanes ,except for two steps, at exactly the same power, the one with out
the steps would be less than 10 seconds behind the clean one in one hour!
Think I will go ahead and install one step!
Has anyone else done this and got any significant result?
Bernie Kerr 6A fuselage SE Fla
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bud Newhall <bud(at)softcom.net> |
| Subject: | Dimpling made easier |
This is a repost because my server was down and I don't know if it went
through the first time.
To make your dimpling task a little easier check out this web page for
a neat attachment for your C Frame tool.
http://www.softcom.net/users/bud/cframe.htm
--
Bud Newhall
bud(at)softcom.net
__|__
__|__ ____(+)____
____(+)____ ' '
' '
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitch Faatz <mfaatz(at)SagentTech.com> |
| Subject: | Calculated perf difference for step changes my mind! |
> ... If we had two exactly equal
> airplanes ,except for two steps, at exactly the same power, the one
with out
> the steps would be less than 10 seconds behind the clean one in one
hour!
Some time ago David Fried calculated the drag for baggage pods
and a tip light set, the baggage pods cost 2.8 mph and the tip light
set cost 0.3 mph. Search the archive looking for "drag coefficient"
to see his math.
This tells me: add a set of Tracy Seylor's gear leg fairings and it will
cancel out the drag from tip lights and a couple of steps!
Mitch Faatz San Jose, CA N727MF (reserved)
RV-6AQME working on the sliding canopy...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Bronson <70773.2700(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR RVs and the FARs |
Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR RVs and the FARs
"6) Certain equipment must be operational to fly ILS approaches to the
lowest minimums. - Excluding Category I and Cat II approaches which
require that both aircraft and pilot be certified for these
approaches, you need glideslope receiver, marker beacon receiver, and a
two-way radio, of course."
I don't know if this is of great interest to the RV community, but FWIW:
CAT II ILS approaches DO require special aircrew and aircraft certification.
CAT I ILS approaches DO NOT generally require anything special from the pilot beyond
being
instrument rated and current. Most CAT I ILS approaches bring you down to minimums
of 200'AGL/
one-half mile visibility. There are exceptions (this is aviation, right?). If
you'd like a
few examples of exceptions (in which case your project must be done) e-mail me
off-list.
Tim - Pittsburgh - Pre-empennage garage prep phase
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rscott(at)wnstar.com (Richard Scott) |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
OK, here is an answer from a non-RV builder--but I may yet build one!
I work in non-destructive testing at the Oregon Air Guard. F-15's have a
lot of composite parts as well as aluminum and titanium. Because these
planes are flown to the edge of the envelope and beyond, we check them
regularly for cracks, delaminations and water entrapment in composite
structures.
Metal is easy. You can see a crack. Use a pencil eraser on the rivets &
wiggle it to check for tight rivets (not an official Air Force procedure,
but one I learned along the way). If you see a line you suspect might be a
crack, press on the metal alternately on opposite sides of the line. Or
use a hand lens for a better view.
Composites are another problem. We X-ray composites for water entrapment
and other problems. Got an x-ray unit handy? We also do ultrasonic
testing. You do have an ultrasonic unit in your garage, don't you? No?
Then I guess you are stuck with the tap test. Use a quarter and tap all
over the surface, covering every half inch or so, listening for any change
in sound that might indicate delamination. Yes, all over the structure.
A recent crash of a D4 Fasination that was written up in Western Flyer also
sheds some light. Apparently, someone had sat or fallen against the
leading edge of the wing and broken some nose ribs, made out of composite.
This damage was not apparent from the outside--but damage metal and you see
a dent or crack. Anyway, the ribs reportedly broke away after several
flights following the damage. It happened just after takeoff with 2 aboard
and the plane began rolling as it dove into the ground. Not the way I want
to go.
Flying is not very forgiving. I want to know the condition of my flying
machine as well as possible before I take off. That's a lot harder with a
composite structure. Go for the RV!
Dick Scott
Interstate Cadet
NC37301
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | AKZO primer solvent |
Greetings folks,
I recall seeing a post in here saying that Akzo primer is difficult to
clean out of the gun with acetone...which I've been using to clean up
Variprime. I'm thinking of buying some Akzo...the cost savings and
quality of the product seems exceptional. But, is the stuff a mess to
clean up? That would negate the savings, in my opinion. The Aircraft
Spruce catalog doesn't show any special reducer/solvent or mention the
need for it.
Thanks!
Brian Denk
-8 #379
5 year wedding anniversary this weekend...shall we spend it riveting
wing skins? NOT!!!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Calculated perf difference for step changes my mind! |
-----Original Message-----
From: Kerrjb(at)aol.com <Kerrjb(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 6:54 PM
Subject: RV-List: Calculated perf difference for step changes my mind!
>
>The previous thread of discussion for installing steps got me to thinking
>about the step again. So I dug out Mr. Hoerner's fluid-dynamic drag book
and
>cranked out some numbers. Assumed two steps and a 160knot cruise at 6000
ft.
>The Reynold's number is about 200 thousand which is right where the drag
>coeficient make's the adjustment between separated and attached flow. I
>assumed the worst case of separated flow with a drag coef.=.10. The drag
>calculates out to 1.3 pounds or .7 horsepower. If we had two exactly equal
>airplanes ,except for two steps, at exactly the same power, the one with
out
>the steps would be less than 10 seconds behind the clean one in one hour!
>
>Bernie Kerr 6A fuselage SE Fla
>
Let me quantify the 10 seconds in an hour to plain ol' MPH: 0.7/160 =
0.0044, the fractional horsepower change, so dividing by 1/3 we get 0.0015,
the fractional MPH change. Then 0.0015 x 185 MPH = 0.3 MPH.
That's it guys, the drag penalty for two steps at 185 MPH.
If I put 240 steps on my 6A it would still be as fast as my Skyhawk!
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Lineart RV Wanted |
I'm looking for a line-art drawing of an RV, to grace the cover
of the Western Canada RVator. Anyone know where I can get one?
I have a GIF photograph that I've tried to convert using Adobe
Streamline, but the results haven't been satisfactory.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
[-6 tail]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
<< the tank dies are just a pubic hair deeper. >>
Now for the big question. An RCH or a BCH?
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer solvent |
Brian,
... I've been using acetone for the Dexter (nee AKZO) primer for
years now (way to many years ...:^) and had no problems. It's pot life is
in the order of 4-8 hours, so you don't have to rush too quickly after
painting.
Another advantage of this primer is that you can use acetone to
clean up Sharpie pen writing, grease stains (from the rudder cables) etc.
off the painted surface after it's cured. Try that with Variprime...:^)
... Gil (use acetone to clean it all) Alexander
... just starting the fuel valve console ... need to re-dimension due to
the use of the Andair fuel valve (makes Vans part look like it came of a
tractor).
>
>Greetings folks,
>
>I recall seeing a post in here saying that Akzo primer is difficult to
>clean out of the gun with acetone...which I've been using to clean up
>Variprime. I'm thinking of buying some Akzo...the cost savings and
>quality of the product seems exceptional. But, is the stuff a mess to
>clean up? That would negate the savings, in my opinion. The Aircraft
>Spruce catalog doesn't show any special reducer/solvent or mention the
>need for it.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Brian Denk
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin -
As one who recently went through the same process your are I would like
to
make the following suggestions as a minimum:
1) Find several local builders of both RV's and Lancair's and spend at least
one afternoon/evening with them working on their project. You need to get a
feel for the rivet vs layup/sanding debate to see which construction method
you dislike the least.
2) You must fly each airplane you are interested in at least once. Going to
an air show like Sun 'n Fun or Oshkosh is a great place to meet lots of
builders and get factory demo rides.
3) If money is an issue, re- check your kit cost figures. Unless you are
planing on purchasing an RV Quickbuild Kit a Lancair is substantially more
expensive.
4) While looking into both the Lancair and RV you might as well take a closer
look at a Glasair - they put out a great kit.
Regards,
Mike Kiess (GIII on the way!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <rver(at)caljet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
> The cost is $99.00 for the basic program to $199.00 for the Pro copy.
>They also have a web page WWW.panplnr.com
>
On my browser the actual sute URL is www.panelplanner.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Gageby <aj752(at)lafn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling made easier |
>
> To make your dimpling task a little easier check out this web page for
> a neat attachment for your C Frame tool.
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/bud/cframe.htm
>
Looks like someone went to a lot of trouble to make the dimple c-frame
tool more time consuming to use. A simple spring works just great and
there is no need to set you hammer (I prefer a plastic mallet) down when
moving the aluminum piece you are dimpling.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesCone(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
I built a composite plane and became very sensitive to the epoxy. The stuff
stinks and is very messy. I logged over 1000 hours of sanding!. You can't
stop in the middle of a part or it will be ruined. I spent many evenings up
past 2:00 AM because I started something that I thought would not take too
much time and found out otherwise. You get dust everwhere. Fuel tanks are
difficult to seal and be sure that they won't leak.
My RV was much easier to build and not nearly as messy. No bad smells, very
little sanding, almost no dust. You can stop at any time and come back later
to pick up where you left off.
I have flown both the Lancair and my RV. The RV is much more fun to fly. At
a recent Young Eagles Rally, a Lancair 320 could not keep up with me when
climbing out to the practice area. It was only after I leveled off that he
was able to catch up with me. On a short 40 mile cross county to another
airport, I took off behind him and and landed as he was turning off of the
runway. He beat me by less than two minutes. The RV will easily handle a
grass strip, no way will my friend land his Lancair on grass. I have done
aerobatics in both planes. The RV wins hands down. Insurance for a
retractable gear plane is much higher than the RV. Building time for
composite vs metal is much higher. Cost of Lancair vs RV is nearly double at
best. The Lancair is a great plane. The RV is better.
Jim Cone
RV-6A Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
>
>
>I am about to make a decision and your opinion is important. After days of
>research I am in doubt between the Lancair MKII 320/360 and RV 6/8. I
>researched about Velocities, Cozys, Glasairs, Pulsars, 1/4 share Cesna 182,
>and even BD-5s..yeah I thought about it, deadly fun huh!
>
>The reasons why I picked the RV and Lancair is because of the fact they are
>fast for Xcountry and can aerobatic.
>
>Well folks, gulp....here it goes
>
>Why should I get and RV instead of a Lancair?
>
>am I wrong to think that the only difference in cost is the kit it self ?
>It seems that other then the kit everything else will cost the same. I am
>planing to get an OH IO-320, fix prop and Minimum VFR setup(planing to fly
>only in good weather). In this configuration, I figured that a Lancair 320
>will run about $ 50,000 and the RV6A about 40,000.00.
>
>I hope I can start by having your friendly support :)
>
>thank you
>
>Martin
>
>8X -Otus- 8X VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
>"We're the Jolly Rogers, Who the hell are you?"
>
Martin,
I think that it would be hard to beat the "bang for the buck" of an RV. You
have an extremely reliable aircraft when you're done that is built by tried
and true methods. Yeah, it's fast and maneuverable, but it's also quite
strong and of extremely sound design. As far as construction goes, this
bird is designed to be built in a garage - literally. Aside from the
purchase of about $1000 of specialized aircraft tools, the rest of the
equipment in my garage has been bought at Fred Meyer or built out of
hardware store parts. Very basic in construction. Most of my
head-scratching comes not from "how do I do this", but "how can I do this BEST".
But the real kicker for me is the overwhelming support from the multitudes
of RV builders out there. It's almost cult-like. If I have a real
head-scratcher, I post my problem on this list and nearly need to buy a
bigger hard-drive to handle all the responses. It's all
"been-there-done-that" advice, too.
Now stop analyzing and speculating, pick up the phone, call Van's and order
the best kit plane in the world - the RV6!! Sorry, you -4 guys.... :-)
>
>
>
Jon Elford
RV6 #25201
Elevators - Wings ordered!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
I started a Composite Aircraft over a year and a half ago, about 6 months into
the project - Jerry Stallings the designer of the Air Master - was killed in a
plane crash
with the prototype, We took a Sawzall to the Tail Feathers and the lower half
of the main fuselage $6000.00 later
The support and the amount of people involved with the RV was enough to sell
me, but then I made the fatal mistake of flying one.
Its one great airplane.
BSivori.@AOL.COM
N929RV (Reserved)
Wings & Tanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV's vs Composite |
| From: | bob.char.reeves(at)juno.com (Robert L Reeves) |
My $.02 worth,
I saw the D4 Facination after the crash. I doubt if I will ever even sit
in a Composite plane again. The D section of the wing, that I understand
is built by a professional company, came apart like it had been assembled
with waxed paper laid between the layers of material. I thought the
stuff was suppose to bond together and form a single unit. I have never
felt good about composite construction, mainly because of the inability
to inspect the material after its made. Now I'm even more convinced that
for amateur builders its not the way to go. I had flown in the D4 just a
couple weeks previous to the crash. It was a neat flying airplane and
the owner was a really great guy.
Bob Reeves
Building Bearhawk, Flying RV-4
Hidden River Airport,
Sarasota, Florida
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer solvent |
>
>Greetings folks,
>
>I recall seeing a post in here saying that Akzo primer is difficult to
>clean out of the gun with acetone...which I've been using to clean up
>Variprime.
Brian, you are just determined to cause trouble around here aren't you?
The Azko/Dexter is not hard to clean up, you just have to make damn sure
you do.
If allowed to harden, all of the acetone in the world won't help.
I see two big advantages to this stuff.
1. Nobody will argue about the corrosion protection it offers.
2. It is almost scratch proof.
I have been able to cut, sand, polish, assemble, disassemble parts primed
with this stuff and it is bulletproof. The downside is that it is toxic.
I always spray it outside.
If I can't stand upwind of it, I wear a homemade fresh air supply. If
there is a little breeze, I'll just use a respirator. Overall, I find it
well worth the trouble.
Good luck
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert l. wadsworth" <rv6_wads(at)compuserve.com> |
Does anyone have the phone number/email address for Cleveland Tools? I am
having difficulty finding one.
Thanks
Robert- Athens, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
<< With the baffle kit from Van, there was a piece of aluminum. It is about
.040 and about 8"X11". What is it to be used for?
I spoke to one guy who riveted a doubler that was the same size as the rear
baffle to the left rear baffle. Is that appropriate? Needed?
>>
Such a doubler is necessary if you are going to mount the cooler to the baffle
system.
Keep the coolers from TMR in mind- about $70, for the size to fit the 320's
and 360's
(with AN fittings).
Check six!
Mark
HR II 206 hrs
At that rate, my engine should last 20 yrs!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert dziewiontkoski" <dzflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleveland Tools |
Cleaveland Tools: www.cleavelandtool.com
-----Original Message-----
From: robert l. wadsworth <rv6_wads(at)compuserve.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 8:24 AM
Subject: RV-List: Cleveland Tools
>
>Does anyone have the phone number/email address for Cleveland Tools? I am
>having difficulty finding one.
>Thanks
>
>Robert- Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cabe" <robert.cabe(at)usaa.com> |
----------
Mark,
Thanks for the reply. Too late on the recommendation for the alternate oil
cooler. I bit the bullet and ordered from Van ($220). Ouch!!
What's your opinion. Baffle mount or fire wall mount???
I enjoy reading your list notes.
Thanks,
Bob
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert dziewiontkoski" <dzflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Cutting large circles in Aluminum |
Have a tip that may be worthwhile:
To cut large circles in aluminum (ie: panel, ect.) I use a laminate trimmer
with a carbide router bit. For those that don;t know, a laminate trimmer is
basically a small router that can be easily helf in one hand.
You will need to make a simple circle cutting jig for your router - I use
Lexan for my router jigs, but any good quality plywood would work fine.
1. Locate the center of the hole.
2. Set deisred radius on the router jig.
3. Attach jig to aluminum.
4. Cut away!
If anyone wants/needs more specific instructions, E-mail me off list. I will
try to come up with a sketch or photo if needed.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marc Hanson <paintbox(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Primers and the new builder |
For those of us just starting the emmpenage, primers are not re-hashing
an old subject. But they are certainly confusing! I've come to the
conclusion that I'm not going to use Vari-prime because I don"t want to
have to topcoat interior parts,(more weight,hours, fumes,etc..).
A fellow wise old RV builder in my area has introduced me to another
DUPONT product that you may want to check out. It is "CORLAR"-epoxy
primer (light gray),824s and activator 826s. It is designed as a primer
for use under IMRON polyurethane enamel, but as an epoxy it can be
overcoated with most topcoat paints except for laquer.
Any feedback or experience with/about CORLAR welcome.
