RV-Archive.digest.vol-la
June 25, 2001 - June 30, 2001
The *exact same thing* happened to me! My electric DG would also drift off
> about 40 degrees in ten minutes. They both went back to RC Allen and tab
was
> $450. Apparently based on manufacture date one of them was under warranty
> and the other (the horizon) was not. The DG was discovered to have some
true
> defects, but they told me that the horizon was bad from sitting for 9
> months. Wasn't it nice of Pacific Coast Avionics to tell me about this?
And
> of course RC Allen helped by putting this in their documentation (kidding,
> there is NO DOCUMENTATION). As you can tell I'm pretty happy about this.
My
> horizon has been returned and now functions well. The DG is due back this
> week, and I'm $450 poorer.
Ouch! Mine is going back tomorrow! :>(
Jerry Carter
RV-8A
5.4 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing Down |
You're talking about the beloved "break turn" performed over the runway
turning 180 degrees upwind to downwind with a 90 degree angle of bank (4
g) and flaps and gear down immediately after the turn was initiated. In
the A-4 that took us from 250 KIAS to 180 KIAS and then slowed to 120 on
final due to the gear/flap drag and reduced power--often had to add a
little throttle on final, 'cause jets tend to be a little slow spooling
up and they don't glide very well--so you had to stay ahead of your engine.
My craft has a weight/hp of 5/1 at aerobatic weight. If I keep the
power on, I can do a 4g 180 or 360 without losing that much speed and no
altitude loss. On Thursday I'll be trying it with my new vortex
generators--can't wait to see how tight I can turn in case I get jumped
by a bogey. But, if I cut power, the speed loss is dramatic.
Just as you have surmised, if I come in hot or hot and high, I do
back-to-back 90 degree angle of bank turns or pull a really tight
spiral, with the power cut back and the prop control full forward (fine
pitch). Keeping an eye on the CHT's, tho, if you're losing altitude at
the same time--no more than 50 degrees cooling/minute (Lycoming Engine
Manual)--this dictates your power setting vs. your descent rate.
FP prop guys will need different techniques than the C/S guys. And,
every 'plane is different enough that you have to practice slowing down
(it can be really hard sometimes in an RV) depending on how your craft
is set up.
Boyd Braem
RV-Super6
N600SS
Tom Gummo wrote:
>
>
> I am not a RV pilot (yet) and I don't play one on TV. :-)
>
> However, here is a trick used by the fighter pilots flying jets. We entered
> the pattern at 300 KIAS and had to slow to 250 for the gear, 230 for the
> flaps and 180 as downwind speed. What we did was a 3 to 4 G 180 degree
> turn. The airspeed just melted away. So, I plan on making a 90 degree plus
> turn several miles from the pattern to reduce the speed of my plane. A 90
> degree to the left followed by a 90 right should help slow down.
>
> Boyd,
>
> You do hard manuvering on most of your flights. How does the speed
> decay under G's???
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 4.3 hour report (long) please read and comment |
Legalities aside, from a pure flight test safety point of view I
would recommend delaying the night flights until you have a fair bit
of time on the aircraft. The rate of engine failures is fairly high
during the first few hours of a homebuilt's life, due to various
systems failings rearing their ugly head. A successful forced
landing is a lot more likely at day than at night.
Some of the guys I work with were doing some stall testing in a large
business jet a few years ago. The flight had gotten started later
than planned, and they were just doing the last stalls just before
sunset. They had a problem and went into a deep stall. On this
aircraft, the tail is in the wake of the wing in a deep stall, and it
losses all it effectiveness. The aircraft descends in a flat
attitude at about 12,000 ft/min. The aircraft was fitted with a spin
chute because of the risk of deep stall. They were lucky and the
spin chute worked, so they recovered the aircraft. If the spin chute
hadn't worked they would have had to bail out, which is not easy from
a large transport category aircraft. After landing, they realized
that the search and rescue people would have had a hard time finding
them in the dark if need be. So, after that wakeup call we
(Transport Canada) are a lot more thoughtful about exactly when and
where we do our flight testing.
I know this story is not directly relevant to your situation, but the
point is that things can go wrong during testing, and little things
like the time of day, and location of the test can make a big
difference to the outcome. Like it or not, every flight in the first
few hours of a homebuilt's life is flight testing, even if you are
just cruising around enjoying yourself.
Good luck with the test of your flight testing,
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
>
>Mike,
>
>Interesting. You know, my D.A.R made a point of telling me that I could only
>do with the airplane what was done in Phase I (e.g., each aerobatic maneuver
>wood need to be done in order to do it later), and he specifically mentioned
>that if I wanted to fly at night, that the plane would have to be flown at
>night during Phase I. Perhaps I misunderstood the sequence. If that is the
>case, then when should one fly at night?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jerry
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:01 AM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 4.3 hour report (long) please read and comment
>
>
>>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Two quick notes here. Please be careful about flying after legal sunset.
>I
>> believe that if you check you Operating Limitations for Phase I test
>flights
>> it will state DAY/VFR only. Please be careful and don't get caught.
>>
>> For the transponder, I had something of the same type problem. I found
>that
>> the data wires from the microEncoder to the transponder were incorrectly
>> pinned. So you may want to check the wiring harness and double check the
>> pins. It sounds like the transponder is getting information but in the
>> wrong sequence.
>>
>> Mike Robertson
> > RV-8A
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slowing Down |
No, it won't. I assume by spoilers, you mean "speed brakes" like on the
Mooney and Lancair.
At fine pitch (prop control forward) a C/S prop produces the most thrust
for take-off and also dissipates energy to slow you down as you change
the pitch from cruise (coarse pitch--prop control out) to fine pitch
prior to landing.
As opposed to a FP prop, which when headed downhill can cause the engine
to overspeed--adjusting the pitch of the C/S prop can actually let you
slow down when going downhill.
Example: descending from 4,000'-3,000' at 85 mph, idle power
fine pitch = 55 sec.
coarse pitch = 104 sec.
Pushing the prop control forward, fairly rapidly, causes enough braking
action to pull you forward into the straps. Then, as speed decays, you
pull the nose up a little and the slow down is even more pronounced.
But, in order to be able to apply full power for a go around when you're
landing, the prop control has to be "in" (fine pitch) in order to absorb
the power from the engine if you have to go to full throttle--and, the
more horsepower you have, the more crucial this set-up is. So, you have
to carry a little more power to make up for braking action of the prop.
The speed brakes will enable you to carry more power, hence, little
danger of shock cooling, for rapid descents, as well as slowing down.
But, for $4,000, I'll stick with the C/S prop and plan my descents ahead
of time.