M.HANSON
RV-6A HS STARTED,Jig is up...On my way!
paintbox(at)rconnect.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | eprth(at)kneehill.com (Tim Houle) |
| Subject: | Re: Cleveland Tools |
>
>Does anyone have the phone number/email address for Cleveland Tools?
Try 1-800-368-1822 or 1-515-432-6794
Tim Houle
RV6 emp
***************************
Tim Houle
email: eprth(at)kneehill.com
***************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | emcole(at)ix.netcom.com (Edward Cole) |
You wrote:
>
>
>
><< the tank dies are just a pubic hair deeper. >>
>
>Now for the big question. An RCH or a BCH?
>
>-GV
>
Gary,
I always use an RCH as they are much finer :^)
Ed Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Hawkins <jah(at)adobe.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleveland Tools |
Cleaveland Tools
1-800-368-1822
-Jeff
RV-8 #80563
Suwanee, GA
Working on Rudder
>
>Does anyone have the phone number/email address for Cleveland Tools? I am
>having difficulty finding one.
>Thanks
>
>Robert- Athens, GA
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marc DeGirolamo <mdee(at)dlcwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
A
><< Does anyone have full size diagrams of instruments available via the
> internet for downloading and printing in order to layout and plan the
> instrument panel design? >>
>
I made up some cardboard templates of instruments, switches, guages,
etc.(obtained from ACS catalogue) , stuck some magnetic tape strips on the
back of each. I then cut a full size panel out of 18ga mild steel sheet, and
scribed some reference lines (1 in spaced)onto the surface. Now I can put
the instuments, switches, gauges etc. onto my panel and fiddle with the
arragngement till I find something that I like. This isn't as fancy as a
computer generated template but it works.....! You can also hang it on your
wall....makes a great conversation piece as also. Well onward and upward.
Marc DeGirolamo
-4 #3289
Saskatoon,SK.
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6junkie(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
So did you order your RV yet? Well, what the heck are you waiting for?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling made easier |
> > To make your dimpling task a little easier check out this web page for
> > a neat attachment for your C Frame tool.
> >
> > http://www.softcom.net/users/bud/cframe.htm
> >
> Looks like someone went to a lot of trouble to make the dimple c-frame
> tool more time consuming to use. A simple spring works just great and
> there is no need to set you hammer (I prefer a plastic mallet) down when
> moving the aluminum piece you are dimpling.
Actually I think it looks pretty good. I find I can get a much better
feel for when the dimple is "done" without the spring in there. I
removed the spring and used a bent piece of aluminum against the shaft
to hold it in whatever position I put it, but I think his solution
look even better.
Another clever thing that a fellow builder did (Kevin Lane) was to
clamp a laser pointer to a rafter above the work area and point it
directly at the tip of the dimple die. The little red dot that was
always over the die made it a lot easier to position the aluminum
without "feeling" for the dimple die like you otherwise have to do.
A large platform with strips of carpet on it and fits around the arbor
to support the large skins at the level of the dimple die is also a
REALLY big help.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)ed.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
<< Mark,
Thanks for the reply. Too late on the recommendation for the alternate oil
cooler. I bit the bullet and ordered from Van ($220). Ouch!!
What's your opinion. Baffle mount or fire wall mount???
Hmmmmm........probably firewall for that big sucker. You might have a bit of
cooling problems (judging from what I've read on the list), but some claim it
works fine. Go figure.
Why don't you sell that thing, and get one of those cheeeeep ones?
I enjoy reading your list notes.
Thanks- I try to keep it light, but some refuse to "get it".
Thanks,
Bob
San Antonio
Hey- which PRIMER are YOU using? ;-)
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Lineart RV Wanted |
tedd(at)idacom.hp.com wrote:
> I'm looking for a line-art drawing of an RV, to grace the cover
> of the Western Canada RVator.
There's a few gracing various Web pages... Try Van's page for 3-view
drawings, or mine <http://www.pec.co.nz/~frankv/homebilt.htm> for a
3-view partly filled in. Also <http://www.flash.net/~gila/> has a nice
oblique view.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Martin Quartim <martinq(at)cris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
UAU Guys !
the response has been tremendous! Thanks to all of you that took the time
to help me getting better informed.
I will do as Mike says below and not rush into any decision. I am sure I
will be meeting some of you folks very soon.
In the safety side, I can say that there were fatal accidents involving RVs
and Lancairs. Actually in the last 5 years there were more accident with
RVs then with Lancairs, probably because there are more RVs out there. May
be I am wrong but I don't remember reading anything about fatal accident
of either plane due to airframe problems. In most cases the accident was
due to ENGINE FAILURE and pilot improper training. Many died because the
engine stopped at low altitude and were not prepared to act promptly. The
RV can land shorter in any farmers field. The Lancair seems to be able to
glide further giving more landing fields options.
Thank you all for the positive response,
Check those engines twice before take off and Happy Landings:)
Martin
p.s. if you haven't checked http://www.ntsb.gov you better do it now
>
>Martin -
> As one who recently went through the same process your are I would like
to
>make the following suggestions as a minimum:
>
>1) Find several local builders of both RV's and Lancair's and spend at least
>one afternoon/evening with them working on their project. You need to get a
>feel for the rivet vs layup/sanding debate to see which construction method
>you dislike the least.
>
>2) You must fly each airplane you are interested in at least once. Going to
>an air show like Sun 'n Fun or Oshkosh is a great place to meet lots of
>builders and get factory demo rides.
>
>3) If money is an issue, re- check your kit cost figures. Unless you are
>planing on purchasing an RV Quickbuild Kit a Lancair is substantially more
>expensive.
>
>4) While looking into both the Lancair and RV you might as well take a closer
>look at a Glasair - they put out a great kit.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Kiess (GIII on the way!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Saw your mail mentioning TMR coolers. Can you tell me more about them? The
Stewart Warner and Allied Signal (Harrison) models don't fit my wallet. I'm
putting an IO-360 in my -4 replacing an O-320 w/Van's auto type cooler, which
didn't quite handle the job.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WstcttPrss(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer solvent |
In a message dated 2/10/98 9:00:25 PM, you wrote:
<>...
I was turned on to a Sherman Williams product through the list, and although
they didn't have the one suggested, they did have something called Reducer
#54. It works exceptionally well and cost roughly $16.00 for a gallon.
Get some Alumiprep, Akzo primer, Sherman Williams Reducer #54 and a Harbor
Freight Air Brush (currently on sale for $5.97)... be sure to get the $.99
adapter to tie it into your compressor... and you'll be in priming heaven.
Jeff Carpenter
RV-6
Altadena CA
wstcttprss(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | RV-6 Empenage for sale |
Listers,
There is an RV-6 Empenage kit for sale in Columbus, Ohio. The person to
contact regarding details of this empanage is: Trace at (614) 890-4328
I have not seen it yet but it is supposed to be completed except for the
left elevator and trim tab and tips. All parts are there. The asking price
is $850.
This price also includes the full Orendorf video set. If you have any more
serious questions you can e-mail me and I will forward them to Trace or
better yet, call him direct. Al
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randall(at)edt.com (Randall Henderson) |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel design & spacing |
I too used the "traditional" method of designing my panel -- made a
template out of scrap (.032 al in this case) and taped pictures of the
instruments on there.
Up till now I would tell anyone who asked that there is no reason to
buy a fancy computer program to do this. I work at a computer all
day, and would rather spend my evenings in the shop! But I just got a
chance to try out the Panel Planner, and I'm hooked! This is a really
handy program. Maybe a little weak on the user interface, but not
enough to really degrade its usefulness. It took me about 15 minutes
to lay out a nice approximation of my panel, and I'm sure that if I
had had it in the first place it would have saved me a lot of time
puzzling over just what should go where.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
randall(at)edt.com
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHink11769(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: One exception |
Keith,
You my have missed the point on the Variprime thread. The point of the
Variprime thread is to educate users of this product that DuPont intends it
to be topcoated to provide a barrier against moisture. No one on the
RV-List that uses Variprime needs to defend how they use the product. They
can use it anyway they want to, just like they can build their RV's any way
they want to.
However, since you brought up the thread again I can only assume that you
have some unanswered questions about some parts you have used Variprime on
and have not topcoated. I would offer the following thoughts, and let me
state right up front that these are my own, based on common sense and the
fact that Variprime provides no moisture protection.
ALUMINUM PARTS
1. If you have an Alclad part primed with Variprime and have not
topcoated it, you still have the Alclad working for you and like one lister
stated Variprime looks cool. Alclad is all most Censa's and Pipers have
going for them, and you can always treat your RV with something like
ACF-50.
2. If you have a NON-Alclad part primed with Variprime and have not
topcoated it, I would suggest that you do. I believe NON-Alclad parts need
to be protected from moisture.
STEEL PARTS
1. If you have steel parts primed with Variprime and have not topcoated
them, I would suggest that you do. I am not sure which of our RV steel
parts are mild steel and which are 4130 (chromally), however the 4130 is
highly resistant to rust and corrosion as compared to mild steel. I have
chromally in my shop that is over 10 years old and has not been treated
with anything and it is showing no signs of rust or corrosion. This is why
most people that have Variprimed steel parts are not seeing any rust and
corrosion, its not the Variprime, it's the 4130.
Curtis Hinkley
RV8
You commented:
>
> Martin,
>
> Take note of one fact....RV builders DO NOT have to defend one aspect
> of
> the airplane they have chosen to build.
> i.e.: Materials used in construction
> Construction technique
> Design configuration
> Performance (As published by kit Mfger.)
> Engine (As suggested by kit Mfger.)
>
One exception: to topcoat or not topcoat primer ! ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
<< I will do as Mike says below and not rush into any decision. I am sure I
will be meeting some of you folks very soon. >>
I'll bet I know what your final decision will be!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerry calvert <calverjl(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Arbor press/building wing spar |
I have found a 1-ton arbor press that looks the right size for building
wing spars. Looks just like the one Harbor Sales carries but less
expensive. I think the one at Harbor is 1 1/2 tons. Anyone used a
1-ton with success?
Jerry Calvert
Edmond Ok
-6a emmpenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sburch(at)norfolk.infi.net (stan burchett) |
| Subject: | PARTIALLY COMPLETED -6A AVAILABLE |
Completed; empennage, 1 wing and fuselage up to jigged bulkheads.
My partner moving out of state and I'm starting a -8. We're willing
to turn project over to a new builder..no charge for our labor. Maybe some
tools too.
Stan ..Yorktown, VA 757-867-7244
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)surfsouth.com> |
What was a D4 Facination and what part of the country was it at?
----------
>
> I saw the D4 Facination after the crash.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
Gary's Yellow pages say:
clevtool@tdsi.net http://www.cleavelandtool.com
800-368-1822
515-432-6794
Don Jordan~6A wings~Arlington,Tx
donspawn(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)idacom.hp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV x Lancair |
Martin:
Many people have stated the same thoughts I have about your
question, so I'll be brief. I chose the RV-6 over anything
else because
(1) I flew one, and it gave exactly the feel I wanted.
Handling and TO/L qualities are more important for my
mission than cruise speed (the RVs are plenty fast
enough).
(2) Another pilot, whose views I respect greatly, has flown
the RV-6, the Lancair, and the Glassair. He advised me
to avoid the Lancair because the lack of tail authority
would disappoint me. I guess this is hearsay, but I
respect his opinion.
(3) I prefer working with metal to working with composites.
(4) I found the tail-dragger appealing.
(5) Builder support.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 tail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit 6A Delivery Time |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01BD3731.F6B7AE80"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BD3731.F6B7AE80
I received my 6A finishing kit Tuesday, 20 weeks after placing the order =
on Sept 22, 1997. It arrived 8 weeks beyond the order verification =
form's promised ship date. Many major items needed to continue are still =
backordered: Engine mount, F631A canopy channels, nose gear, to name a =
few.
Have other builders incurred similar delays and omissions?
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BD3731.F6B7AE80
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
I received my 6A finishing kit Tuesday, 20 weeks after placing the =
order on=20
Sept 22, 1997. It arrived 8 weeks beyond the order verification form's =
promised=20
ship date. Many major items needed to continue are still backordered: =
Engine=20
mount, F631A canopy channels, nose gear, to name a few.
Have other builders incurred similar delays and omissions?
Dennis Persyk 6A fuselage
Barrington, IL
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BD3731.F6B7AE80--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael J. Robbins" <kitfox(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Primer Alternative |
Yes, another comment on primers. I just read an article in the November
issue of the Aviation Consumer on BOESHIELD T-9. It's sort of like the
ACF-50 that Chris mentioned, but isn't as messy, and lasts longer. They
rated it quite high as a moisture barrier. It dries to a waxy finish and
lasts about 3 years before it should be recoated. I happen to have a can
of it that I sprayed on the steel parts in my tail kit because I didn't
want to prime them yet. No sign of rust in my damp garage. Because I am
considering getting the RV-8 quick build kit when it becomes available, I
will not be able to prime the inside of the wings and fuselage with the
epoxy primer (Dextor/Crown Metro/Akzo) I will use on the interior of the
tail section and airplane exterior. Van's does prime the interior of their
quick builds with a Sherwin-Williams wash primer, but I don't think it's
moisture barrier. So I think that the best alternative for those of us
that want maxium protection is to spray the inside with something like T-9.
I'll be happy to fax the article to anyone who wants it. And, to give
credit where it is due, John Morgan at Van's also suggested using BOESHIELD
when I was there.
Mike Robbins
RV-8 tail kit still in the box
kitfox(at)gte.net, or for a quicker response,
michael.j.robbins(at)boeing.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leslie B. Williams" <lesliebwilliams(at)email.msn.com> |
Hi, Ron.
Strange you should ask about that. I just the other day received 25 of the
MS245-2 Receptacle, Floating, from Skybolt. Was not too happy. Price
quoted was $2.79 each; billed for $3.07 each. Asked about mounting hole
size before I ordered and was assured they were 3/32"; they are 1/8".
Asked for a catalog which they said they would be happy to send; no catalog.
Package was under 1# and I can put the parts in one hand; shipping charges
by regular Fedex from Florida was $10.73. Total bill was $87.13 for just
those. They are about twice as large ( 7/8" X 1 3/8" ) as the normal
receptacles. They are made mostly of machined aluminum of unknown type so I
don't know what corrosion problems will follow. I believe they will fit
either type 2700 or 4000 Camlocs as the pin slot is 9/16" wide and that's
what the sales person told me. But right now I wouldn't believe anything he
said including that he would adjust the price, send me a catalog, check into
the freight charges or honor the Return Authorization number that he gave me
by phone when I called to query about this stuff.
So to answer your question. I quess I'm still out to lunch on this. I have
the new epoxy type cowl with the overlapping sides and intended to use the
adjustable receptacles and camloc fasteners, both across the top and on the
sides, instead of the hinges. I also intended to use soft 3/32 AN rivets to
mount them on the sides because of the thin fiberglass and wanted the
ability to adjust the holding tension. Until I try riveting a scrap of the
cowl with an NAS cheater rivet to see how it holds up to the squeeze, I
don't know if I will use them on the sides. The top will be okay because
they mount on .040 aluminum. I could mount the receptacles on aluminum
strips and then rivet the strips to the sides with the soft rivets which
would keep the 1/8" rivet squeezing from crunching the fiberglass. I am
finishing up some other things right now but will figure this out this
weekend, I hope.
I don't know if this helps or not. If you're not in a big hurry, I may have
some extra receptacles for sale and I won't gouge you like Skybolt or
Aircraft Spruce does without telling you first.
Les Williams/RV-6AQ/Tacoma WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Vandervort <rvanderv(at)linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:23 PM
Subject: Camlocs...?
>Hello Les,
> How is your research going on the Camloc question?
>
> I just talked with a sales type at Skybolt, and he recommended
>going with the 4000 series as it would hold up better in the long run.
>i.e. less chance of holes wallowing out.
> I note that Gary Vanremog suggested on a posting that 27S3 Series
>are the ones to use. I shot him a note also questioning his views.
>
> By the way on the riveting of the top nose skin on my aircraft
>along the right side where I had the rivet line running too close to the
>edge; I put rivets in the "runout" holes then drilled out the quickbuild
>rivets, and will use those holes to do the nose skin, thus requireing no
>additional holes.
>
>Hope you are making good progress on that machine..
>
>Ron Vandervort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bud Newhall <bud(at)softcom.net> |
If you need a new Aircraft Spruce catalog you can get one FREE! by
ordering it oline at
http://www.aircraft-spruce.com/spruce/order.cgi/01-38400?,catalog_order
I got mine today. It cost them $4.00 just to mail it to me.