Boyd Braem
RV-Super6
"Ralph E. Capen" wrote:
>
>
> My turn to show some ignorance - and maybe learn...
>
> Will a constant speed prop slow you down as well as a set of spoilers?
> Next, how?
>
> Ralph Capen
> My MT three blade "spoiler" arrived last week and I don't know how to use it
> yet!
>
> SNIP...
> > You can buy a big piece of a constant-speed prop for that price!!!
> SNIP
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Order 8130-2D |
You have to apply for new operating limitations/requirements under
8130.2D. There's a spot on the EAA Web page where they will help you
with filing the paper work to get the new limitations. Otherwise you
are constrained by your original Airworthiness Certicate limitations.
Or, you can contact your FSDO for help--good luck on that.
Boyd Braem
John wrote:
>
>
> Attn: Mike Robertson:
>
> Mike, did 8130-2D supersede 8130-1D? If so, what does that do to the
> thousands of us that had our operation limitations specifically stated as
> 8130-1D IF that order no longer "legally" exists? Are we automatically
> under the 8130-2D if 1D was replaced, or do we continue under a superseded
> order that no long is in effect? All very confusing.
> John Rv6A Salida, CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
I had the following request sent to me by an non-lister, so here goes:
"I am starting to build a Sonex(sold the Hummelbird project) and have
been
monitoring your wonderful website, so I thought I might ask for help. I
need
3/32" and 1/8" clecos along with cleco pliers. Is there anyway you could
post
my needs to the RV list? Also, if folks have any metal working tools
such as
rivet spacers, dimple tools, etc. I might be interested."
Thanks,
Mike Emich
reply at this address: EmichMike(at)aol.com
Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
"The RV Journal" http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net> |
Well, the light at the end of the tunnel is near. After 30 months my first
rv-6a will be born as a cross country cruiser. The nursery is empty and I'm
already contemplating the flavor of my next offspring. I really like the
idea of a simple vfr rv-9 with an 0-235 for local bug mashing. I would
ultimately sell it and I'm wondering what the resale projections are. I
know it's a tough call but I put myself in the buyers shoes and would want
at least an 0-320. My wife thinks the lower maintenance and operating, not
to mention purchase price of the smaller engine would be more appealing.
I'm thinking...to whom .....in my mind if I opt for anything lager than the
0-235 I might as well do the 7a with an 0-360. that's a "Tim the tool man"
mentality for sure but my hmo won't cover drugs to treat that one...
what are you rv-9 guys doing for engines?????
I also told my wife if we go to the list for opinions she'd be hard pressed
to find anyone who'd actually agree with her.....(this has become a man vs.
woman struggle)
Steven DiNieri
Niagara Falls, New York
RV-6A, P28A-160
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: RV6 Rear Top Skin |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/25/2001 10:59:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
capsteve(at)adelphia.net writes:
> I'm thinking...to whom .....in my mind if I opt for anything lager than the
> 0-235 I might as well do the 7a with an 0-360. that's a "Tim the tool man"
> mentality for sure but my hmo won't cover drugs to treat that one...
> what are you rv-9 guys doing for engines?????
>
well u can always do a f1 rocket if bigger and faster is better, lol. then u
can have the 330 hp IO-540, like my f1 will have if i ever can afford the
engine after buying the kit and the tools and all the other stuff u need.
Anyway i know the resale on the rockets is wonderful, casue there more people
wanting to buy there then there are flying.
chris wilcox
f1 rocket builder, not a better choice then a rv just a faster choice, lol
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
In a message dated 6/25/01 8:25:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pbesing(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> Ok, is it just me, or are the wing root fairings that
> Van's provides don't even closely resemble the
> curvature of the fuselage? What is the best way to
> install these? I fussed for about 2 hours with one
> fairing..cutting, trimming, scotchbrite, etc, etc and
> got nowhere. Any help here?
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A (197AB) Arizona
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Thought I was close, now pissed off at the wing root
> fairings.
>
You might just scrap the fairings from Vans and use an aluminum strip
instead, I think they look better and are easier to fit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slowing Down |
In a message dated 6/25/01 2:23:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
recapen(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> My turn to show some ignorance - and maybe learn...
>
> Will a constant speed prop slow you down as well as a set of spoilers?
> Next, how?
>
> Ralph Capen
> My MT three blade "spoiler" arrived last week and I don't know how to use it
> yet!
>
> SNIP...
> > You can buy a big piece of a constant-speed prop for that price!!!
> SNIP
>
>
>
Full Prop @ 10" mp = a 72" flat disc up front, no speed brakes needed here. I
was concerned about shock cooling my new engine. I was told by several
premiere engine builders if your engine runs around 180 degrees oil temp,
aprox, 400 CHT, that you will not shock cool your Lycoming engine, they used
aerobatic engines as examples. It was said that Lycomings just don't get hot
enough to "Shock Cool" unless your at high altitudes leaned out 12000 - 15000
ft and pull your throttle to idol and descend rapidly to pattern altitude.
Continentals on the other hand are a different story. I will say this is not
how I run my engine, No way could I afford new cylinders at this time.
Responses anybody?
Tim Barnes
N39TB (Flying every day)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/25/01 9:10:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, CW9371(at)aol.com
writes:
> well u can always do a f1 rocket if bigger and faster is better, lol. then
> u
> can have the 330 hp IO-540, like my f1 will have if i ever can afford the
> engine after buying the kit and the tools and all the other stuff u need.
> Anyway i know the resale on the rockets is wonderful, casue there more
> people
> wanting to buy there then there are flying.
>
> chris wilcox
> f1 rocket builder, not a better choice then a rv just a faster choice,
> lol
>
>
>
Chris you are talking about the resale of a Harmon Rockets because there is
only 1 f1 flying in the US and its not for sale right?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Order 8130-2D |
Subject: Re: RV-List: Order 8130-2D
>
> You have to apply for new operating limitations/requirements under
> 8130.2D. There's a spot on the EAA Web page where they will help you
> >
> > Attn: Mike Robertson:
> >
> > Mike, did 8130-2D supersede 8130-1D? If so, what does that do to the
> > thousands of us that had our operation limitations specifically stated
as
> > 8130-1D IF that order no longer "legally" exists? Are we automatically
> > under the 8130-2D if 1D was replaced, or do we continue under a
superseded
> > order that no long is in effect? All very confusing.
> > John Rv6A Salida, CO
> >
>
John, confusing or not my FSDO stated that so long as you operating
limitations contains (as mine did) the provision that "Major" mods must
have"... FAA notification and response PRIOR to flying this aircraft after
incorporation of a major change as defined by 14 CFR Part 21.93" then you
are (at least at this time) bound by them. The alternative is to have your
operating limitations amended to reflect the new 8130-2D provision.