--
Bud Newhall
bud(at)softcom.net
__|__
__|__ ____(+)____
____(+)____ ' '
' '
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Power system reliability |
Last November, there was a lenthy post from a list-subscriber
commenting on paralleled batteries. I didn't have time to
do a proper response until now and the resulting document
was quite lengthy . . .
Individuals with an interest in the subject are invited to
check out, "What's all This Battery Paralleling Stuff
Anyhow?" at <http://www.aeroelectric.com/parallel.html>
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< If you do, >
< What you've always done, >
< You will be, >
< What you've always been. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mcomeaux" <mcomeaux(at)cmc.net> |
| Subject: | Left Elevator RV6A |
I have come to point of bending the tabs over in the area of the trim tab.
According to instruction & video you are to install elevator in V-block
then insert cut out wedge to bend tabs over. George in Video mentions
drawing
a line from edge of elevator skin and level to skin what distance though?
Can someone shed some light for me appreciate it. Thanks again----
Mike Comeaux
mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One exception |
>STEEL PARTS
>
*** snip ***
>1. If you have steel parts primed with Variprime and have not topcoated
>them, I would suggest that you do. I am not sure which of our RV steel
>parts are mild steel and which are 4130 (chromally), however the 4130 is
No parts are mild steel, all 4130, with some being heat-treated, which
leaves a nice oxide finish on them.
>highly resistant to rust and corrosion as compared to mild steel. I have
>chromally in my shop that is over 10 years old and has not been treated
>with anything and it is showing no signs of rust or corrosion. This is why
See below ....
>most people that have Variprimed steel parts are not seeing any rust and
>corrosion, its not the Variprime, it's the 4130.
Curtis,
.... last year I was working on my tail tips (tail built circa
1991) and I noticed some brown spots on the horizontal hinge brackets. A
little Scotchbrite and they prooved to be corrosion on the 4130 steel.
These parts were solvent washed and Variprimed before assembly,
and the tail has always been indoors in my garage. I live in a fairly dry
area (Los Angeles - except for the past two weeks) and I bet my garage is
drier than most hangars.
This was done before I was told about the Dexter (then AKZO)
primer by Steve Barnard, who was using it in his job at MacDonald Douglas
(now Boeing). This epoxy is a much better seal than the Variprime, and
based on my personal experience I would rate Variprime (with no top coat)
as unacceptable for 4130 steel in RV external locations (mainly tail and
aileron hinges). I now cadmium plate my steel parts, and will also epoxy
prime all of those that are 'external' on my plane.
... Gil (very disappointed with Variprime) Alexander ...
.. will probably make new brakets and CherryMax rivet them on ... after
cadmium plating and epoxy priming. I really should build faster though ...:^)
>
>
>Curtis Hinkley
>RV8
-------------------------------------------------------
mailto:gila(at)flash.net
Gil Alexander,
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Primers and the new builder |
<< A fellow wise old RV builder in my area has introduced me to another
DUPONT product that you may want to check out. It is "CORLAR"-epoxy
primer (light gray),824s and activator 826s. It is designed as a primer
for use under IMRON polyurethane enamel, but as an epoxy it can be
overcoated with most topcoat paints except for laquer.
Any feedback or experience with/about CORLAR welcome. >>
I used Corlar on the FRP for two Kitfoxes I built a while back. It's tough as
nails but doesn't have any sacrificial qualities as a corrosion resistant
primer. For that, nothing beats a strontium chromate epoxy primer, especially
on steel. And then there's always that other duPont product, which shall
remain nameless, that works fine on aluminium (sic).
-GV
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
I had this on my computer because it had sent ot our RV Home wing
news letter editors so I thought I would post it here in case anyone else
was interested...
Scott
It "looked" like it should work!
I was relating this story at one of our builders meetings recently, and
thought I would share it with everyone. It is a good reminder for us to
think about what we are doing, and to realize that things may not always
work out as we would expect them to.
This story happened quite a few years ago (well OK not too many years
ago) so I may not remember all the details exactly.
It begins with me doing my usual parking and greeting airplanes at the
Copper State Regional Fly-In in Arizona. A couple of RV-6's were taxiing
in, and being an RV builder myself I made sure that I got them parked in
a good spot and said hello.
The gentleman that got out of one of the airplanes immediately got on the
ground and began looking into his cowling from the air outlet in the
bottom. He then began laughing and jumped up and began teasing his
friend about how slow his RV was.
After things settled down I asked him to explain...
He said that ever since completing his airplane his friend's had always
been faster. Even though they were nearly identical in the way they were
equipped. While flying in formation at altitude on the way to the
fly-in; he heard a loud noise up front. While he was looking into what
the problem was his wingman buddy noticed that his partner flying lead
was suddenly pulling away "And Climbing".
He called him on the radio and asked what the heck happened.
Said it looked like he had just kicked in a turbocharger.
Well, it turns out that while this person was building his RV he decided
to design his own induction airbox with filter (I don't know whether the
factory one was available then or not).
What happened in route was that the whole thing fell of his carb. into
the bottom of the cowling. It turns out that it was so inefficient that
he had more power from the engine with the carb. just open to the bottom
cowling area than he had with his home designed induction system that
utilized ram air from the outside.
Moral of the story? If you are going to deviate from the designers
design. Be prepared to test and evaluate what ever you do so that you
know what the real life effect is. Otherwise it is anybodies guess. It
may "look" good, but until you prove it you really don't know.
--------- End forwarded message ----------
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | AKZO primer solvent |
>>> I wear a homemade fresh air supply.
John:
I have a air pump off a medical unit to home make a freash air hood. Do
you have any suggestions on builting or converting a hood to hook to it.
Don Jordan~6A wings~Arlington,Tx
donspawn(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HinkleyC(at)fca.gov |
| Subject: | Web page for Painting |
* * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
GV,
You would not believe all of the responses and questions I have received
off line of the RV-List on the Variprime thread. I have responded to all
that have written weather they just wanted advice about painting or if they
just wanted to tell me to stick this thread where the sun don?t shine.
What this means to me is that we need to get this information out to the RV
builders and since you have a very good (OK, GREAT!) Web page, I was
hopping that you would consider adding a section that would have
information on different painting systems.
I could send you documentation from DuPont and PPG that you could verify
before you place it on you Web page to make sure it?s accurate. I?m sure
someone else could provide the same info on SW and other systems. This
would provide the RV-List with another great resource like you?re yellow
pages. Then the next time a paint or primer question comes up we could
just point them at "GV's- Painting Systems for Your RV" or I?m sure you can
come up with a more creative name.
I relize this would be more work for you, but the RV-list is worth it.
Curtis Hinkley
Sterling, VA
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: D4 Facination |
| From: | bob.char.reeves(at)juno.com (Robert L Reeves) |
The D4 was based in Venice Fla. It was a side by side 2 place low wing
retractable with a 80 hp Rotax engine. The wing was a fiberglass spar
and leading edge with a fabric covered rear section. The crash occured
in Florida, but I forget the name of the airport. They were not doing
aerobatics when it occured. The accident occured on downwind in the
pattern.
Bob Reeves
Building Bearhawk, Flying RV-4
Hidden River Airport,
Sarasota, Florida
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer solvent |
I can't believe no one has suggested straight laq thinner!!!! I buy the
cheapest stuff that the local paint supplier carries (5 gal pail, about $22),
and use it for cleaning up almost all painting messes, INCLUDING epoxy resin,
and epoxy primers.
I don't think that you will need that $16/gal stuff for cleaning up....
K.I.S.S. !
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
>
>I used to be one of those guys chuckling. The old paint and body guys
>learned that Variprime did not provide any protection against moisture the
>first time they painted a car fender then rolled it out of the shop for the
>night before they applied a sealer. When they came in the next day the dew
>or rain had caused the unprotected steel to rust right through the
>Variprime which they then had to fix on their own time.
>
I can't concur with this. Back in the summer of 1993, I started my RV-6A.
There was a spot on my Ford van that was dented and the paint and primer
chipped off. This area had a good amount of rust on it. I used a
Scotch-Brite wheel to get the rust off and down to the bare metal. This
area was primed with Vari-Prime and never topcoated. There is currently no
sign of corrosion after almost 5 years. This van is always parked outside,
on Long Island, NY and the driveway is about 75 feet from a salt water
canal. Is it possible that the formula for Vari-Prime has changed over the
years? From my experience, Vari-Prime alone should be more than adequate
for corrosion proofing the inside of an RV.
Just my $.02
Scott Gesele N506RV- Flying (68 hr since October)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AKZO primer solvent |
>
>
>>>> I wear a homemade fresh air supply.
>
>John:
>
>I have a air pump off a medical unit to home make a freash air hood. Do
>you have any suggestions on builting or converting a hood to hook to it.
>
>Don Jordan~6A wings~Arlington,Tx
>donspawn(at)juno.com
OK Don, you asked for it.
I bought some chemical splash shields at the local hardware store. They
are just a big plastic face shield with a head strap( about $2). I then
took a plastic trash bag and cut a hole in it. I duct taped the face
shield into the bag and just tuck the bag into my
shirt. I run the air nozzle right over the top of my head and it blows
down on my face and the shield. It always stays clear and gives you a big
field of view. I bought a small shop-vac for the air supply and run about
50' of hose from it. The only drawback is dragging the damned hoses
around. Otherwise it works very well.
Good luck
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "VanArtsdalen, Scott" <scott.vanartsdalen(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | Web page for Painting |
I second this! Many of you guys have been around on the list for a
while but there are some new guys out here that could use the info. To
squash the primer thread just because *you* have been through it before
isn't really fair to the newer guys. Yes I know about the archives, but
they aren't as helpful as current, live information.
--
Scott
RV-4, wings
----------
From: HinkleyC(at)fca.gov[SMTP:HinkleyC(at)fca.gov]
Reply To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 3:56 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Web page for Painting
* * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not
represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
GV,
You would not believe all of the responses and questions I have
received
off line of the RV-List on the Variprime thread. I have
responded to all
that have written weather they just wanted advice about painting
or if they
just wanted to tell me to stick this thread where the sun don?t
shine.
What this means to me is that we need to get this information
out to the RV
builders and since you have a very good (OK, GREAT!) Web page, I
was
hopping that you would consider adding a section that would have
information on different painting systems.
I could send you documentation from DuPont and PPG that you
could verify
before you place it on you Web page to make sure it?s accurate.
I?m sure
someone else could provide the same info on SW and other
systems. This
would provide the RV-List with another great resource like
you?re yellow
pages. Then the next time a paint or primer question comes up
we could
just point them at "GV's- Painting Systems for Your RV" or I?m
sure you can
come up with a more creative name.
I relize this would be more work for you, but the RV-list is
worth it.
Curtis Hinkley
Sterling, VA
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RBusick505(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
<<
. To
squash the primer thread just because *you* have been through it before
isn't really fair to the newer guys. Yes I know about the archives, but
they aren't as helpful as current, live information.
-- >>
Priming aluminum is not rocket science, I think we all are making too much out
of this. The airplane for the most part does not need to be primed, so
priming with any type of primer has got to provide increased protection over
bare aluminum.
I'm glad the list is trashing Variprime and not my primer, but in the past
every primer I know of, has been trashed on the list. It would lead one to
believe that it is impossible to prime aluminum. You know, I think that K-
Mart Rust-Olem would be about as good as any other primer, it certainly can
not be any worse than bare aluminum!
After having read all the debate on primers for almost 4 years, I find the
best advice and information on primer is located in Van's instruction manual.
Simple and to the point.
Advice for new builders: Pick any primer, follow the manufacturers
directions, and get back to building the airplane. Do not get into the
"Macho" debate of "My primer is better than yours."
Bob Busick
RV-6
Fremont CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cabe" <robert.cabe(at)usaa.com> |
Sirs,
I recently received the baffle kit for an RV-6, O-320. Going together
fairly well.
Couple of questions:
1. I have to trim a good bit off the front side pieces. I assume the
kit
is for the fixed pitch cowling. Right?
2. A piece of aluminum was delivered with the instructions. It's about
8"x11". What's it for??
I intend to install the oil cooler (from Van) on the left baffle.
Is this piece of aluminum supposed to be used as a doubler on the left rear
baffle to reinforce that area for the oil cooler??
Thanks,
Bob Cabe
San Antonio
---
"The opinions expressed herein are solely the author's
and are not necessarily the opinions of USAA."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Kelley <patk(at)mail.ic.net> |
>
> << the tank dies are just a pubic hair deeper. >>
>
> Now for the big question. An RCH or a BCH?
>
> -GV
Judi won't let me do any comparison testing, but working with the
materials at hand, I'd have to say 'RCH'. This also concurs with
analysis done in my bachelor days (if my memory serves me).
PatK - RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vortex Generators |
>If they truly are such a great thing, why aren't they included in EVERY
>design?
Hmmmm. I know they are out for the J-3. I never considered them because,
gad, what would you do with a 28mph stall as opposed to a 35mhp stall. I'm
not sure, unless you were in short landing competition, they would help.
What about the RV series? I am sure they would help an already great
performing aircraft. But to what end? I don't think I would be able to go
anywhere I wouldn't go without them. Besides, they stick up and are hard to
clean/wax around. I would like to see someone try them and report results,
though. It would be interesting to compare them to the perf tape on wings.....
Just some thoughts.......
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Patrick Kelley <patk(at)mail.ic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D4 Facination |
Robert, when I flew F3B models (specialized RC gliders) one of the USA
team's aircraft had a failure once. These aircraft were Kevlar bodies
and s-glass wings designed to handle over 10g for tight turns on a speed
course. The failure was in the elevator linkage and the aircraft headed
straight for the ground. The battery and receiver were retrieved from
about 1.5 feet below the surface of a hard-packed football field; the
fuselage was pretty much shards of glass. The interesting things were
the wings: while they looked whole at first glance, picking them up
revealed that they were limp. The impact had not only delaminated the
glass, it had returned the laminations to a cloth-like state. Prior to
the accident, I had seen this plane fly many times in practice.
Personally, I am not fearful of composite structures; I just hate the
mess. But that V2 jet looks so sexy, I'm thinking I might have to
change my tune someday. Meanwhile, I'm gonna enjoy my RV.
PatK - RV-6A
Robert L Reeves wrote:
>
> The D4 was based in Venice Fla. It was a side by side 2 place low wing
> retractable with a 80 hp Rotax engine. The wing was a fiberglass spar
> and leading edge with a fabric covered rear section. The crash occured
> in Florida, but I forget the name of the airport. They were not doing
> aerobatics when it occured. The accident occured on downwind in the
> pattern.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Backriveting the Wings |
Just thought I would pass on my experience in attempting to back rivet the top
skins on the wings of my RV-8. I have the special tool from Avery for this. We
found that the rivets do not set as far in and as flush as with the regular
method (bucking from the inside). When you stop and think about it, you are
pushing the rivet out, not pushing it in, so no matter how big or flat or
convex the bucking bar is, the rivet is just simply not set in the dimple as
well. Just our observation and experience.
Von Alexander
RV-8 #544
I think the Sherman Williams Reducer #54 at $16.00 per
gallon will last throughout the project and will save more than its cost in
replacement air-brushes... the airbrush pays for itself 50 times over in saved
primer!!!
Jeff Carpenter
RV-6
wstcttprss(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dougweil(at)pressenter.com> |
| Subject: | MN Saturday Breakfast |
Fellow Listers:
Just a quick note to the local Twin Cities RV folks advising of the MN
Wing's Bi-Monthly Saturday breakfast on 2/14. We'll meet at 9:00 am at the
Hideaway Cafe at the St. Paul airport. Fly-in or drive. Come hungry!!
Doug Weiler, pres, MN Wing
*******************************************
Doug Weiler, Hudson, WI
715-386-1239
email: dougweil(at)mail.pressenter.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
>Bob Busisk, RBusick505(at)aol.com wrote: Priming aluminum is not rocket science,
I >think we all are making too much out of this. The airplane for the
most part does not need >to be primed, so priming with any type of primer has
got to provide increased protection over
> bare aluminum. After having read all the debate on primers for almost
4 years, I >find the best advice and information on primer is located in Van's
instruction manual.
>Simple and to the point. Do not get into the "Macho" debate of "My primer
is better >than yours." Bob Busick RV-6 Fremont CA
Those new builders who feel it prudent to study and inquire about what
or how much of the interior to coat for corrosion resistance are not the
ones worried about "rocket science" or "making too much of this" or
involved in "the Macho debate of My primer is better than yours".
For what it is worth to new builders learning about corrosion control,
it is obvious that Bob Busisk has determined for his own application
that "The airplane for the most part [which part is that?] does not need
to be primed"; that "any type of primer" is better than . . .". He also
is unable to or unwilling to recognize or acknowledge that all three
primers listed by Van's in the Jan 1997 RV-6 Builders Manual were
inadequate and inappropriate and should not have been listed at all.
Yes, the real issue is accurate information so new builders can "get up
to speed" and make their decisions, based on - - - accurate information.
Van's should have simply cited a reputable source of info for the new
builder to go to, rather than put out bad info. Cessna chose not to
apply any interior corrosion preventative in some 1980s C-172s - and the
wings of 4 aircraft in Florida had to be replaced 4 years later. I was
in a repair facility last month and was shown serious corrosion in an
older Cessan being rebuilt. Sure, some planes seem never to have
corroded. But, because the owner believes that is the case with his, he
is not going to dismantle the airplane and find the serious corrosion
that would not visible through normal access panels.
One primer may be as good as another (for corrosion prevention) but
anyone can divide cost by square feet covered and calculate "$ per sq
ft". Are they all "one as good as another"? Not on your life.
New guys, study your primer choices and compare - and do the same with
opinions and "information" on the rv-list.
signed
David Carter, RV-6 horizontal stab (drilling & dimpling skins today),
Nederland, Tex
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HinkleyC(at)fca.gov |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
* * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
the policy or position * * * *
* * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
Bob,
I hope no one thinks we are trashing Variprime or that this is a "Macho"
debate of "My primer is better than yours".
Variprime is one of the best self-etching primers money can buy. What has
not been stressed or presented during the almost 4 year debate is it's
proper use according to DuPont. The idea of a Web page for painting would
be to provide an information source for the manufactures recommended use
for their products.
As always Van's advice is right on target, " Pick any primer, follow the
manufacturers directions". The problem is that allot of people that start
building RV's have never painted anything or used a real spray gun. It's a
good bet that they have never been into a DuPont or PPG or SW store to
purchase the type of paint used to paint aircraft or cars. So how are they
going to pick a paint system?
The reason this RV-list is here is because Van's plans and instructions are
very simple and to the point. They leave allot of unanswered questions for
the first time builders, so we turn to the RV-List for help and guidance.
This is why the primer questions keep coming up. Every one is trying to
build the best RV they can and they want that extra protection that paint
will provide.
Curtis Hinkley
Sterling, VA
RV-8 N815RV reserved
CHink11769 @ aol.com
hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
<<
. To
squash the primer thread just because *you* have been through it before
isn't really fair to the newer guys. Yes I know about the archives, but
they aren't as helpful as current, live information.
-- >>
Priming aluminum is not rocket science, I think we all are making too much
out of this. The airplane for the most part does not need to be primed, so
priming with any type of primer has got to provide increased protection
over bare aluminum.
I'm glad the list is trashing Variprime and not my primer, but in the past
every primer I know of, has been trashed on the list. It would lead one to
believe that it is impossible to prime aluminum. You know, I think that K-
Mart Rust-Olem would be about as good as any other primer, it certainly
can not be any worse than bare aluminum!
After having read all the debate on primers for almost 4 years, I find the
best advice and information on primer is located in Van's instruction
manual. Simple and to the point.
Advice for new builders: Pick any primer, follow the manufacturers
directions, and get back to building the airplane. Do not get into the
"Macho" debate of "My primer is better than yours."
Bob Busick
RV-6
Fremont CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank van der Hulst <frankv(at)pec.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Left Elevator RV6A |
mcomeaux(at)cmc.net wrote:
> I have come to point of bending the tabs over in the area of the trim tab.
> According to instruction & video you are to install elevator in V-block
> then insert cut out wedge to bend tabs over. George in Video mentions
> drawing
> a line from edge of elevator skin and level to skin what distance though?
> Can someone shed some light for me appreciate it. Thanks again----
I have some comment and photos, etc on my Bunny's Guide page
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4809/bunny1b.htm which
may help.
Incidentally, last weekend I looked over several RVs at SportAvex 98,
NZ's national homebuilt fly-in. One builder had cut off the tabs and
made some little ribs -- that looked nicer than the bent-over tabs on
other RVs.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert dziewiontkoski" <dzflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
www.dupont.com
imagine what you can find on the web.
-----Original Message-----
From: HinkleyC(at)fca.gov <HinkleyC(at)fca.gov>
Date: Thursday, February 12, 1998 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Web page for Painting
>
>
>
>
>
> * * * * The views expressed in this EMail are my own and do not represent
> the policy or position * * * *
> * * * * of the Farm Credit Administration. * * * *
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I hope no one thinks we are trashing Variprime or that this is a "Macho"
>debate of "My primer is better than yours".
>
> Variprime is one of the best self-etching primers money can buy. What has
>not been stressed or presented during the almost 4 year debate is it's
>proper use according to DuPont. The idea of a Web page for painting would
>be to provide an information source for the manufactures recommended use
>for their products.
>
>As always Van's advice is right on target, " Pick any primer, follow the
>manufacturers directions". The problem is that allot of people that start
>building RV's have never painted anything or used a real spray gun. It's a
>good bet that they have never been into a DuPont or PPG or SW store to
>purchase the type of paint used to paint aircraft or cars. So how are they
>going to pick a paint system?
>
>The reason this RV-list is here is because Van's plans and instructions are
>very simple and to the point. They leave allot of unanswered questions for
>the first time builders, so we turn to the RV-List for help and guidance.
>This is why the primer questions keep coming up. Every one is trying to
>build the best RV they can and they want that extra protection that paint
>will provide.
>
>
>Curtis Hinkley
>Sterling, VA
>RV-8 N815RV reserved
>CHink11769 @ aol.com
>hinkleyc(at)fca.gov
>
>
>
>
><<
>. To
> squash the primer thread just because *you* have been through it before
> isn't really fair to the newer guys. Yes I know about the archives, but
> they aren't as helpful as current, live information.
> -- >>
>
>Priming aluminum is not rocket science, I think we all are making too much
>out of this. The airplane for the most part does not need to be primed, so
>priming with any type of primer has got to provide increased protection
>over bare aluminum.
>
>I'm glad the list is trashing Variprime and not my primer, but in the past
>every primer I know of, has been trashed on the list. It would lead one to
>believe that it is impossible to prime aluminum. You know, I think that K-
>Mart Rust-Olem would be about as good as any other primer, it certainly
>can not be any worse than bare aluminum!
>
>After having read all the debate on primers for almost 4 years, I find the
>best advice and information on primer is located in Van's instruction
>manual. Simple and to the point.
>
>Advice for new builders: Pick any primer, follow the manufacturers
>directions, and get back to building the airplane. Do not get into the
>"Macho" debate of "My primer is better than yours."
>
>Bob Busick
>RV-6
>Fremont CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel And Vent Lines |
Rather than running aluminum fuel and vent lines through the fuselage side
walls (with plastic bushings) to the tanks, is there a problem(s) with
using bulkhead fittings at the side wall and then flexible hose and
fittings to the tanks? I assume that if you can't use flexible hoses, that
you should wait until your wings are installed on the fuse to know exactly
where to run these lines. Is this a correct assumption? Thanks in advance
for your comments.
Ron Caldwell
rlcaldwell@utah-inter.net
RV6A - Finish Stage
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
<< When you stop and think about it, you are
pushing the rivet out, not pushing it in, so no matter how big or flat or
convex the bucking bar is, the rivet is just simply not set in the dimple as
well. Just our observation and experience.
Von Alexander
RV-8 #544 >>
Hmmmm.......Von, I sure hope you're wearing your asbestos underware for this
one. Many wings have been built with exactly the system you mention.
Let's look at this from a different angle- did the rivet heads pop out when
you did your elev's & rudder? If they did (doubtful), then I would agree with
you about the bucking bar letting the rivets back out.
Normally, I'd say that you could be simply pushing with the gun too hard. I
know that what you are describing happens while "front riveting" with an over-
enthusiastic bucker.
What size gun are you using? Remember, that long set soaks up a lot of energy.
If you are using a 3X, you may need to raise your pressure about 5-10 lbs over
what you would normally use when "front riveting". Sneak up on this higher
pressure, so to speak. We use a 4X for everything here, and we adjust the
press down to about 30 lbs to do stiffeners, etc., up to 90 PSI for spars. We
can certainly tell the difference when we get that big set onto the gun- it
takes more hits, or (preferred) more air pressure with the same hits.
We have a 6 lb bar, called the Big *ss Bar, for back riveting. I don't think
the round bar from Avery is quite big enough, but that's my taste.
Keep trying!
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net |
| Subject: | Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the wiring
application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two days
of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be this
hard. Has anyone used standard shielded wire or does anyone know where I
can get the twisted pair wire.
Charles Golden
N609CG 6A
Chevy Vortec test run
Completing panel and cowl
SE Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael V Seager <rv6cfi(at)vernonia.com> |
| Subject: | factory rv flight training |
Anyone wanting RV-6 flight training the in Grandhaven Michigan area. I
will be there April 8-10. My original message give the wrong phone
numbers the contacts should be Scott DeGaynor 616 776 0840 or John Gill
at 616 940-3017 hope this clears up the confusion
Michael Seager
503-429-5103
rv6cfi(at)Vernonia.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | L & M Rowles <lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au> |
To All Aussie Listers,
This morning when I went into my paddocks I found a fiber glass wing tip.
It is definitely not an RV, but if some one should here about a lost
iridescent green wing tip complete with NV light (red) could you send them
in my direction.
It was picked up 10nm east of Traralgon in Gippsland Victoria.
Regards
Les Rowles
Po Box 1895
Traralgon
Australia 3844
lmrowles(at)netspace.net.au
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CHink11769(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
Robert,
The reason I had not posted the www.dupont.com to the RV-List was because
after searching all over it, I could not find any information on their
painting systems or how to use them. It would give you a nice list of repair
shops in you state that use DuPont products.
Curtis Hinkley
RV8
<<
www.dupont.com
imagine what you can find on the web.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "robert dziewiontkoski" <dzflyer(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
Curtis
The DuPont web page also has a direct e-mail to technical support. If
someone wanted specific directions or questions answered by the
manufacturer, that would be the place to go.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: CHink11769(at)aol.com <CHink11769(at)aol.com>
Date: Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Web page for Painting
>
>Robert,
>
>The reason I had not posted the www.dupont.com to the RV-List was because
>after searching all over it, I could not find any information on their
>painting systems or how to use them. It would give you a nice list of
repair
>shops in you state that use DuPont products.
>
>Curtis Hinkley
>RV8
>
>
><<
>
>
> www.dupont.com
>
> imagine what you can find on the web.
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
Hi Charles, All,
Twisted pair is all around us!
But where can you get good quality stuff locally? I get it down the street.
Computer networks use either twisted pair (4 pairs in the cable?) for local area
networks. Less commonly they use coax RG58AU.
If you can't find any let me know needs.
Hal Kempthorne RV-6AQ -- Looking for an airport & sweating canopy
halk(at)sybase.com Santa Clara, CA. Debonair N6134V @ SJC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
The time has come to write a check to VANS. I am still undecided wether I
need to order the Empennage with or without the provision for the position
light in the bottom of the rudder. It seams "most" folks are using the three-
light system on the wing tips. Does anyone have any good feedback about this
matter?
Jim Nice
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chester razer <razer(at)midwest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
chief aircraft 18004473408 has all the stuff you need. It's real
airplane stuff. 22 gauge 2 and 3 conductor twisted conductor shielded
Flyinghi(at)worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the
> wiring
> application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two
> days
> of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be
> this
> hard. Has anyone used standard shielded wire or does anyone know
> where I
> can get the twisted pair wire.
>
> Charles Golden
> N609CG 6A
> Chevy Vortec test run
> Completing panel and cowl
> SE Texas
>
--
Abby Razer
Barbara Razer
Molly the Dog and
Chet Razer
razer(at)midwest.net
http://scribers.midwest.net/razer/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tank dies (Clean one) |
There is another guy in the area who is also building an rv6a and he is a bit ahead
of me in his project. He is a retired guy who has no interest in crazy things
like internet e-mail lists. He had never heard of tank dimple dies and his
tank rivets ended up a bit proud. I saw this and thought that I, being so
very aware of everything would avoid this by buying the tank specific dies. Well,
many of mine stick out too. Maybe not as much, but they do.
I think the problem is that the proseal didn't have enough time to squeeze out
during the riveting. I know that I used more proseal than I needed to because
I made a long range tank modification and I wanted to ensure no leaks, that could
have something to do with it. But, if I had it to do over again I would
work each rivet rather lightly first completing the tank to skin rivets and then
go back and give them another hit after the proseal has had a chance to move.
Brian Eckstein
Fuselage on order
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
Bob,
That's just what I did a little while ago. Lets' see what happens. I gave
them both my e-mail and snail mail address so this may take a while. Al
>
>Curtis
>
>The DuPont web page also has a direct e-mail to technical support. If
>someone wanted specific directions or questions answered by the
>manufacturer, that would be the place to go.
>
>Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
RBusick505(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Advice for new builders: Pick any primer, follow the manufacturers
> directions, and get back to building the airplane. Do not get into the
> "Macho" debate of "My primer is better than yours."
>
> Bob Busick
> RV-6
> Fremont CA
Well said Robert, it is going on eleven years since I started my Rv-6
and I have been flying it since '89. when I started building my
airplane I ask Art Chard who was working for Van's at the time what
I should use for a primer he suggested Vari-Prime so that was good
enough for me. Living in Oregon as I do my hanger is damp inside
the biggest part of the winter, so far I see no signs of corrosion.
This airplane will outlast me I am sure.
YOU ARE RIGHT PICK A PRIMER AND USE IT, We need to remember that
there are over 7000 kits out there and only about 800 people on the
list so the non list people must be doing fine picking the primer of
their choice and using it with out the reams of discussion that goes
on here.
If I were to build again I would not prime anything except non
alclad and steel parts.
--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsflyrv(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel And Vent Lines |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Hi Ron,
The only problem with using bulkhead fittings & flexable hose is weight
and$$.
You can make a poster board template of your root nose rib and transfer
the fuel outlet positions to the fuse. Use Rubber grommets, not plastic
bushings. The grommets are in the kit. The feed thru hole need not be
perfectly exact, minor bends can be made in the 3/8 alum. tubing to make
it match up.. Keep it light for performance.
Regards, Bill, RV4, N66WD
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel And Vent Lines |
>
>Rather than running aluminum fuel and vent lines through the fuselage side
>walls (with plastic bushings) to the tanks, is there a problem(s) with
>using bulkhead fittings at the side wall and then flexible hose and
>fittings to the tanks? I assume that if you can't use flexible hoses, that
>you should wait until your wings are installed on the fuse to know exactly
>where to run these lines. Is this a correct assumption? Thanks in advance
>for your comments.
Just pondering this, especially since some re-design is needed to use
the Andair fuel valve ...
Why not just run the flexible hose straight from the tank to the fuel
valve?? ... it would save several joints in the whole system ...
Gil (using flex hoses?) Alexander
>
>Ron Caldwell
>rlcaldwell@utah-inter.net
>RV6A - Finish Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
mailto:gila(at)flash.net
Gil Alexander,
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Primer Alternative |
| From: | rvpilot(at)juno.com (William R. Davis Jr) |
Hi Mike,
Please don't be too quick to dismiss Sherwin Williams Vinyl wash primer
as Vans uses. I have been following the primer thread for some time and
though I almost hate to jump in, I feel that someone has to defend this
product. Instead of theorys, let me give you some hard facts. I used this
product on my first RV4. It is now 10 yrs old. It resides here on
Florida's west coast. There is no sign of internal corrosion on this
airplane. The aluminum was not treated with metal prep or alodine before
priming, such is not necessary, it was just wiped clean with laquer
thinner( The SW product is metal etching). A few other advantages: it is
lighter (properly applied, thickness is about .0005"), it is cheaper than
Variprime, but most of all, it contains zinc chromate,this is the stuff
that fights corrosion. I certainly don't wish to pan Variprime because
DuPont pays my Pension but I have to say that I think SW vinyl wash
primer is a better choice for our purposes. It's hard to beat success.