My FSDO was very helpful in making this happen AND even came out and gave my
bird an inspection prior signing off on the amendment.
Perhaps the most important reason is that your insurance will in all
likelihood not cover you if you make a "major" mod and ding it without FAA
approval for the mod. Get the amendment and you are covered for those mods.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW
Matthews, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob A" <racker(at)rmci.net> |
| Subject: | Daniels Wire Crimper |
I have a Daniels Mfg. Co. HX4 M22520/5-01 crimper (with M22520/5-100 dies
for 10-26 gauge crimps), http://www.dmctools.com/dmctools/open-frame.html.
I've contacted the manufacturer for an instruction sheet, in the meantime
can anyone tell me how to use this beast so I can start wiring? Thanks.
Rob Acker (RV-6Q, painting & wiring)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Textor" <pincjt(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | AN fitting torque |
Is there a standard torque for AN fittings? Specifically I'm wondering
about the fuel pick-up fitting. Also would it be a good idea to also
Proseal it?
Thanks,
Jack Textor
DSM
RV8, tanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
Hello, Steven:
>..... I really like the idea of a simple vfr rv-9 with an 0-235 for local
bug mashing. I would ultimately sell it and I'm wondering what the resale
projections are. ..... Snip..... My wife thinks the lower maintenance and
operating, not to mention purchase price of the smaller engine would be more
appealing. I'm thinking...to whom .....
I give one vote for your wife's opinion. I am building an RV-9A fuselage
and preserving my O-235 N2C, as we speak. I'm also planning to use a wood
prop - although I will see how other's experience will verify this
engine/prop combination. You have to be honest when you plan the plane's
intended mission. Actually, I plan to do lots of extended X-C and local. I
am retired with people all over the place. Everything you say about cost,
complexity, maintenance is correct. Also, the plane will be more docile,
land slower on rough fields, flyable by my wife (major consideration), etc.
I consider the X-C to be good for my mission. The cruise speed is good
enough for X-C with a reasonable head wind (unlike a C-152). At the end of a
full day I will have to do an extra hour of more relaxed flying. Seems a
pretty good tradeoff. With some luck I hope to fly the rest of my life with
this 2400 hour engine and still be able to sell it with a good TBO left on
the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless(at)barefootpilot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
Steven,
In my not so humble opinion, a RV9A with an O-235 would be very easy to
sell. I'm currently on the other end of the scale, thinking about putting
0-360 in my -9.(high elevation use) But, the big appeal of the -9 is the
low speed handling and short field performance coupled with good speed. The
0-235 is very good for this mission and would have great appeal to those
looking for low operating cost.
My -9 will probably spend most of it's life putting around at 70 mph, flying
with my Kitfox and Cub flying buddies. No doubt that the 0-235 would be
preferable for this use, but I plan many trips to Idaho, loaded with camping
and fishing gear. For getting out of those mountain strips, I want power.
As for the -7, great plane, in fact we almost switched to the 7 when it was
introduced because of the increased gross weight over the -6 (and of course
the ability to get upside down), but decided the we couldn't give up the
other attributes of the 9. We would like the aerobatic capability, but there
are lot's of people that don't want or need it.
You mentioned that your -6 will be a cross country cruiser; in reality
the -9 is a better cross country platform. The speed difference between the
6 or 7 and the 9 with same engine is negligible, and the 9 is more stable,
especially in turbulence. I know this from first hand experience in both
planes. Of course if you like to do your cross country trips upside down,
well....
Bottom line is; the -9 will be very easy to sell no matter which engine you
put in it. My guess is that a well built -9, vfr only, with a low-mid time
0-235 will easily fetch 50 grand, maybe more since there will not be many on
the market for years. Unless planes start getting cheaper all of a sudden
(NOT!).
Regards,
Cliff
RV9A wings
Erie, CO
www.barefootpilot.com
>
I really like the
> idea of a simple vfr rv-9 with an 0-235 for local bug mashing. I would
> ultimately sell it and I'm wondering what the resale projections are. I
> know it's a tough call but I put myself in the buyers shoes and would want
> at least an 0-320. My wife thinks the lower maintenance and operating, not
> to mention purchase price of the smaller engine would be more appealing.
> I'm thinking...to whom .....in my mind if I opt for anything lager than
the
> 0-235 I might as well do the 7a with an 0-360. that's a "Tim the tool
man"
> mentality for sure but my hmo won't cover drugs to treat that one...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carroll Bird <catbird(at)taylorelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bending tubing |
rpflanze(at)iquest.net wrote:
>
> Wow, I think this is overkill a little. Here's what I see as drawbacks, in no
> particular order:
>
> 1) Cost. You can buy a lot of tubing benders, flaring tools, and aluminum
> tubing for the price of hose fittings, mandrels, and hose.
>
> 2) Cost. I mention it twice because those darn mandrels and fittings are expensive.
>
> 3) Wear. Aeroquip hose has a life span. It must be replaced every so often.
> Aluminum tubing will last indefinetely.
>
> 4) Application. For penetration points, you now have to drill a much larger
> hole in support of a much larger grommet.
>
> 5) Installation. An aluminum tube can be bent into a smaller diameter loop
> than what you can bend an Aeroquip hose.
>
> I think it's pretty easy to bend the tubing if you just buy those spring tubing
> benders. They're pretty cheap too. But hey, it's your bird, do what ever you'd
> prefer.
>
> Randy Pflanzer N417G
> RV-6 (170 hours)
>
I bought a cheap tubing bender from Harbor Freight bent all my 3/8 tubing with
no
problems.
Carroll Bird Buffalo Gap, TX Just back from Longmont.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slowing Down |
Hi gang,
I was a Cessna 150 Pilot for 15 years before I purchased my first RV-4.