Best regards, Bill RV4 N66WD
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel And Vent Lines |
>Rather than running aluminum fuel and vent lines through the fuselage side
>walls (with plastic bushings) to the tanks, is there a problem(s) with
>using bulkhead fittings at the side wall and then flexible hose and
>fittings to the tanks? I assume that if you can't use flexible hoses, that
>you should wait until your wings are installed on the fuse to know exactly
>where to run these lines. Is this a correct assumption? Thanks in advance
>for your comments.
>
>Ron Caldwell
Ron,
I used bulkhead fittings on all fuselage penetrations (fuel, vent, pitot).
This resulted in a very professional looking installation. Aeroquip hoses
would probably work just fine. I used aluminum as they are slightly lighter
(every gram counts). My lines were run with the wings on the fuselage.
That way, there is no doubt as to how it will all fit together.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV- Flying (All those long hours were well worth it !!!!!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George McNutt <GMcNutt(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
>>I need to order the Empennage with or without the provision for the
>>position light in the bottom of the rudder.
Hi Jim
Order the Empennage kit and ask Vans to delete the bottom rudder fairing
(about $26 credit I think) and then when you make up your mind you can
order the correct fairing. I purchased my bottom rudder fairing when I
ordered the wing kit.
George McNutt, Langley B.C.
6A - Wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
>The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the wiring
>application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two days
>of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be this
>hard. Has anyone used standard shielded wire or does anyone know where I
>can get the twisted pair wire.
>
Mouser Electronics is an excellent source for this along with Amp terminals,
heat shrink, etc. They can be reached at 800-346-6873 or www.mouser.com. I
believe that what I used was Mouser stock # 602-2401c-100. This a 100 foot
spool of two conductor shielded wire. Please verify with Mouser that this
stock number is twisted pair. When I ordered mine, the catalog didn't say
that it was twisted pair, but a call to them confirmed that it was. The
100' spool isn't overkill. I only have about 10' left over.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Hinch" <chinch(at)arl.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
>
>Computer networks use either twisted pair (4 pairs in the cable?) for local
area
>networks. Less commonly they use coax RG58AU.
Didn't the original poster specify *shielded* twisted pair? Computer
networks use UTP (unshielded twisted pair) for 10baseT networks. If
shielding is important to the equation, UTP probably shouldn't be used.
Chris
____
Chris Hinch Phone: +64-3-477-2995
Animation Research Ltd Fax: +64-3-479-9751
Systems Manager e-mail: chinch(at)arl.co.nz
Level 2, 450 Moray Place, PO Box 5580, Dunedin, New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
<< 1. I have to trim a good bit off the front side pieces. I assume the
kit
is for the fixed pitch cowling. Right?>>
The kit will work for both but the front floor and side baffles need to be
trimmed according to fixed pitch or c/s. I think all cowlings for the past
two or so years are c/s.
2. A piece of aluminum was delivered with the instructions. It's about
8"x11". What's it for?? >>
Reinforcing the attach points using doubler patches as shown in the
instructions.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel And Vent Lines |
<< Rather than running aluminum fuel and vent lines through the fuselage side
walls (with plastic bushings) to the tanks, is there a problem(s) with
using bulkhead fittings at the side wall and then flexible hose and
fittings to the tanks? >>
Only more opportunities for leaking.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
| From: | ebundy(at)juno.com (Ed Bundy) |
>The time has come to write a check to VANS. I am still undecided
>wether I need to order the Empennage with or without the provision for
the
>position light in the bottom of the rudder. It seams "most" folks are
using
>the three-light system on the wing tips. Does anyone have any good
feedback
Jim, FWIW, I ordered the rudder bottom with the hole for the light. I
later decided that I would use the 3 light wingtip system to save the
weight of the light and wire that far aft of the CG, and the hassle of
running the wire. Plus you get an extra light pointing rearward. It
isn't a big deal to re-glass the rudder bottom, but I would just order
the smooth one if I were doing it over again.
Ed Bundy RV6A - Eagle, ID - first flight 11/20/96
ebundy@juno.com - http://members.aol.com/rv67em/
-
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Moradian" <tonym(at)enviroaqua.com> |
Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong? I was practicing back rivetting
with some scrap pieces. My working pressure was around 40 psi. The rivets
came out terrible. They were all bent. The gun was moving all over the
place. I am sure it's something obvious this novice hasn't seen yet. Go
ahead let me know what i am doing wrong.
Thanks,
Tony Moradian
Empenage #80398
N100TM reserved
tmoradia(at)ix.netcom.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael J. Robbins" <kitfox(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
I have the three light system on my Kitfox and am going to use it on my
RV-8. No wires running to the back. I'm happy with it (in use four years
now).
Mike Robbins
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
<< The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the wiring
application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two days
of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be this
hard. Has anyone used standard shielded wire or does anyone know where I
can get the twisted pair wire. >>
How much do you want? I've got a 500 ft spool of W.L. Gore 24 AWG teflon FEP
shielded twisted pair. Just for you I'll send gratis, you pay shipping when
you get it. Agreed?
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.Henson(at)cendantmobility.com |
| Subject: | Left Elevator RV6A |
Hi Mark, I've built two trim tabs and two L. elevators. The first one I bent
the tabs. It came out looking like a wet bag-o deer horns. The next one I
made my cuts 90 degrees to the spar lines and built little ribs. My elev.
and TT look like they were machined out of an aluminum block. The trailing
edge is absolutely straight and the gap is a very square 1/8 inch. The point
is you can cut a lot straighter than you can bend, especially at the
trailing edge. Another bonus, if you screw up, you just rebuild the tabs,
not the whole elevator as I had to do.
Let me know if I can help.
Eric Henson
eric.henson(at)cendantmobility.com
----------
From: mcomeaux
Subject: RV-List: Left Elevator RV6A
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:21PM
I have come to point of bending the tabs over in the area of the trim tab.
According to instruction & video you are to install elevator in V-block
then insert cut out wedge to bend tabs over. George in Video mentions
drawing
a line from edge of elevator skin and level to skin what distance though?
Can someone shed some light for me appreciate it. Thanks again----
Mike Comeaux
mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gregory Young <gyoung(at)net1.net> |
I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience in flutter
testing their RV, whether done rigorously or not. Seems
like there are quite a few RVs capable of exceeding Van's
212mph Vne in level flight and I hope to be able to as well
when mine is done. I fully intend to do flutter testing to
establish my own Vne, but I'd like to know what to expect.
Has anyone had problems attributable to building
differences, or conversely, found Van's numbers to be
conservative? If there were any problems, can you
recommend any changes to incorporate before testing? I
would hope the Harmon Rocket folks tested much higher, but
I don't know what, if anything, they changed in the control
system or structure.
A related question: any ideas on in-flight egress from a -6
slider? I've heard that you can't open the canopy above
~130 mph because of backpressure. It's not much good
wearing a chute for either flight testing or aerobatics if
you can't get out to use it. I thought about using quick
release pins to attach the rollers to the canopy frame,
with a handle built-in to pry the canopy back far enough to
clear the molding. How much force would it take to slide
the canopy back 2 inches? My thought is you could then
push it up and have the slipstream "remove" it for you.
Seems like this would take alot of time and coordinated
actions... all at the wrong time. Has anyone solved this
or have any suggestions? Explosive bolts? Light weight
ejection seats?
Thanks,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY (reserved) fuselage out of jig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MLaboyteau(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
Charles,
You can get the wire from Aircraft Spruce. They're not one of my favorite
companys to deal with, but they stock all of the types of wire you'll need.
Here's a tip, wire your monitor just exactly like the manual shows. I tried to
save some money because I had a lot of mil spec single conductor and twisted
pair shielded wire laying around and figured that I could use the single
conductor in place of the twisted pair shielded, and the twisted pair in place
of the three conductor that's specified on some of the sensors in the manual.
If you notice on the oil press, fuel press, manifold press, and current
transducer use the signal ground as one of the internal conductors while the
shield is grounded to main ground. On the circuit board, this "signal" ground
is common to the main ground. Hey they're the same, right? So I figured that I
could just use the shield for the common return and the shield. Well, I spent
two weeks chasing all sorts of gremlins in my system. Mainly that when I
transmitted, most of my indications went nuts. I wound up having to re-wire
all of those sensors just like the installation manual showed. Also, keep the
pigtails of the shields at the micromonitor as short as possible. Sometimes I
have to teach myself important lessons the hard way!
Good luck.
Mark LaBoyteaux
RV-6A N106RV
MLaboyteau(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gregory Young <gyoung(at)net1.net> |
| Subject: | EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
>
> The time has come to write a check to VANS. I am still
> undecided wether I
> need to order the Empennage with or without the provision
> for the position
> light in the bottom of the rudder. It seams "most" folks
> are using the three-
> light system on the wing tips. Does anyone have any good
> feedback about this
> matter?
I like the idea of a position and strobe combo in the
rudder even though it means running add'l wires to the
tail. I'll also have strobes in the tips which will be
recessed under a lens with the position lights. The 3
light system cannot be recessed in the wingtip , it has to
be external. Those external mounts are more subject to
hangar rash and the lenses are expensive. But my major
reason is purely emotional, I don't want the same nav
lights on my sleek new RV that I had on my 1946 T-Craft.
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY (reserved) fuselage out of jig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MAlexan533(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
Here is the way I figure it; correct me if I'm wrong. The three-light model
strobes by whelen, with aft facing white position light and power supplies
starts at around $600. The Aeroflash set, which has all the same stuff except
the aft facing position light is around $280. Now you will need the tail light
at around $50.00, for a total of around $330, or almost half-price. The only
penalty, the weight of the tail light plus wire and time to install. Does this
make sense to you? I had the Aeroflash system in my 172 I used to have, it
worked great and was reliable. Just an observation.
Von Alexander
RV-8 #544
finishing wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlass(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | RV-3 stick length & travel |
With the stick straight up/down it's faily close to the instrument
panel.
What is you full travel fore/aft at the tip of the stick (and how log is
it from the hinge bolt)?
Does it pass forward under the instrument panel?
I'm considering a 6-8" subpanel from the bottom of the instrument panel
down to the wing spar.
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Bundy" <bundyb(at)infowest.com> |
If several messages come from me, I apologize. I am not sure that my
messages are getting out.
I have a RV6 prototype that I have completely refurbished.
Built by Art Chard and certified in 1980 S/N 002.
Powered by a Continental IO-346 modified with TISO-520 cylinders with high
compression piston takes this engine from 165 to estimated 190HP. New
paint, new interior and 0 timed engine makes this a fun airplane.
The old wood prop (Wranke) not able to take the extra HP began to show
cracks after 20hrs of flight.
I've installed the Ivo magnum electric. I've been having problems with the
electric motor that controls the pitch.
Has anyone had experience with or info about this prop.
Also looking for spare prop. 68x70 S.A.E. #2
Brad Bundy Chard 6 N48AC
bundyb(at)inofowest.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel And Vent Lines |
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>Rather than running aluminum fuel and vent lines through the fuselage
>side
>walls (with plastic bushings) to the tanks, is there a problem(s) with
>using bulkhead fittings at the side wall and then flexible hose and
>fittings to the tanks?
No problem. The main drawbacks are that it costs a lot more and its
heavier.
I assume that if you can't use flexible hoses,
>that
>you should wait until your wings are installed on the fuse to know
>exactly
>where to run these lines. Is this a correct assumption?
That depends. You could do part of what you have suggested and run hard
lines to bulkhead fittings, and then later at final assy. you can make up
short alum lines for the final connection.
The only real negative to this is that you have an extra potential leak
point, and a small extra cost but much less than the cost of using flex
hoses. This is the standard installation for the RV-8 kit.
It made the kit cost a little more but makes the installation much
simpler.
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
<34E33151.84E(at)datarecall.net>
84-85,87-89,92-93,97-98,101-107
| From: | smcdaniels(at)juno.com (SCOTT R MCDANIELS) |
>For what it is worth to new builders learning about corrosion control,
>it is obvious that Bob Busisk has determined for his own application
>that "The airplane for the most part [which part is that?]
Any part that is made of Alclad Aluminum (including but not limited to
Skins, bulkheads, ribs, stiffeners, etc.)
does not need
>to be primed"; that "any type of primer" is better than . . .". He
>also
>is unable to or unwilling to recognize or acknowledge that all three
>primers listed by Van's in the Jan 1997 RV-6 Builders Manual were
>inadequate and inappropriate and should not have been listed at all.
As with anything else on this list you are entitled to your own opinion,
and that's what that is; your opinion.
>
>Yes, the real issue is accurate information so new builders can "get
>up
>to speed" and make their decisions, based on - - - accurate
>information.
>
>Van's should have simply cited a reputable source of info for the new
>builder to go to, rather than put out bad info. Cessna chose not to
>apply any interior corrosion preventative in some 1980s C-172s -
and all of the 1970's and 60's and 50's.(unless you paid big bucks for a
seaplane option which sometimes still got you a primer job done after the
structure was together, go figure) Go look at a few so that you have
"accurate" information to provide to new builders.
and
>the
>wings of 4 aircraft in Florida had to be replaced 4 years later. I
>was
>in a repair facility last month and was shown serious corrosion in an
>older Cessan being rebuilt. Sure, some planes seem never to have
>corroded. But, because the owner believes that is the case with his,
>he
>is not going to dismantle the airplane and find the serious corrosion
>that would not visible through normal access panels.
>
>One primer may be as good as another (for corrosion prevention) but
>anyone can divide cost by square feet covered and calculate "$ per sq
>ft". Are they all "one as good as another"? Not on your life.
>
>New guys, study your primer choices and compare - and do the same with
>opinions and "information" on the rv-list.
I second that statement and now add my personal feelings.
I intend to not get involved in this debate so no response to me is
necessary. This post is primarily directed to the lurkers on the list
that may be new builders or seriously thinking about an RV as a project.
Some people do put far to much emphasis on which primer to use.
I would like to offer (as others have) that you consider one of the
reasons that a lot of builders profess to choosing an RV to build over
some other designs... because it is a tried an proven material and
process for building airplanes.
We are talking about the 10's of thousands of airplanes that were built
this way, and could it be true "A large percentage of them were built
with no internal priming for corrosion protection ( The crowd gasps).
And no the majority of them haven't been thrown away by now because of
corrosion. Just the opposite.
If you are going to research what the best primer for corrosion
protection is then you should also be researching what causes most of the
corrosion in general aviation airplanes.
Working as a mechanic I have crawled through my share of airplanes and I
can tell you that from my opinion there is a lot more to whether you are
likely to get corrosion than what state you have the plane based in.
>From what I have seen most RV's and custom built airplanes in general
get treated much differently that your typical FBO rental line airplane.
They are usually hangared. Flown regularly, and well maintained. As an
airplane gets older it usually starts to accumulate what I call Lube
crud. When a mechanic (one that doesn't care that he is working on your
"Baby") lubes interior parts that need to be, he ends up spraying it all
over the place. Over time this mixes with the dust and dirt that
accumulates where it accumulates, and then you have lube crud that does a
very good job of trapping moisture and plugging drain holes.
Can any other mechanics out there comment on there experiences with the
causes of corrosion.
Without going into this in any more detail (I'm sure you get the idea)
I will end this by saying "think about how you will take care of your
airplane". How you will store it? Will you be fussy about keeping it
clean on the interior, etc.? Then you decide what's right for you.
Most of this debate is whether people are foolish for not making there 50
year useful life (and I only use 50 because that is about as old of an
unprimed airplane as you will find to use as a bench mark) into a 100
year useful life.
I get the feeling that there are builders out there that are going to be
completed and flying while some others will be still trying to make sure
their airplane wont have corrosion by the time they get it flying :-)
Scott McDaniels RV-6A N64SD 560+ Hrs.
These opinions and ideas are my own
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of my employer.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jelford(at)TRANSPORT.COM (Jon Elford) |
| Subject: | Re: EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
>
>The time has come to write a check to VANS. I am still undecided wether I
>need to order the Empennage with or without the provision for the position
>light in the bottom of the rudder. It seams "most" folks are using the three-
>light system on the wing tips. Does anyone have any good feedback about this
>matter?
>Jim Nice
>RV6A
>
Jim,
I personally like the separation between the wingtip nav lights and the tail
nav light. This makes it easier for me to see the relative direction
another aircraft is headed in flight. If all the lights are bunched up on
the wingtips, with a strobe flashing in there to boot, it is more difficult
for me to tell how the aircraft is oriented and thus it's heading relative
to mine. Certainly not impossible, but more difficult at a glance. I am
all for doing anything to improve my night visibility. I personally am
planning on fitting nav/strobe assemblies to the wingtips and a single aft
white position light to the rudder bottom on my -6.
While you've got your checkbook out, can you pay off the balance on my wing
kit? :-)
>
>
Jon Elford
RV6 #25201
Elevators - Wings ordered!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
>
I have really wanted to stay out of this discussion but must put my $0.02 in.
If you read the "ingredients" on the back of the Variprime can, you will find all
sorts of stuff including zinc chromate. As I recall the military primed with zinc
chromate for years and this has no vapor barrier at all, just the sacrificial
zinc, and this doesn't last forever. Just ask any salt water boater.
> Variprime did not provide any protection against moisture the
> >first time they painted a car fender then rolled it out of the shop for the
> >night before they applied a sealer. When they came in the next day the dew
> >or rain had caused the unprotected steel to rust right through the
> >Variprime which they then had to fix on their own time.
> This
> area was primed with Vari-Prime and never topcoated. There is currently no
> sign of corrosion after almost 5 years. This van is always parked outside,
> on Long Island, NY and the driveway is about 75 feet from a salt water
> canal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: backrivetting |
Hi Tony,
A few of the local builders gave me some advice on the Gun Pressure 28 to 30
lbs
and it seemed to work out real fine big improvement in my rivetting, The back
rivett set should keep the head from slipping off & a good bottom steel plate
should work out fine. 1/4 inch to 1/2 on the back plate I use the 1/2
Hope it helps
BSivori(at)AOL.COM
Wings
N929RV Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TPhilpin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
<< Those new builders who feel it prudent to study and inquire about what
or how much of the interior to coat for corrosion resistance are not the
ones worried about "rocket science" or "making too much of this" or
involved in "the Macho debate of My primer is better than yours".
For what it is worth to new builders learning about corrosion control,
it is obvious that Bob Busisk has determined for his own application
that "The airplane for the most part [which part is that?] does not need
to be primed"; that "any type of primer" is better than . . .". He also
is unable to or unwilling to recognize or acknowledge that all three
primers listed by Van's in the Jan 1997 RV-6 Builders Manual were
inadequate and inappropriate and should not have been listed at all.
>>
I have to agree with Dick Carter. I am a newbie, and doing my own research
with the primer / paint suppliers. Dupont tech reps have told me applying
Veriprime without a topcoat could be considered detrimental. The reason you
are suggested to apply a topcoat within 16 hours of applying Veriprime is
because of the moisture absorbed during that time. After 16 hours your are
advised to reapply the primer after scuffing if a topcoat is to be applied. I
also have come to the same conclusion that the reccommendations made in the
Builders Manual are misleading.
Not throwing stones, only adding to the discourse.
Tony Philpin
RV-8 empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
<< I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience in flutter
testing their RV, whether done rigorously or not. Seems
like there are quite a few RVs capable of exceeding Van's
212mph Vne in level flight and I hope to be able to as well
when mine is done. I fully intend to do flutter testing to
establish my own Vne, but I'd like to know what to expect.
Has anyone had problems attributable to building
differences, or conversely, found Van's numbers to be
conservative? If there were any problems, can you
recommend any changes to incorporate before testing? I
would hope the Harmon Rocket folks tested much higher, but
I don't know what, if anything, they changed in the control
system or structure.
>>
Well,..... I've seen 280 MPH in mine. I know of others that have been to
330MPH. Some fellas regularly descend at 300 indicated. That's really smokin'!
No problems, and the control system is RV style all the way. I did make the
elev trim tab a bit larger than is called out, but I can't comment about any
effects this might bring about, except that I can trim for approach speeds
while solo. I will also say hat John did a 5 MPH incriment flutter test, up to
300 indicated.
The structure is exactly the same, except it's all different. (same style,
different stations, and the cockpit area is 040 vs 032. Wings are a bit
shorter.).
I'd say that flutter testing isn't really necessary, if the a/c is built to
plans specifications. I recall hearing this statement before.
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <rv8er(at)doitnow.com> |
I would lose that prop asap if I were you. Although I do not have any
personal experience with tis prop, I did do some extensive research for my
first plane. I have heard nothing but nightmares about the Ivoprop,
including some fatalities......
Spend the extra money on a Hartzell
Paul
>
>If several messages come from me, I apologize. I am not sure that my
>messages are getting out.
>I have a RV6 prototype that I have completely refurbished.
>Built by Art Chard and certified in 1980 S/N 002.
>Powered by a Continental IO-346 modified with TISO-520 cylinders with high
>compression piston takes this engine from 165 to estimated 190HP. New
>paint, new interior and 0 timed engine makes this a fun airplane.
>The old wood prop (Wranke) not able to take the extra HP began to show
>cracks after 20hrs of flight.
>I've installed the Ivo magnum electric. I've been having problems with the
>electric motor that controls the pitch.
>Has anyone had experience with or info about this prop.
>Also looking for spare prop. 68x70 S.A.E. #2
>
>Brad Bundy Chard 6 N48AC
>bundyb(at)inofowest.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lm4(at)juno.com (Larry Mac Donald) |
>I've installed the Ivo magnum electric. I've been having problems with
>the
>electric motor that controls the pitch.
>Has anyone had experience with or info about this prop.
>Also looking for spare prop. 68x70 S.A.E. #2
>
>Brad Bundy Chard 6 N48AC
>bundyb(at)inofowest.com
Brad,
There was a fatal recently, involving a large lycoming
a plastic prop, a prop motor failure and a fool pretending to be a
pilot/mechanic. I believe Garfield might still have the details and you
might want to know what they are. You can contact him
at > garfield(at)pilgrimhouse.com <.
Larry Mac Donald lm4(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EXTERIOR LIGHTING |
Here is the way I figure it; correct me if I'm wrong. The three-light model
strobes by whelen, with aft facing white position light and power supplies
starts at around $600. The Aeroflash set, which has all the same stuff except
the aft facing position light is around $280. Now you will need the tail
light
at around $50.00, for a total of around $330, or almost half-price. The only
penalty, the weight of the tail light plus wire and time to install.
snip
Von Alexander
RV-8 #544
finishing wings >>
I'd say you are right. You can substitute the tail nav/strobe from Van's for
$110, and an extra Aeroflash power supply for $82, and have a three strobe
system, with nav lights, for around $500.
My company, and also Cleaveland Tool, sell the Aeroflash three light systems
for $420, with double flash power supplies. This is a v easy system to
install, and light. This system seems to be the preferance of the -6 builders.
BTW- The nav/strobe systems (double flash) run $295, or $280 for single
flash.
Geez- I'm busy today!
Check six!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Hiers <craig-RV4(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
Scott Gesele wrote:
>
>
> >The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the wiring
> >application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two days
> >of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be this
> >hard. Has anyone used standard shielded wire or does anyone know where I
> >can get the twisted pair wire.
> >
>
> Mouser Electronics is an excellent source for this along with Amp terminals,
> heat shrink, etc. They can be reached at 800-346-6873 or www.mouser.com. I
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
<< Dupont tech reps have told me applying
Veriprime without a topcoat could be considered detrimental. The reason you
are suggested to apply a topcoat within 16 hours of applying Veriprime is
because of the moisture absorbed during that time. >>
IMO, you true believers have really gone "over the top" on this primer thread.
It would probably be a good thing not to get too emotionally invested in this
issue, as Scott is quite right.
Was the duPont rep made aware that you are applying the Variprime to aluminum
and not to steel? They corrode differently you know. In contrast to oxides
of steel (rust), aluminum oxide is actually protective (harder than the parent
aluminum) and protects against further corrosion.
What alodine does is to grow a nice looking protective oxide layer that if not
mechanically beaten off (it's more brittle too) will do the job of a primer
just fine on alclad surfaces. The other alloy parts (6061-T6, 6063 etc.) may
need a little (the operative word) additional protection to reduce the
potential for intergranular corrosion due to the alloying ingredients in the
presence of an electrolyte (water and surface salts). The chromate ions are
there to reduce the filiform corrosion problem with aluminum. Any zinc
chromate source will do. The presence of moisture alone wicking thru the
porous primer has little bearing on your actual corrosion.
Like I said before, try the testing yourself. It's good to be skeptical.
Then you know what's what and aren't just parroting dogma. All the great
sounding pronouncements won't change the facts that you needn't be so wrapped
around the axle on this one.
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
>I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience in flutter
>testing their RV, whether done rigorously or not. Seems
>like there are quite a few RVs capable of exceeding Van's
>212mph Vne in level flight and I hope to be able to as well
>when mine is done. I fully intend to do flutter testing to
>establish my own Vne, but I'd like to know what to expect.
> Has anyone had problems attributable to building
>differences, or conversely, found Van's numbers to be
>conservative? If there were any problems, can you
>recommend any changes to incorporate before testing? I
>would hope the Harmon Rocket folks tested much higher, but
>I don't know what, if anything, they changed in the control
>system or structure.
The FAA's idea of how to set the VNE is to dive test the airplane to 110%
of the VNE. In other words, for a 200 mph VNE, one must demonstrate 220
mph dive. This is just one part of the margin of safety built into the
design certification process. As to Van's numbers being conservative... I
think he's been very forthright and honest with us on *ALL* the numbers for
the RV series. Many have met and exceeded his proto-type performance
numbers and some have managed to come in at less weight than the
proto-type, so why should we doubt that he has tested the design to the FAA
standard for VNE? If you wish to test to a higher speed, be sure that as
you excite the controls (usually done by "slapping" the stick) you are
actually pointed slightly nose up, so as to be slowing down. If flutter
begins to occur, one is already slowing which helps damp the offending motion.
There are some good source materials on inflight testing available from the
Government Printing Office and from EAA and in several books by various
authors, get them and understand the causes and cures for flutter *BEFORE*
you try to establish your own VNE.
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Unistar Computers <unistar(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Canopy open in flight? |
>A related question: any ideas on in-flight egress from a -6
>slider? I've heard that you can't open the canopy above
>~130 mph because of backpressure. It's not much good
>wearing a chute for either flight testing or aerobatics if
>you can't get out to use it. I thought about using quick
>release pins to attach the rollers to the canopy frame,
>with a handle built-in to pry the canopy back far enough to
>clear the molding. How much force would it take to slide
>the canopy back 2 inches? My thought is you could then
>push it up and have the slipstream "remove" it for you.
> Seems like this would take alot of time and coordinated
>actions... all at the wrong time. Has anyone solved this
>or have any suggestions? Explosive bolts? Light weight
>ejection seats?
>Thanks,
>Greg Young
>RV-6 N6GY (reserved) fuselage out of jig
I own 2 Grummans with sliding canopies. The design and shape are very
similar to Van's RV-6/A slider. The Grumman canopy can (and should!) be
opened on warm days in flight. There are limits to how far back one is
supposed to open the canopy (about 13") and it is only supposed to be open
at speeds of 130 mph or below. It is not hard to open the canopy, infact
it will open itself a few inches if the latch is undone. The further back
it is pushed, the harder it gets, it acts as though the air flowing over
the opening creates a suction which pulls the canopy back to the closed
position. It is possible to open the canopy fully in flight, and those who
have done it report that the drag increase slows them considerably, but
that other than some reports of low frequency vibration of the aft canopy
edge, there have been no other ill effects. There is a story of Grumman
pilot using his plane to drop a skydiver. Supposedly, they slowed the
plane, opened the canopy, and after unbuckling the seat belt of the
skydiver, rolled inverted and dropped him out the open canopy. This may be
"urban legend" but was printed in a flying magazine as a true story.
Since this is all related to Grummans, it should be noted that RVs may
react considerably differently. Whose got a slider that they have tested
in the open position?
Bob Steward, A&P IA
AA-1B N8978L
AA-5A N1976L
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alan Carroll <carroll(at)geology.wisc.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
>Just thought I would pass on my experience in attempting to back rivet the top
>skins on the wings of my RV-8. I have the special tool from Avery for this. We
>found that the rivets do not set as far in and as flush as with the regular
>method (bucking from the inside). When you stop and think about it, you are
>pushing the rivet out, not pushing it in, so no matter how big or flat or
>convex the bucking bar is, the rivet is just simply not set in the dimple as
>well. Just our observation and experience.
>Von Alexander
>RV-8 #544
Has anyone "front" riveted their wing skins using Avery's swivel set? I
was quite impressed by the job it did on the horizontal stab (no dings at
all, despite my lack of experience). Is it really neccessary to backrivet
the wings, or can you do an qually nice job with the swivel set?
Alan Carroll
RV-8 #80177 (Wings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <dwalsh(at)ecentral.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
I found no problem with two inches when I inadvertantly left it open on
take off!
Did not have the inclination to try for more however. Sorry.
hope this helps
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <dwalsh(at)ecentral.com> |
| Subject: | Re: backrivetting |
One person I encounterd had this same awful result. He did not realize
he needed to push the gun against the rivet and maintain pressure before
pulling the trigger. :-(
It was an easy fix.
Hope this helps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
<<
The instructions indicate using shielded, twisted pair wire for the wiring
application. What has everyone been using for this application? Two days
of searching has left me without any wire and I'm hoping it can't be this
hard. >>
Rocky Mountain will sell you all you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
>> I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience in flutter
>> testing their RV, whether done rigorously or not.
>
>I'd say that flutter testing isn't really necessary, if the a/c is built to
>plans specifications.
10% above Vne is sufficient for testing in a standard RV. I believe Van
issued a statement in one of the RVators (can't remember which one) that
standard slap-the-stick flutter testing should not be done.
You are the factory for your airplane. You need to determine what YOUR Vne
is and test fly your airplane to 10% above that. Keep in mind, the Vne Van
publishes is the design Vne; i.e., the airplane was designed for that Vne,
which the designer would recommend not to be exceeded.
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
Flying (Vne 210, been to 230)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
>Remember, you are going to need some three conductor shielded wire
>for the manifold press, and fuel sending unit if you are using it.
>
>Craig Hiers
>
>
Craig,
Talk to Ron Mower from RMI. According to him the three conductor wiring
isn't needed when installing the unit in an RV. The main reason the three
conductor wire is used is when installing these sensors in a plastic
aircraft. I used the two conductor throughout my -6A and had no problems.
Hope this helps.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Gesele <scottg(at)icsnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
><< Dupont tech reps have told me applying
> Veriprime without a topcoat could be considered detrimental. The reason you
> are suggested to apply a topcoat within 16 hours of applying Veriprime is
> because of the moisture absorbed during that time. >>
>
Let's here from just one person whose RV started to corrode under a layer of
VariPrime.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
>
>Sirs,
>
>I recently received the baffle kit for an RV-6, O-320. Going together
>fairly well.
>
>Couple of questions:
> 1. I have to trim a good bit off the front side pieces. I assume the
kit
>is for the fixed pitch cowling. Right?
A: The kit will fit either cowling. Trim it to fit yours.
>
> 2. A piece of aluminum was delivered with the instructions. It's about
>8"x11". What's it for??
A: Can't tell from this description
>
>I intend to install the oil cooler (from Van) on the left baffle.
>
>Is this piece of aluminum supposed to be used as a doubler on the left rear
>baffle to reinforce that area for the oil cooler??
A: Sounds likely. Details should be shown on the baffle plans.
>
>Thanks,
>Bob Cabe
>San Antonio
>
>---
> "The opinions expressed herein are solely the author's
> and are not necessarily the opinions of USAA."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Benedict G.M., or Tom Green, or John Morgan, or Ken Scott or the
office staff @
ls
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <huffaker(at)utw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: not Backriveting the Wings |
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Alan Carroll wrote:
>
> Has anyone "front" riveted their wing skins using Avery's swivel set? I
> was quite impressed by the job it did on the horizontal stab (no dings at
> all, despite my lack of experience). Is it really neccessary to backrivet
> the wings, or can you do an qually nice job with the swivel set?
>
did just that last month. Looks fine except for one dent from the
bucking bar hitting the skin. Back riviting is not nesscary, even on
control surfaces. Front rivited the stiffners to the aileron skin, no
dents, looks fine, is as strong as any other method.
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (huffaker(at)utw.com)
President and Founder Friends of P-Chan
RV-8 80091 Attaching 1st Aileron to wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mikel(at)dimensional.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Flying |
From: Department of Encouragement
Re: Keep Building: Your gonna LOVE this airplane
More notes from the test flying.
Up this morning doing climbing times, solo, full fuel. Have to start at 6K
cuz the ground is at 5.5K. Goes up like a scalded cat. Three speeds: 100,
110, 120, from 6-11K. Don't have all the data yet compiled and I will need
to repeat these tests but Best: 110 1350-890fpm. Wow. (This is an O-320,
Warnke prop.)