There is no such thing as planning a descent in a 150; you pull the power,
aim the nose up for 2 seconds, pull the flaps, aim the nose down to the
numbers. Period. My home airport (PNE) is a busy airport that handles jets
and trainers all day. Very often, I would be on a two mile final at 110
mph, and touch down at 50 mph. Soooo, when I first got an RV, I expected
that there would be years of training needed to learn to plan a descent and
entry into the pattern. In fact, after about 30 circuits and a few weeks, I
adjusted to the new procedure. My first RV-4 was a fixed pitch prop. My
current RV-4 has a C/S prop. Guess what? I fly it the same way as the fixed
pitch. Yes, the C/S prop will slow me down quicker than the F/P, and I take
advantage of this when I screw up. However, I usually find that my mediocre
skills are enough to get into the pattern and onto final at the desired
speed. There are several procedures that can really get me down quickly
without over-speeding the engine or shock cooling. Mainly, I reduce power
to 15 inches and 1800-2000 RPM, point the nose up to slow down, and slip
off the altitude while turning. A ton of altitude can be lost by first
pointing the nose up to slow down. Now what I've just described is what I
do when I need to loose 3 or 4 thousand feet really fast. This happens when
the controllers change me around. Otherwise, all you need to do to get into
the pattern at the proper speed (whether C/S or F/P) is to back off your
power just a little earlier than you do in a Cessna. How many of us fly up
to within 5 miles of the landing site at 175 mph and 3000 feet? Not many. I
think most of us have learned to adjust our habits fairly easily.
Its interesting to see how many soon-to-be RV pilots are worried or anxious
about the flight characteristics of the RV's. Even the "Gummo's" are
thinking about this. Believe me, our incredibly flying RV's don't require
incredible skills to fly. Fair winds to all.
Louis
Louis I. Willig
larywil(at)home.com
RV-4, N180PF, 115 hrs. and climbing fast
I0-360, Hartzell C/S
(610) 668-4964
Penn Valley, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Just a little Monday trip.(Long) |
After a long awaited trip to Longmont this past weekend a family
emergency kept me at home. My Mother in Law went to the hospital Friday
morning. I was out of town (work) so rushed home. spent the day at the
hospital. When evening came made the decision to stay close to home. Judy
Stocks (RV6A) and Carol Bird (RV4) stoped by,Rick Liles (RV6A) called. and I
explained I could not go. Sure did want to go as a flight of 4 but just felt
I could not go.
Saturday morning came and Mother in law conditions improved so My Most
understanding wife suggested I just go. I still felt I needed to stay close
to home so just went to Hobbs NM for breakfast with Jeff Church (Builder RV6)
had a great time and visited with Larry Pardue (RV6) and a builder (RV6) who
just moved to NM from some where up north, and another (RV6) flyer, whom I
cant remember there name, Invited us to stop by and visit- He has his own
landing strip. I was the last to leave. so got to watch most of the planes
take off. Sure had a good time swapping stories and talking RV stuff.
Sunday helped Jeff Church work on his rudder peddles a little while
until he had to go to work (He is an Air Traffic Controller). Rick Liles
called when he returned from Longmont and filled me in on the trip. I
listened with a tinge of jealously. Oh well there is always next year. He
mentioned that tomorrow, Monday he will be off work and wanted to go to
Bobby's Planes and Parts to pick up some engine parts and wanted to know if I
wanted to go. Sure.
Monday My wife's car would not start, so she took my truck. Rick stopped
by and jumped me off and I dropped her car off at the dealership on the way
to the airport. Rick had called Joel Spray (RV8 Second offender, first was a
RV6). That lives in Matador, TX. He has a landing strip at his back door. We
landed and decided to go to Graham for some inexpensive fuel. while at Graham
tried to contact another builder to see if he would take us to lunch. I guess
he was at work. Before we departed to Bobby's Planes and Parts the airport
manager told us about the airplane off the end of the runway. As we climbed
out it was spotted under a tree. on one hurt but still one has to contemplate
the reasons why. My thought went back to Saturday two weeks ago when I
witnessed a C 182 loose lift on take off at Snyder TX and slam into the
runway. no one hurt there either.
Bobby's Planes and Parts is an old emergency landing strip from when Ft
Walters was in full gear training helicopter pilots for Viet Nam. We landed
and and Rick bought some stuff and I traded and ignition harness for a IO 540
that I am building for the Vans 4 place that I hope will be coming out
someday. Picked up cylinders for Jeffs engine and started to go. Bobby
invited us into his home which is the old control tower for a cool drink
before we departed. They sure are good folks. Really enjoy doing business and
visiting with them.
Weatherford TX for lunch was next on the agenda.(where I graduated from
HS in 1970) Met Kelly Burgstrom (sp) the airport manager that took us to
lunch and visited and swapped stories. Found it hard to leave due to the
hospitality and good stories that were being told by Kelly. Laughed until my
side ached.
Departed Weatherford and climbed to 10500 to avoid the heat and thermals
what a thrill to climb and dodge the clouds. Flying through the holes in the
clouds and talking to Rick and Joel on the same frequency. Seeing the rivers
and lakes going by at 160 kts. Sure is smooth on top. Joel In his 200hp RV8
C/S was content to stay with us burning 8.3 gph . Rick in his 0320 C/S and I
in my 0320 F/P all stayed close just for the companionship. It took a little
longer for me to climb but in the grand scheme of things It really does not
matter. 3.6 total flying hours, 4 totally different landings.
Did I really build the machine? Am I really doing this? Did we three
skip work to do this? yep. yep. yep. Do we feel a little guilty? I don't
know about Rick and Joel but as for me. NOT. Got home in time to pick up
wife's car. Im a hero.
You who are flying have many stories to tell.You who are building try
and do a little every day, It is well worth it.
Hope I did not bore you. Just felt like talking.
Terry E. Cole N468TC.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVPilot4(at)webtv.net (BOBE.) |
It has been my experience Teflon in liquid or tape will work better
than Sealube.
Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil N <pnewlon(at)toosan.com> |
| Subject: | "sport pilot" mag |
It was recommended to me that I get a subscription to "Sport Pilot" magazine.
So far, I have not been able to find it at any mag/bookstore..... I also can't
find a website for the mag.... Anyone have a phone# that I could use to call
them? If not, possibly someone on the list that has a scanner, could see
his/her way clear to scan a subscription card and email it? TIA! Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Order 8130-2D |
The prior Order was 8130.2C, or at least it was when I joined the FAA over 6
years ago. The 8130.2D took effect in Sept. 99. Any aircraft certificated
since then have done so in accordance with the newer order.
To answer your question more directly, whatever your Operating Limitations
state right now are what are applicable to you and your aircraft. They are
still valid, legal, and binding.
If you would like to get amended Operating Limitations so you don't have to
call your local FSDO prior to making a major alteration, you may by simply
taking your current Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations to
your FSDO and asking for them. Randall Henderson came in to me a few weeks
ago and we did just this. It took about 30 minutes.
Mike Robertson
RV-8A
>From: "John" <fasching(at)amigo.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Order 8130-2D
>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:32:48 -0600
>
>
>Attn: Mike Robertson:
>
>Mike, did 8130-2D supersede 8130-1D? If so, what does that do to the
>thousands of us that had our operation limitations specifically stated as
>8130-1D IF that order no longer "legally" exists? Are we automatically
>under the 8130-2D if 1D was replaced, or do we continue under a superseded
>order that no long is in effect? All very confusing.