While I was up at 11K, did a bunch of stalls. Straight ahead and departure
stalls, various flaps; accelerated stalls. What a sweet airplane! Suzie Q
tends to drop the left wing slightly in all configurations but is a gentle
staller. Not a whole lot of buffett but enought to tell you, along with
attitude and control feel, things are going to let go. NO bad habits; no
whipping the wing down. Slips at a hellish rate, too, without feeling like
you are about to break off in a spin. You can also hold her in a stall,
wings level, coming down stalled, wings kept level with rudder OR ailerons
(they are effective all the way throught the stall) and instant recovery
with neutral stick.
Man, what an airplane.
More later.
Keep Building!
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
Flying, expanding the envelope
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John B. Abell" <jbabell(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: backrivetting |
Tony Moradian wrote:
>
>
> Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony Moradian
> Empenage #80398
> N100TM reserved
> tmoradia(at)ix.netcom.com
Tony,
Were you using a back rivet set?
Jack Abell
Los Angeles
RV-6A N333JA (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TPhilpin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
<<
Let's here from just one person whose RV started to corrode under a layer of
VariPrime.
Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying
>>
Scott,
Do you really think such statements and solicitations fosters an educated
discussion of the benefits of using this or any other products???? I
believe members of the list have already stated parts and or assemblies have
shown signs of corrosion while others have not. Not very credible evidence
one way or the other.
I beginning to believe many have been using products based on unsound
information, spending their money and wasting their time. Do you remember
when burns were treated with butter???? How about the cautions about the
dangers of the downwind turn????? Rethinking has dismissed these things that
were once considered the norm.
Having no stake in any product or process. Merely sharing research from
credible souces in the interest of enlightenment. Others need not pay any
heed.
Tony Philpin
RV - 8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD389B.0B650CA0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD389B.0B650CA0
I would appreciate it if someone with controls installed and adjusted to =
full elevator movement would measure the stick angular displacement from =
full up to full down. I have the F689 forward elevator pushrod installed =
so far. Its forward (down) travel is limited by the rear ball end =
bearing fouling on the F635 bellcrank. The rear (up travel) is limited =
by forward ball end bearing fouling on the fork of the Wd610 weldment.=20
I can obtain only 29 degrees of movement, as measured with a Smart Level =
with the zero set in the full up position. This seems inadequate since I =
am a long ways from being limited by the spar in full down position. =
I=92d like to get a calibration of stick movement so I know what I=92m =
up against now that I=92m starting to mount the tail.
Thanks.
Dennis Persyk 6A tail mounting
Barrington, IL=20
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD389B.0B650CA0
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
I would appreciate it if someone with controls installed and adjusted =
to full=20
elevator movement would measure the stick angular displacement from full =
up to=20
full down. I have the F689 forward elevator pushrod installed so far. =
Its=20
forward (down) travel is limited by the rear ball end bearing fouling on =
the=20
F635 bellcrank. The rear (up travel) is limited by forward ball end =
bearing=20
fouling on the fork of the Wd610 weldment.
I can obtain only 29 degrees of movement, as measured with a Smart =
Level with=20
the zero set in the full up position. This seems inadequate since I am a =
long=20
ways from being limited by the spar in full down position. I’d =
like to get=20
a calibration of stick movement so I know what I’m up against now =
that=20
I’m starting to mount the tail.
Thanks.
Dennis Persyk 6A tail mounting
Barrington, IL
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD389B.0B650CA0--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven Spruell" <sspruell(at)idexsystems.com> |
| Subject: | Backriveting the Wings |
Importance: Normal
> Has anyone "front" riveted their wing skins using Avery's swivel set? I
> was quite impressed by the job it did on the horizontal stab (no dings at
> all, despite my lack of experience). Is it really neccessary to backrivet
> the wings, or can you do an qually nice job with the swivel set?
>
>
> Alan Carroll
> RV-8 #80177 (Wings)
Yes, I did. I was VERY pleased with the results. The secret is just using
your thumb and forefinger on the rubber boot of the rivet set to hold the
set firmly in place. I used Avery's 3x gun at about 40-42 psi.
I orignially tried to back rivet the top skins, but gave up after about 6
rivets because the 12" angle rivet set was to difficult to use (couldn't get
a satisfactory shop head).
Steven Spruell
RV-6A N316RV (fuselage)
Houston Bay Area RVators
http://www.iwl.net/customers/markr/hbar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitch Faatz <mfaatz(at)SagentTech.com> |
| Subject: | not Backriveting the Wings |
> > did just that last month. Looks fine except for one dent from the
> >bucking bar hitting the skin. Back riviting is not nesscary, even
> on
> >control surfaces. Front rivited the stiffners to the aileron skin,
> no
> >dents, looks fine, is as strong as any other method.
>
> Just wondering - why didn't you back rivet your ailerons? With
> thinner
> skins like those, backriveting seems like it would be *far* easier,
> faster, and no chance of dinging a skin.
>
> Just curious - don't take offense!
>
> Mitch Faatz San Jose, CA N727MF (reserved)
> RV-6AQME finishing up sliding canopy...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JNice51355(at)aol.com |
Thanks from all who gave their input about Nav,Strobe, and Position light
placement.
Jim Nice
RV6S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halk(at)sybase.com (Hal Kempthorne) |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
Hi Charles,
SOmeone mentioned that nets use unshielded cable - not sure, everything around
here seems to be terminated already and boss would probably not like to see it
opened up.
Whatever it takes, use what is spec'd!..
One cable here is "CAT 5" - the top grade and the terminator is clear plastic
and it does not appear to be shielded. Sorry if I troubled you with my
incorrect info about network cable.
Ideally, you ought to get something pre-terminated as they are tricky todo.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MoeJoe <moejoe03(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
This week I had the opportunity to see another builder's aircraft, the
day after I "front riveted" my HS. He back riveted his wings, and there
definitely is a difference. I used the swivel set on my HS, and I got a
very nice, ding free finish, but the back riveted wing skins still
looked smoother. I always thought back riveting was done against a metal
plate set on a bench top or similar flat surface, but he used a
3"x5"x1.75" steel plate held like a bucking bar. Looking at the plate,
it looked way too light to be used for this purpose, but the proof is in
his finish. He is a first time builder too. He also countersunk all his
HS rivets instead of dimpling as per the plans. He said the thicker
skins were plenty good (.032?). Can anyone comment on this? (I'm sure
plenty will!) His tail is glass smooth, and looks great, but is it safe?
Aerobatics don't interest him, so he won't be intentionally pulling any
G's.
Moe Colontonio
RV-8 HS almost done
Cherry Hill, NJ
>
> Has anyone "front" riveted their wing skins using Avery's swivel set? I
> was quite impressed by the job it did on the horizontal stab (no dings at
> all, despite my lack of experience). Is it really neccessary to backrivet
> the wings, or can you do an qually nice job with the swivel set?
>
> Alan Carroll
> RV-8 #80177 (Wings)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <huffaker(at)utw.com> |
| Subject: | not Backriveting the Wings |
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Mitch Faatz wrote:
>
> > >control surfaces. Front rivited the stiffners to the aileron skin,
> > no
> > >dents, looks fine, is as strong as any other method.
> >
> > Just wondering - why didn't you back rivet your ailerons? With
> > thinner
> > skins like those, backriveting seems like it would be *far* easier,
> > faster, and no chance of dinging a skin.
> >
> > Just curious - don't take offense!
Found it easier to get the bucking bar inside the bends than to hold the
skin back and get the whole gun in there. The innermost are tough
either way tho.
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (huffaker(at)utw.com)
President and Founder Friends of P-Chan
RV-8 80091 Installing 1st aileron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | donspawn(at)juno.com |
| Subject: | Pressure mask for painting |
Thanks John.
Thats what I had it mind.
Don Jordan~6A wings~Arlington,Tx
donspawn(at)juno.com
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MoeJoe <moejoe03(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
Sorry, his plate is 3"x5"x.75". A 1.75" plate would be very heavy.
>I always thought back riveting was done against a metal
> plate set on a bench top or similar flat surface, but he used a
> 3"x5"x1.75" steel plate held like a bucking bar.
Moe Colontonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
Dennis, you and I are neck and neck! Actually, I guess you're a bit
ahead of me. I'm just thinking about running the push tubes. Well, I
have to make them first. I did get the rudder cables through the rear
skins today. Tomorrow, I'll be putting the engine back together with
my A&P buddy. Have you checked the manual for the movement
degrees? If I remember, it may be toward the back of the manual.
Maybe in the flight preparation section? I know it's in the archives if
you can find it. There's been much discussion of it over the past
year.
>I can obtain only 29 degrees of movement, as measured with a
>Smart Level with the zero set in the full up position. This seems
>inadequate since I am a long ways from being limited by the spar in
>full down position. Id like to get a calibration of stick movement so I
>know what Im up against now that Im starting to mount the tail.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A #22220
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <huffaker(at)utw.com> |
| Subject: | drilling thin tubing (spacers & bearing) |
Anyone have any hints for drilling the spacers & brass bearing for the
aileron mounts? They just spin in every clamp I can devise, getting
rather deeply _scored_ (not scratched) in the process.
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (huffaker(at)utw.com)
President and Founder Friends of P-Chan
RV-8 80091 Mounting 1st Aileron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David L. Macintire" <dave_mac(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
>HinkleyC(at)fca.gov wrote:
>Variprime is one of the best self-etching primers money can buy.
I agree although I have not tried any of the others.
>What has not been stressed or presented during the almost 4 year >debate is it's
proper use according to DuPont. . . . be to provide an >information source
for the manufactures recommended use for their >products.
Could it be that we Americans are becoming cynical? Many of us refuse
to believe what the manufacturers say. For example, the label clearly
states that this product should not be used by the general public, only
by professional painters. That's a ridiculous statement. We all know
that DuPont and most of the other large chemical companies have had
problems with their products. In this age of over litiginess, the
lawyers now run DuPont. They force the company to put absurd statements
on their products, and they probably force the company to occupy an
overly conservative position in regards to their product's application.
It is much worse when the word "airplane" or "aviation" is involved in
their product applications.
> As always Van's advice is right on target, " Pick any primer, follow >the manufacturers
directions".
This is very true.
> . . .good bet that they have never been into a DuPont or PPG or SW >store to
purchase the type of paint used to paint aircraft or cars. So >how are they going
to pick a paint system?
Listen to the people who have had experience with the product. Don't
always believe everything the manufacturer claims.
> The reason this RV-list is here is because Van's plans and >instructions are
very simple and to the point.
Sorry, I disagree somewhat, but this is a different subject.
> They leave allot of unanswered questions for
> the first time builders, so we turn to the RV-List for help and >guidance.
I have found the list somewhat helpful, but I am not that far enough
along building my RV-6 to stand by that completely.
> This is why the primer questions keep coming up. Every one is trying >to build
the best RV they can and they want that extra protection that >paint will provide.
Cannot argue with that.
Dave Macintire
RV-6 Left Elevator
Orlando, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Kitz <jkitz(at)greenapple.com> |
| Subject: | Re: backrivetting |
Tony Moradian wrote:
>
>
> Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong? I was practicing back rivetting
> with some scrap pieces. My working pressure was around 40 psi. The rivets
> came out terrible. They were all bent. The gun was moving all over the
> place. I am sure it's something obvious this novice hasn't seen yet. Go
> ahead let me know what i am doing wrong.
Tony;
It's been a while since I back rivited my top skins, but I used the long
tool from Avery. I ground some of the bottom shoulder off so I would
not have any contact with the ribs. I held the tool with one hand to
guide it and had my Son hold a large bucking bar. Prior to riviting, I
had also taken a turn or two with the cutter as Orndorf suggests, and
the rivits came out looking excellent. The turn or two with the counter
sink tool as Orndorf suggests will also eliminate the need for the tank
dimple dies that people have been discussing. You will not have to
shave the rivit heads either.
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Champagne <mongo7(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
Gregory Young wrote:
>
>
> I'd be interested in hearing anyone's experience in flutter
> testing their RV, whether done rigorously or not. Seems
> like there are quite a few RVs capable of exceeding Van's
> 212mph Vne in level flight and I hope to be able to as well
> when mine is done. I fully intend to do flutter testing to
> establish my own Vne, but I'd like to know what to expect.
> Has anyone had problems attributable to building
> differences, or conversely, found Van's numbers to be
> conservative? If there were any problems, can you
> recommend any changes to incorporate before testing? I
> would hope the Harmon Rocket folks tested much higher, but
> I don't know what, if anything, they changed in the control
> system or structure.
>
> A related question: any ideas on in-flight egress from a -6
> slider? I've heard that you can't open the canopy above
> ~130 mph because of backpressure. It's not much good
> wearing a chute for either flight testing or aerobatics if
> you can't get out to use it. I thought about using quick
> release pins to attach the rollers to the canopy frame,
> with a handle built-in to pry the canopy back far enough to
> clear the molding. How much force would it take to slide
> the canopy back 2 inches? My thought is you could then
> push it up and have the slipstream "remove" it for you.
> Seems like this would take alot of time and coordinated
> actions... all at the wrong time. Has anyone solved this
> or have any suggestions? Explosive bolts? Light weight
> ejection seats?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Young
> RV-6 N6GY (reserved) fuselage out of jig
>
>
Sounds to me like you bought the wrong airplane. Since your not to happy
with the design and performance. It's homebuilt! You can do whatever you
want to do with it. I just hope I don't recognize your name in NTSB
accident reports.
GOOD LUCK!!!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)MCI2000.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
> Has anyone "front" riveted their wing skins using Avery's swivel set? I
> was quite impressed by the job it did on the horizontal stab (no dings at
> all, despite my lack of experience). Is it really neccessary to
backrivet
> the wings, or can you do an qually nice job with the swivel set?
Alan and listers,
My experience and observations tell me that the cosmetics of the skins are
mostly dependent on how well the underlying structure is prepared. The
swivel set worked well for me with standard riveting, but do trim off some
of the red rubber if it is too long.
Consider this also - the impact of the set in "front" riveting forces the
layers together just as the bucking bar sets the rivet. Back riveting does
not do this, and relies on the crushing rivet to bring the layers into
contact. Drawing this out on paper and stepping through the inertia
effects helped me understand the dynamics of back riveting. I'm not saying
back riveting is a problem, I just don't like its lack of clamping force
prior to setting the rivet. The spring on some of the back riveting sets
helps, but pales in comparison to the inertial forces.
Alex Peterson
6A canopy, Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WoodardRod(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Workmanship Concerns (CHATTER) |
Dear listers,
I had an opportunity to take a close look at a brand new Mooney Encore this
evening. Mooney's Western Region Sales Manager stopped through our local
airport this evening on his way back to Colorado Springs.
I couldn't believe the workmanship on the Mooney's wings. Comparing the Mooney
riveting job to my HS (my first and worst efforts), my HS was 10x better. You
could tell that the flanges on the Mooney didn't lay flat, the bucking bar
wasn't flush, etc., etc. If I didn't know better, I'd think that the wing skin
was .020" with all the waves and ripples. Heck my ailerons looked better than
the Mooney's wings!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all (me too) have a tendency to be
overly critical of our own work. We all get caught up in things like priming
and back versus standard riveting, etc. Obviously the Mooney was airworthy and
I doubt the its structural integrity suffered any, but wow, the workmanship on
my -8 will be much better than the Mooney, and I'm just a desk-jockey by day.
What really made me grin was when the sales manager proudly told me that if
you got the thing up to 25,000 feet, it could cruise at 190kts burning _only_
13.5 gallons per hour! Sorta makes me want to find a Mooney at 10,000ft and
slide up beside it at 180kts while INVERTED with my landing gear hanging out
in the wind and while burning 10.5 gph! arghh, arghh, arghh... He even told me
that it would climb at better than 1300fpm! Wow, really?!? Is that at FULL
power?
Miscellaneous ramblings, I know, but somehow it really inspired me to get
building!
Best to all,
Rod Woodard
RV-8, #80033 [working on ailerons--yes, STILL]
Loveland, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
> I would appreciate it if someone with controls installed and adjusted
>to full elevator movement would measure the stick angular displacement
>from full up to full down. I have the F689 forward elevator pushrod
>installed so far. Its forward (down) travel is limited by the rear ball
>end bearing fouling on the F635 bellcrank. The rear (up travel) is limited
>by forward ball end bearing fouling on the fork of the Wd610 weldment. I
>can obtain only 29 degrees of movement, as measured with a Smart Level with
> the zero set in the full up position. This seems inadequate since I am a
>long ways from being limited by the spar in full down position. I'd
>like to get a calibration of stick movement so I know what I'm up
>against now that I'm starting to mount the tail. Thanks. 6A tail
>mounting
Dennis,
... I just had a similar problem and had to buy a new VA-115 end
fitting to shorten my forward elevator pushrod. I believe that the 47.5
inch length shown on the plans for this pushrod tube is in error, and this
displaces the neutral position of the F635 bellcrank top end forward. This
leads to the rear ball end bearing fouling you described above.