>John Rv6A Salida, CO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
06/26/2001 10:29:38 AM
Personally, I think the O-235 powered RV-9 would make an awsome airplane.
It would be great to fly one in this configuration for a year or so then
switch to an O-320 and see how much more benefit is actually gained. With
fuel costs what they are I'll bet there will be times you miss your little
engine. One other thought, the RV-9 seems like a great airframe to mount an
O-320H2AD in. While searching for my engine I ran across quite a few that I
believe I could have flown for a good long time before I had to rebuild it.
They were cheap too. Lets be real, if you wanted to sizzle through the sky
you wouldn't have chosen the -9. Its a bang for the buck airplane, you make
some compromises, you get some benefits in return. If you kept it simple I
doubt there is a plane out there that can rival the -9 in an overall
utilitarian sense.
One question, does anyone know if the engine mount for an O-235 will also
fit an O-320? If it will then talk about an easy conversion to more power
if it turns out that is what you really need. In the interest of science, I
volunteer to fly anyones -9 for a year and then when you put in your big
engine, I'll fly it another year. All in the interest of science of course.
Eric
"Ernest Kells" (at)matronics.com on 06/26/2001
09:20:27 AM
Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: next kit choice
Hello, Steven:
>..... I really like the idea of a simple vfr rv-9 with an 0-235 for local
bug mashing. I would ultimately sell it and I'm wondering what the resale
projections are. ..... Snip..... My wife thinks the lower maintenance and
operating, not to mention purchase price of the smaller engine would be
more
appealing. I'm thinking...to whom .....
I give one vote for your wife's opinion. I am building an RV-9A fuselage
and preserving my O-235 N2C, as we speak. I'm also planning to use a wood
prop - although I will see how other's experience will verify this
engine/prop combination. You have to be honest when you plan the plane's
intended mission. Actually, I plan to do lots of extended X-C and local.
I
am retired with people all over the place. Everything you say about cost,
complexity, maintenance is correct. Also, the plane will be more docile,
land slower on rough fields, flyable by my wife (major consideration), etc.
I consider the X-C to be good for my mission. The cruise speed is good
enough for X-C with a reasonable head wind (unlike a C-152). At the end of
a
full day I will have to do an extra hour of more relaxed flying. Seems a
pretty good tradeoff. With some luck I hope to fly the rest of my life
with
this 2400 hour engine and still be able to sell it with a good TBO left on
the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "sport pilot" mag |
In a message dated 6/26/01 7:18:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pnewlon(at)toosan.com writes:
>
> It was recommended to me that I get a subscription to "Sport Pilot"
> magazine.
> So far, I have not been able to find it at any mag/bookstore..... I also
> can't
> find a website for the mag.... Anyone have a phone# that I could use to call
> them? If not, possibly someone on the list that has a scanner, could see
> his/her way clear to scan a subscription card and email it? TIA! Phil
>
>
>
Contact the EAA with a membership you get the Sport Aviation magazine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Are Barstad <abarstad(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slowing Down |
Alright, I shouldn't put my nose into this since I have no RV experience as PIC.
My intent is not to tell anyone how it works. I'm rather asking how it works.
Here's why:
I do fly the newer 172R's and they use IO-360 L2A, 160hp. Since flight training
(172P's then) the procedure is to pull throttle from cruise 23-2400 rpm right
back to idle once I'm abeam the threshold (some instructors suggest 45 degrees
out from threshold but I need the space to slow down - plus I like to be close
enough to make a dead stick if I had to). I then slow to 80kts and extend
flaps to 20 degree, then add power again to ~1500 for a relaxed approach.
Now, I'm not nearly as fast as the RV's but my engine must work just as hard -
if not even harder just prior to pulling to idle. If anything, the slower speed
with Cessnas should make their engines even warmer before the rapid pull-back
to idle.
The aircraft at our flying club has been operated like this for the past 40 years
and we were only told about avoiding shock cooling when descending rapid from
high altitudes or practising forced landings. Rule of thumb was to apply power
to warm the engine every 500 ft of descent. The staff of the flying school
are very cautious with operating techniques for engines to last longer.
Are RV's with same or similar engines different in any way?
Are
RV-8 Wings
To be fitted with an IO-360 & C/S prop.
>
> From: Louis Willig <larywil(at)home.com>
> Date: 2001/06/26 Tue AM 09:45:25 EDT
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Slowing Down
>
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I was a Cessna 150 Pilot for 15 years before I purchased my first RV-4.
> There is no such thing as planning a descent in a 150; you pull the power,
> aim the nose up for 2 seconds, pull the flaps, aim the nose down to the
> numbers. Period. My home airport (PNE) is a busy airport that handles jets
> and trainers all day. Very often, I would be on a two mile final at 110
> mph, and touch down at 50 mph. Soooo, when I first got an RV, I expected
> that there would be years of training needed to learn to plan a descent and
> entry into the pattern. In fact, after about 30 circuits and a few weeks, I
> adjusted to the new procedure. My first RV-4 was a fixed pitch prop. My
> current RV-4 has a C/S prop. Guess what? I fly it the same way as the fixed
> pitch. Yes, the C/S prop will slow me down quicker than the F/P, and I take
> advantage of this when I screw up. However, I usually find that my mediocre
> skills are enough to get into the pattern and onto final at the desired
> speed. There are several procedures that can really get me down quickly
> without over-speeding the engine or shock cooling. Mainly, I reduce power
> to 15 inches and 1800-2000 RPM, point the nose up to slow down, and slip
> off the altitude while turning. A ton of altitude can be lost by first
> pointing the nose up to slow down. Now what I've just described is what I
> do when I need to loose 3 or 4 thousand feet really fast. This happens when
> the controllers change me around. Otherwise, all you need to do to get into
> the pattern at the proper speed (whether C/S or F/P) is to back off your
> power just a little earlier than you do in a Cessna. How many of us fly up
> to within 5 miles of the landing site at 175 mph and 3000 feet? Not many. I
> think most of us have learned to adjust our habits fairly easily.
>
> Its interesting to see how many soon-to-be RV pilots are worried or anxious
> about the flight characteristics of the RV's. Even the "Gummo's" are
> thinking about this. Believe me, our incredibly flying RV's don't require
> incredible skills to fly. Fair winds to all.
>
> Louis
>
> Louis I. Willig
> larywil(at)home.com
> RV-4, N180PF, 115 hrs. and climbing fast
> I0-360, Hartzell C/S
> (610) 668-4964
> Penn Valley, PA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/26/2001 3:02:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com writes:
>
> Chris you are talking about the resale of a Harmon Rockets because there is
> only 1 f1 flying in the US and its not for sale right?