Check your neutral position .... reading the drawings, I assume
that when the small lower arm of the Wd-610 weldment is vertical, then the
F635 bellcrank should also be vertical. I think this should also be the 15
degree slope forward on the control stick that the instructions call
neutral elevator.
Is your forward pushrod cut to 47.5 inches tube length??
The forward fouling against the Wd-610 weldment is a seperate
problem that others have reported, and is fixed with a little grinding.
My new VA-115 arrived this week, so I'll try this out this weekend
and let you know what angles I come up with.
... Gil (shouldn't have believed the plans dimensions) Alexander
.. control tube cutting ...
------------------------------------
RV6A, #20701, finishing kit
"REPLY" sends to entire RV-list
mailto:gila(at)flash.net to reply privately
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gil Alexander <gila(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Web page for Painting |
>
>><< Dupont tech reps have told me applying
>> Veriprime without a topcoat could be considered detrimental. The reason
you
>> are suggested to apply a topcoat within 16 hours of applying Veriprime is
>> because of the moisture absorbed during that time. >>
>>
>
>Let's here from just one person whose RV started to corrode under a layer of
>VariPrime.
Scott,
... as per my previous post, my horizontal tail steel hinge brackets
corroded while the assy. was still in my garage. The corrosion showed up
as brown, dirt-like spots.
.... Gil (use epoxy) Alexander
>
>Scott Gesele N506RV - Flying
-------------------------------------------------------
mailto:gila(at)flash.net
Gil Alexander,
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
> This seems inadequate since I am a long ways from being limited by
> the spar in full down position. I’d like to get a calibration of
> stick movement so I know what I’m up against now that I’m
> starting to mount the tail.
What exactly does I’m mean
Gary Zilik
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbldr3170(at)aol.com |
<< Priming aluminum is not rocket science, I think we all are making too much
out
of this. The airplane for the most part does not need to be primed, so
priming with any type of primer has got to provide increased protection over
bare aluminum. >>
Those 40-50-year old Aercoupes, Cessnas, etc. were not primed at all, and they
have been holding out fairly well. Don't spend a career worying about the darn
stuff, it's not worth the time. I have used the spray can primer (metal
etching) on various hot rods over the years and it holds up fine. You're not
going to be flying the airplane through a salt water bath.
I'm not trying to be negative or trivialize it or anything but priming the
airplane need not be a choice that causes ulcers.
As always, My $.02 worth - for what it's worth
Merle (Chevy's DO fly) Miller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sears <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Workmanship Concerns (CHATTER) |
>I couldn't believe the workmanship on the Mooney's wings.
>Comparing the Mooney riveting job to my HS (my first and worst
>efforts), my HS was 10x better. You could tell that the flanges on
>the Mooney didn't lay flat, the bucking bar wasn't flush, etc., etc. If I
>didn't know better, I'd think that the wing skin was .020" with all the
>waves and ripples. Heck my ailerons looked better than the
>Mooney's wings!
Whenever I get a feeling I'm not doing well with my riveting, I go
look at commercially built airplanes. Of course, I can't do that with
my Cheetah since it's glued together; but, I can look at the quality of
the assembly. In every case, it's lacking a bunch. I'm not building a
show plane; but, I think my -6A will look better than a commercially
built one. Take a look at one of the new Cessna 172s. :-) When I
get hung up on all of those rivets we have to do, I like to go down to
Middlesboro, KY to look at the P-38 restoration project. After looking
at all of the rivets in that baby, I come back with a renewed
appreciation for how few we have in the RVs!
One thing a friend told me was that our worst rivet is proably 90% as
strong as a perfect one. Since he's a design engineer with the
Cessna jet folks, and has talked a lot with the manufacturing folks, I
guess he knows a bit more than I do about things like that. Well, I
still try to drill out my worst ones; but, I don't drill out every rivet I mess
up a little. I'm more afraid of making a weakened hole or a deeper
depression in the skin if I redo the ones that are not quite perfect. As
for the tiny depressions I may make in the skins from riveting, I'm
building a metal airplane that isn't a show plane. Remember? Critics
had better beware when they look at it (after I start flying it, of
course. It's fair game right now. ) :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A #22220 (Will be assembling the engine today)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Moore" <bobmoore(at)wwd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
> From: Gary Zilik
> > This seems inadequate since I am a long ways from being limited by
> > the spar in full down position. I’d like to get a calibration of
> > stick movement so I know what I’m up against now that I’m
> > starting to mount the tail.
>
> What exactly does I’m mean
I would suspect that it means " ' ", as in "I'm" and "I'd". :-)
Bob Moore
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Workmanship Concerns (CHATTER) |
Hi Guys,
I am building my RV6 in my T Hangar at Republic Airport, Farmingdale New York.
I have my Seneca 1 in the T Hangar also, and every time I get upset over
workmanship, I just go over and look at the Rivet Work on the Seneca. I feel
better
at once. No way did they take the time and effort we do.
So keep on working,
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carroll Bird <catbird(at)taylortel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocky Mountain Engine Monitor |
Craig Hiers wrote:
> Remember, you are going to need some three conductor shielded wire
> for the manifold press, and fuel sending unit if you are using it.
>
> Craig Hiers
> Craig: I talked to Ron Mower about this. He told me that on an all metal
airplane you could use the shield for the signal ground. He should know.
Regards ---- Carroll Bird RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stick Angular Displacement 6A |
Gary,
’ means apostrophy Just substitute a ' each time you see
that and you'll get the meaning. Some guys like to type the long version.
:-) Al
>
>> This seems inadequate since I am a long ways from being limited by
>> the spar in full down position. I’d like to get a calibration of
>> stick movement so I know what I’m up against now that I’m
>> starting to mount the tail.
>
>What exactly does I’m mean
>
>Gary Zilik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter testing |
Mike,
I think those speeds were achived with Harmon Rockets and we all know
they are not RV's. We just let Mark hang around on this list to humor him.
We all know he would like to build a real RV but can't help himself. He's
addicted to speed! :-) Al
>I would like to comment on what I feel is a very dangerous situation.
>The RV series airplanes were never meant to be flown at 300 mph, you
>should seek another design if you want to go that fast. By reading this
>list you might get the idea that its quite common for our planes to be
>flown past 300 mph. I do not believe this to be so. For those thinking
>about it I would say do some studying and find out what happens when an
>airplane flutters, not very many people come back to tell about. I
>beleive anyone flying our airplanes like that is flirting with disaster.
>I would also question the possibilities of bailing out after a
>catastrophic failure. Lets fly our airplanes safe and within the
>envelope as established by the manufacture.
>
>Michael Seager
>rv6cfi(at)vernonia.com
>1500hrs daul given in RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rose Schwedler <schw(at)epix.net> |
Please start my subscription. Thank you.
schw(at)epix.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Zeck <ndzk(at)mlgc.com> |
| Subject: | Panel Planning Software |
Hello Friends on the RV List
Last week there were a couple of threads asking where to obtain help
with planning the instrument panel for our aircraft projects.
Mentioned was something called Panel Planner, located at
http://www.panelplanner.com/ which turns out to be quite a nifty
package.
I ordered the program, received it in two days via snail mail, installed
it in 20 minutes, and within two hours had produced several iterations
of my thoughts on the design of an RV4 panel. Templates are provided
for all of Van's products. Click and drag instruments, guages,
switches, indicators, etc, from an extensive collection provided with
the program to your panel template. Then you can very easily rearrange,
align, shift, wish for more space and more dollars, etc.
Very easy to use. And with a color printer, the results are terrific.
Eventually, when satisfied, you can print out a cutting template.
Frank Zeck, North Dakota, RV4 soon to fly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | re: cell phones in aircraft |
>
>I will be getting a copy of the FCC rules from him in the mail. If you
>want a copy, e-mail me, and I will e-mail back with it attached.
>
>I said I WAS going to install it, no longer, and the fine is $10000.
Cell phone frequencies are indeed allocated to land-mobile service
only and it's an FCC issue, not an FAA one. Therefore, it's
a vilolation of a regulation to use one from an airborne aircraft.
Now, could you use one while on taxi from active to the ramp to
call home, call for fuel, etc? Certainly. Just can't have daylight
under the wheels.
Would it be prudent to carry a hand held or have an installed
cell phone for situations where it's use might mitigate lost
of property, or worse yet, loss of life? Certainly. The FCC
is like any other branch of government with inforcement
responsabilities. The LIKELYHOOD that any single transgression
of the rules will be (1) noticed, (2) complained about, (3)
acted upon by an enforcer who already has too much on his plate
is extremely small. Use of a cellphone in blatant, obvious and
noticed disregard for the rules is inviting the wrath of
government. Responsable use within the rules with occasional
"transgressions" when warranted are most unlikely to bring
you grief. Given the capabilities and growing coverage of cell
phones and their technology, I'd not go flying without it
(if I owned one).
It's an issue similar to the ELT's that were once sold to
hikers and backpackers . . . obviously not for the original
intended purpose but if used only for the most obvious emergency
situations, it's unlikely to get the user in hot water. Now,
the REAL crime is the fact that a back-packer laying at the
bottom of a drop with a broken leg thinks the calvary is
going to come riding over the hill as soon as the switch is
flipped on his little yellow box. I believe a recent AOPA
article told us that ELTs yield their intended usefulness in
less than 10% of aircraft accidents where an ELT is installed.
But that's another problem . . . My best recommendation, trash
your ELT and buy a cell phone.
Now, if you wanted to INSTALL a cell phone in your certified
ship, the FAA would have you drawn, sawed and quartered for
not installing a TSO'ed model . . . it matters not how many
lives might be saved. So use only HAND HELD devices in your
certified iron, and don't plug it into the cigar lighter.
In some FAA jurisdictions this is tantamount to an "installation".
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< If you do, >
< What you've always done, >
< You will be, >
< What you've always been. >
=================================
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Backriveting the Wings |
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01BD393B.1E849120"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BD393B.1E849120
There are two main choices for riveting the wing skins:
A) Avery swivel tool [P/N 1047] and a good collection of bucking bars. =
Here the RIVETER needs very little skill but the BUCKER needs =
considerable skill to avoid dings in the skin from the bucking bar being =
cocked everso slightly.
B) Avery extra long backriveting set [P/N 4580] and Avery backriveting =
bucking bar [P/N 635]. Here the RIVETER needs considerably more skill =
than the BUCKER. The BUCKER needs very little skill at all because the =
bucking bar angular positioning is automatic with the broad contact =
base. The danger is not so much in dinging the skin as in forming bad =
shop heads when the rivet set is not held at the right angle. It takes =
some practice to get the hang of it, as the geometry and motions =
required for driving are not intuitional.
My wife and I practiced driving about 20 rivets into a floppy 0.016 =
dimpled piece to get the feel of the Avery backriveting set. I found =
that I got best results with only 22 PSI at the supply end (25 feet of =
1/4 hose further dropping the pressure). With higher pressures the set =
would "dance" on the stem and the set would tend to rotate. The 22 =
PSI-driven rivets were not work hardened.
Bear in mind that you will wind up using method A) when you put on your =
last skins because you have no choice! We put on our top skins first =
using method B) but now that we are done I can't see any difference =
between A) and B). =20
Dennis Persyk 6A finishing kit
Barrington, IL
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BD393B.1E849120
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
There are two main choices for =
riveting the wing=20
skins:
A) Avery swivel tool [P/N =
1047] and a good=20
collection of bucking bars. Here the RIVETER needs very little =
skill but=20
the BUCKER needs considerable skill to avoid dings in the skin from the =
bucking=20
bar being cocked everso slightly.
B) Avery extra long backriveting set =
[P/N=20
4580] and Avery backriveting bucking bar [P/N 635]. Here the =
RIVETER needs=20
considerably more skill than the BUCKER. The BUCKER needs very =
little=20
skill at all because the bucking bar angular positioning is automatic =
with the=20
broad contact base. The danger is not so much in dinging the skin as in =
forming=20
bad shop heads when the rivet set is not held at the right angle. =
It takes=20
some practice to get the hang of it, as the geometry and motions =
required for=20
driving are not intuitional.
My wife and I practiced driving =
about 20 rivets=20
into a floppy 0.016 dimpled piece to get the feel of the Avery =
backriveting=20
set. I found that I got best results with only 22 PSI at the =
supply end=20
(25 feet of 1/4 hose further dropping the pressure). With =
higher=20
pressures the set would "dance" on the stem and the set would =
tend to=20
rotate. The 22 PSI-driven rivets were not work =
hardened.
Bear in mind that you will wind up =
using method=20
A) when you put on your last skins because you have no choice! We =
put on=20
our top skins first using method B) but now that we are done I =
can't see=20
any difference between A) and B).
Dennis Persyk 6A finishing kit
Barrington, IL
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BD393B.1E849120--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRoss10612(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
Alan:
My RV-8 wings were riveted with the Avery flush swivel set with excellent
results. With care and proper air pressure (28-30 lbs) it was an easy job. It
seems everyone is going towards the back riveting of wing skins. Then there is
the heat the skins issue... (anyone want to buy a wing skin heating pad, never
used?)
I think that it is fairly easy to obtain wing skins that look like they have
been back riveted as long as it is approached with the same care that you
would apply to other areas of your RV construction. I did have the help of an
experienced RV builder to hold the bucking bar for me, and also planned rivet
sessions that were 2-3 hours maximum duration. Again, the key is a well
coordinated team with some prior experience, as well as taking your time. As
for the quality of the riveting on my RV-8 wings, you may wish to ask those
list subscribers that have seen them, Scott Gesele, Dave Lundquist, Bill
Sivori and maybe a few other builders that have been by my shop.
Just my .02.
Hope this helps,
Jon Ross RV-80094 fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: drilling thin tubing (spacers & bearing) |
<<
Anyone have any hints for drilling the spacers & brass bearing for the
aileron mounts? They just spin in every clamp I can devise, getting
rather deeply _scored_ (not scratched) in the process.
>>
Have you tried freezing them into a block of water ice? Sounds goofy but it's
a dandy way to hold irregular shapes with easily scratched surfaces.
Use the minimum amount of water necessary to barely cover the part and a
container through which you don't mind drilling a hole after the bit passes
through the part. (The container can be reused by putting some duct tape
over the hole.)
Let us know it works with this particular part. I've done this on other items
but never tried it on a circular part that might spin within the ice.
Have fun,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Workmanship Concerns (CHATTER) |
<< Whenever I get a feeling I'm not doing well with my riveting, I go
look at commercially built airplanes. Of course, I can't do that with
my Cheetah since it's glued together; but, I can look at the quality of
the assembly. In every case, it's lacking a bunch. >>
This may be all good and well that we certainly take more care in our work
than a typical assembly line worker, but before we get to euphoric, I think we
should not forget they do have an expert (we hope) quality person over looking
their work to make sure the gliches are only cosmetic and not a safety issue.
You are the only set of eyes to keep your airplane safe, so let's not dilute
ourselves by looking at their gliches and passing our hacks off to lightly.
Bernie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerry walker <efford(at)bellatlantic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 Seat Rib Question |
> Today I got to the point that it was time to install the seat ribs
> between bulkheads f-604 and f-605. When installing the f-616,
> 617,618,619 seat ribs I noticed that the forward flange is not at the
> correct angle and wants to impart a twist to the f-604 web. I have again
> verified the tilt in the f-604 bulkhead and found no problems.
Make sure that your F604 bulkhead is straight by Bracing the forward
surface with something that id "dead true." I had the same problem
initially and discovered that the bulkhead was warped. I clamped a
heavey bar to the forward surface of the bulkhead and the ribs began to
match much better. The rear tabs on the ribs are horribly bent to all
sizes. had to shim several varing from 0.040 to 0.100. one was so
bad it was replaced.
Jerry Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Wills <willsm(at)manta.nosc.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Backriveting the Wings |
Alan,
Of course its not necessary, as many here have already said. But other than
having to invest in the long rivet set, I found no negatives in
February 08, 1998 - February 14, 1998
RV-Archive.digest.vol-ef