>
>
either way, I personally know several people who want to buy a flying F1 and
there are harmons for sale, but then again there much harder to insure then
a F1.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "sport pilot" mag |
"Sportsman Pilot" Magazine is a small black and white Mag written and
published by Jack Cox, former Sport Aviation Editor. One year subscriptions
are $12 and you can send money and your address to :
Sportsman Pilot
P.O. Box 400
Ashboro, NC 27204-0400
Some back issues are also available at $3.50 per issue.
It's a good little publication if you like reading about small fly-ins and
different projects and their owners. I have always enjoyed the 4 issues
that Jack puts out per year. Sometime back he did a piece on Pat Carr's
"Backyard Bullet" RV-4 that was interesting since I was there when he
interviewed Pat at MERFI.
Hope this helps,
AL
>
>It was recommended to me that I get a subscription to "Sport Pilot" magazine.
>So far, I have not been able to find it at any mag/bookstore..... I also
>can't
>find a website for the mag.... Anyone have a phone# that I could use to call
>them? If not, possibly someone on the list that has a scanner, could see
>his/her way clear to scan a subscription card and email it? TIA! Phil
>
>
Al Mojzisik
InAir Instruments, LLC
Lift Reserve Indicator (LRI)
AOA and SO much more!
http://www.liftreserve.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AN fitting torque |
| From: | Don R Jordan <dons6a(at)juno.com> |
Fig 10-1, page 165-1 in AC 43.13-1A . All my books are out of date, but
it will get you there.
don't go telling Mike now. Your dash 4 shows 50-65 in-# & 110-130 for the
dash 6.
in Aluminum.
Don Jordan - 6A - N6DJ - dons6a(at)juno.com - Arlington, TX
***********************************************************************
writes:
>
> Is there a standard torque for AN fittings? Specifically I'm
> wondering
> about the fuel pick-up fitting. Also would it be a good idea to
> also
> Proseal it?
> Thanks,
> Jack Textor
> DSM
> RV8, tanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don R Jordan <dons6a(at)juno.com> |
Joe, paul , Eric, & Ed:
Thanks for the comebacks. Again what I write don't said what I mean. I
was talking about the forward top skin under the instrument panel. I am
planning on a triangle shaped floor so it will come out near level.
Don Jordan - 6A - N6DJ - dons6a(at)juno.com - Arlington, TX
***********************************************************************
writes:
>
> A wife
> Mine did the rear and top front fuselage cant
> tell you how she came about doing this
>
> RV6A
>
> --- Don R Jordan wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am trying to rivet the top skin on. Been putting
> > it off for a year.
> >
> > Anyone invent something to support your sholders &
> > head while in there?
> > I could only last for about 30 minutes yesterday.
> >
> > Don Jordan - 6A - N6DJ - dons6a(at)juno.com -
> > Arlington, TX
> >
> ***********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > through
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> > Matronics!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> I've got the spring benders, but can't seem to get the length and
kinks
> right. I've gone through a lot of tubing and still have two long
runs left
> to go. One problem is that I don't have any plans to tell me what
the
> finished product is supposed to look like or where it is supposed to
be
> clamped. The absolute worst part is the short stub that runs from
the
> fuselage to the tank itself. This doesn't line up no matter what. A
flex
> hose would be a snap to connect and disconnect in that limited
space.
>
Are those of you who are having trouble bending tubing using a
pattern? With a spring bender, the initial bends in a piece of tubing
are relatively easy; its the subsequent bends that pose the problems.
The trick is getting it right the first time. I had the same problems
that you describe until I started using a pattern.
To make a pattern, get a length of medium stiff wire and "install" it
exactly where you want your tubing to go. The wire should be stiff
enough to hold its position, yet flexible enough so that you can bend
it with your fingers. (Vinyl coated clothesline wire works great.)
Make sure that the wire is bent such that it "rests" in the correct
position (no springback). Then carefully remove the wire pattern, set
it on your workbench, and bend the tubing to match the pattern. Take
the bending slow, and keep checking your work by laying the wire
pattern against the tube. After the tube matches the pattern, install
it in the airplane. Only minor tweeking should be required to get the
tube to fit perfectly. This method even worked on the long brake run
between the left side of the firewall and the right wheel.
For the tank vent tube, don't use a short stub. Instead make a +/-
360 degree loop (like a split lock washer). Lengthen or shorten the
ends as required to fit.
Note: You will find that the vinyl coated clothesline wire also comes
in very handy when you are determining the routing and length of hoses
and heavy electrical wire runs in the engine compartment. I probably
used 40 feet of the stuff before I was done.
Mark Nielsen
Green Bay, WI
RV-6; 654 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVPilot4(at)webtv.net (BOBE.) |
Have you noticed how visible a yellow (no radio)cub is when it is flying
over a ripe wheat,oat,or corn field?Did you know most mid-airs occur
near airports and most of these on final between a high and a low wing?
If we take the advice of some of the people on this list and fly
downwind over the runway,do a 3G 180 turn to bleed speed we will not win
many friends among FBO's and fellow pilots.We will be correctly labled
as a bunch of rude hotshot jerks.A low time pilot could lesson the
chance ot seeing his grandchildren grow up.
Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Folks,
I'm looking for a test sit in a set of DJ Lauritsens (sp) seats here in
the DFW area for my wife.
She said the pre-made ones look great (thanks cougar landing 2001) but
she has had some back problems and would like to feel what it's like to
sit in a set for a while to make sure that they support her back
properly.
From what folks have told me, she makes great seating and they come with
comforfoam and lumbar supports - but we're still shopping.
I've got my seat placement area construction completed and want to get
seats in order to do my rudder pedal/brake assy placement.
And if it means she has to fly around for a short cross country to get
the feel - she said she'd suffer through that too - and we'll figure out
gas/dinner/whatever...
Someone hook us up here - please! I've got support to do this the right
way Hallelujah!!!
Ralph Capen
RV6AQB N822AR(reserved)
MT Prop was delivered last Thursday!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale K. Cabbiness" <cabbines(at)swbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "sport pilot" mag |
Some information about "sport pilot" can be found at this link:
http://www.aero-news.net/news/archive2000/0900news/sportpilot2000a.htm
Dale Cabbiness Edmond, OK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Mojzisik" <prober(at)iwaynet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: "sport pilot" mag
>
> "Sportsman Pilot" Magazine is a small black and white Mag written and
> published by Jack Cox, former Sport Aviation Editor. One year
subscriptions
> are $12 and you can send money and your address to :
>
> Sportsman Pilot
> P.O. Box 400
> Ashboro, NC 27204-0400
>
> Some back issues are also available at $3.50 per issue.
>
> It's a good little publication if you like reading about small fly-ins and
> different projects and their owners. I have always enjoyed the 4 issues
> that Jack puts out per year. Sometime back he did a piece on Pat Carr's
> "Backyard Bullet" RV-4 that was interesting since I was there when he
> interviewed Pat at MERFI.
> Hope this helps,
> AL
>
> >
> >It was recommended to me that I get a subscription to "Sport Pilot"
magazine.
> >So far, I have not been able to find it at any mag/bookstore..... I also
> >can't
> >find a website for the mag.... Anyone have a phone# that I could use to
call
> >them? If not, possibly someone on the list that has a scanner, could see
> >his/her way clear to scan a subscription card and email it? TIA! Phil
> >
> >
>
> Al Mojzisik
> InAir Instruments, LLC
> Lift Reserve Indicator (LRI)
> AOA and SO much more!
> http://www.liftreserve.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Winters <dwinters(at)acraline.com> |
| Subject: | Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up! |
I would like to order a -6 canopy from 1/4" tinted. If there is enough
interest here, maybe we can convince Todd to make a -6 canopy.
Don Winters
dtw_rv6(at)yahoo.com
(getting ready to proseal fuel tanks)
-----Original Message-----
From: czechsix(at)juno.com [mailto:czechsix(at)juno.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:22 PM
todd_rudberg(at)yahoo.com; czechsix(at)juno.com; menavrat(at)collins.rockwell.com
Subject: RV-List: Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up!
Ok guys,
I asked Todd Silver at Todd's Canopies about a group discount on -8/8A
canopies. Here is his reply:
"If I get to sell 4 at a time, I'll take $100 off the listed
price. For 6 at a time I'll take $125 off the price. This discount
applies to
the tint and clear that I have now. I will have to have a bunch of orders
for
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "sport pilot" mag |
Here is the web page for Jack Cox's Sportsman Pilot
http://www.sportsmanpilot.com/sportsman_pilot.htm
Ed Anderson
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IPAQ 'abuse' feedback needed |
| From: | james freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
on 6/25/01 11:27 PM, Charlie and Tupper England at cengland(at)netdoor.com
wrote:
>
>
> Listers,
>
> Does anyone have experience with a Compaq Ipaq's
> survivability when dropped? Mine didn't. I had just received
> it (it was a gift; I'm a really great guy :->) & it did not
> survive a fall from waist height to a hard surface floor.
>
> If my experience is a fluke & others have had them survive
> this kind of 'test' then I will consider keeping it. The
> AnywhereMap software is really nice.
>
> If they aren't rugged enough to survive short falls like
> this, I'll have to return it & go for a conventional a/c
> GPS.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have dropped mine twice in six months with no apparent ill effects. It
does not "seem" as robust as, for example, my cell phone but overall it
seems reasonable.
James Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Hughes" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down |
Bob,
First, since the list is now a little more sensitive, this is not meant as a
flame.
Actually, it's not a downwind over the runway, it's called, "Initial". Then
as others have said you enter a 180 degree decelerating turn called the
"Break". Then you do a descending 180 to the runway (called rolling off the
perch). The pattern is called an overhead pattern, or sometimes a 360
overhead pattern. It is a valid approach and there are many very valid
reasons to fly this pattern. It is the fastest way to get an airplane on
the ground, should you need it. Also, were you to experience engine
problems where the integrity of you engine were in question, this is a much
safer way to get the plane down. Why? Because you keep your energy
(airspeed and altitude) up until you are in a safe position to land. In a
modified version, the single engine fighter guys do an SFO, a simulated
flameout overhead where they enter initial higher (altitude depends on the
type of aircraft) pull the power to idle, and do a 360 to the runway.
Imagine you are out in your F-16 and you notice your oil pressure go to
zero. Engine might last twelve hours or two minutes, you don't know. You
can't shut it down... well you CAN, but explaining it to the Board would be
a little rough. So you come back to the home drone. Wanna fly a straight
in? Sure, slow down and configure five miles out. The engine seizes and
you are in you're blues and tennis shoes (meaning you're back on the carpet
in front of the Board). So you coast up initial at a couple thousand feet
at 300 kts, pull the power to idle and coast to the runway. Whatta ya going
to do in an RV? Totally your choice. Me? If there is a runway nearby, I'm
doing the same thing except I might even shut the engine down "when landing
is assured". (Taxpayers won't pay for my engine).
The point is that knowing more ways to fly does not make me a "rude, hotshot
jerk". It makes me an ex-AF pilot that has another trick in my bag. Yeah,
if there is a busy airport, and everyone else is flying a standard pattern
and I come up initial at 180 kts in my RV, I'm probably not demonstrating a
lot of airmanship, but if I'm by myself and the home base, and there no one
around and it's a glorious day.... "Experimental RV-6 TC, Initial."
Keith Hughes
RV-6, Finish
Parker, CO
----- Original Message -----
From: BOBE. <RVPilot4(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: Slowing down
>
> Have you noticed how visible a yellow (no radio)cub is when it is flying
> over a ripe wheat,oat,or corn field?Did you know most mid-airs occur
> near airports and most of these on final between a high and a low wing?
> If we take the advice of some of the people on this list and fly
> downwind over the runway,do a 3G 180 turn to bleed speed we will not win
> many friends among FBO's and fellow pilots.We will be correctly labled
> as a bunch of rude hotshot jerks.A low time pilot could lesson the
> chance ot seeing his grandchildren grow up.
>
> Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Is carb enrich circuit adjustable |
Hi Mike:
It is my understanding that there is no (enriching circuit as such) in the
10-5009 carb. The fuel flow is only controlled by the throttle setting. The
only extra fuel you get is when you are moving the throttle forward, this is
from the accelerator pump otherwise the fuel flow is determined by the
throttle setting.
For me EGT temps are only a reference I am not looking for a specific temp
but a rise to peak on the hottest (usually #3) cylinder of a least a 100
degrees from full rich at any power setting below 75%. I run full rich at
anything above 75%, peak minus 100 at 75% , peak minus 50 at 65%.
If I can get at rise of a least 100 degrees after settling into the climb at
75% I am comfortable knowing that the mixture is rich enough for the health
of the engine.
I believe there are two different nozzles in this carb and is determined by
whether it is a 10-5009 or a 10-5009N.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael McGee" <jmpcrftr(at)teleport.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: Is carb enrich circuit adjustable
>
> I couldn't find this answered in the archives:
> O-320-E2G (150 HP) with a Marvel Schebler 10-5009 carb
> Is the enrichening circuit adjustable on this carb?
> I am finding that at low altitudes (1000'-3000') as I come out of full
> throttle it seems that the enrichening circuit comes off too soon. The
EGT
> being fine (~1460) at full throttle will screem up to the mid 1500's when
I
> drop just out of the enrichening range. I'm still at full rich on my
> mixture setting. I have to drop back to about 24-25 inches to get the EGT
> back under 1500. This leaves a fairly large speed range that I am staying
> out of at these altitudes (10-15 kts) and it is really annoying when
flying
> in a group. This is only this high on #3, the other cylinders are staying
> well below 1500. I was very precise when I installed the EGT probes at
> 1-1/2" below the flanges.
> Any words of wisdom from the carb experts?
> Thanks in advance.
> Mike
>
> Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Aurora, OR
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
Hi Eric:
Yes the engine mount will fit both the 0235 and the 0320 just be sure you
have the correct engine ( conical or dyno). The 0235C is conical and the
0235 NC &LC are Dyno. The H2AD is Dyno.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: next kit choice
>
>
> Personally, I think the O-235 powered RV-9 would make an awsome airplane.
> It would be great to fly one in this configuration for a year or so then
> switch to an O-320 and see how much more benefit is actually gained. With
> fuel costs what they are I'll bet there will be times you miss your little
> engine. One other thought, the RV-9 seems like a great airframe to mount
an
> O-320H2AD in. While searching for my engine I ran across quite a few that
I
> believe I could have flown for a good long time before I had to rebuild
it.
> They were cheap too. Lets be real, if you wanted to sizzle through the sky
> you wouldn't have chosen the -9. Its a bang for the buck airplane, you
make
> some compromises, you get some benefits in return. If you kept it simple I
> doubt there is a plane out there that can rival the -9 in an overall
> utilitarian sense.
>
> One question, does anyone know if the engine mount for an O-235 will also
> fit an O-320? If it will then talk about an easy conversion to more power
> if it turns out that is what you really need. In the interest of science,
I
> volunteer to fly anyones -9 for a year and then when you put in your big
> engine, I'll fly it another year. All in the interest of science of
course.
>
> Eric
>
>
> "Ernest Kells" (at)matronics.com on 06/26/2001
> 09:20:27 AM
>
> Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
>
> To:
> cc:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: next kit choice
>
>
> Hello, Steven:
>
> >..... I really like the idea of a simple vfr rv-9 with an 0-235 for local
> bug mashing. I would ultimately sell it and I'm wondering what the resale
> projections are. ..... Snip..... My wife thinks the lower maintenance and
> operating, not to mention purchase price of the smaller engine would be
> more
> appealing. I'm thinking...to whom .....
>
> I give one vote for your wife's opinion. I am building an RV-9A fuselage
> and preserving my O-235 N2C, as we speak. I'm also planning to use a wood
> prop - although I will see how other's experience will verify this
> engine/prop combination. You have to be honest when you plan the plane's
> intended mission. Actually, I plan to do lots of extended X-C and local.
> I
> am retired with people all over the place. Everything you say about cost,
> complexity, maintenance is correct. Also, the plane will be more docile,
> land slower on rough fields, flyable by my wife (major consideration),
etc.
> I consider the X-C to be good for my mission. The cruise speed is good
> enough for X-C with a reasonable head wind (unlike a C-152). At the end of
> a
> full day I will have to do an extra hour of more relaxed flying. Seems a
> pretty good tradeoff. With some luck I hope to fly the rest of my life
> with
> this 2400 hour engine and still be able to sell it with a good TBO left on
> the engine.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | Firewall Battery Box... |
Kurt,
Check out the battery holder used on the RV-9. You can find pictures on
Van's website. I made mine (RV-6) very much like this with diagonal 1/8"
angle supporting the bottom of the holder. The upper ends of the diagonal
angles are attached through the upper horizontal firewall stiffener with AN3
bolts.
I hope this helps.
Ken Harrill
RV-6
After a quick search of the archives it seems that I must once again poll
the collective knowledge of the fellow listers....so.... I have a PC-680
batter that I am planning on putting on the firewall of the 6A. I have
build
a box out for the battery that is attached to the firewall by 4 bolts. The
box is stout, supported on the bottom with .125 x 1.5 x 1.5 angle and a
straight piece of .125 alum along the backside. Rest of box is mainly .063
alum with 3/4 x 3/4 x .125 angle. My question is: When attaching the
battery box to the firewall what is the best way to do this. My initial
thought was to align the angle to the stiffeners on the back side of the
firewall to provide support. But this only allows 3 of the 4 bolts to be
attached this way. Im not sure of what size of bolts to use (an A&P friend
suggested #6). I thinking now maybe 4 of the #6 bolts with a .125 spacer
(about 2.5in by 2.5 in) on the rear of the firewall for support. The
battery
and box are about 16 lbs and at 6 gs that is almost 100lbs of force on the
box. Any ideas...?
Kurt in OKC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
Keith said...
"The point is that knowing more ways to fly does not make me a "rude,
hotshot jerk". It makes me an ex-AF pilot that has another trick in my bag.
Yeah, if there is a busy airport, and everyone else is flying a standard
pattern and I come up initial at 180 kts in my RV, I'm probably not
demonstrating a lot of airmanship, but if I'm by myself and the home base,
and there no one around and it's a glorious day.... "Experimental RV-6 TC,
Initial.""
Yeah, I think the point was to just show some courtesy to other people who
might be in the pattern. Even that NORDO cub or champ that's coming in low
and slow. Just cause you can't hear them on the radio doesn't mean they
aren't there. I was one of those NORDO Champs and got chewed out by an
ex-AF pilot for not announcing my position in the pattern. He was visiting
my home airport. We were the only two airplanes in the sky that afternoon,
he thought he was alone, he wasn't. He came in high and hot on a crosswind
entry and made a sweeping turn all the way around onto final. I came in low
and slow on base. Who was right? Neither of us. Big deal. I saw him, got
out of his way and landed right behind him. He couldn't see me even though
I was rocking my wings to beat the band.
That being said, Keith, I agree with you. Nothing wrong with having a
little fun as long as you know it's going to be safe. This is definitely
NOT a flame!
--
Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Administrator
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up! |
Is the 9 slider the same as the 6 slider?
Barry Pote RV9a Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kempthornes" <kempthornes(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: bending tubing |
I haven't looked carefully at an RV6 fuel line arrangement but the RV6a is
***MUCH*** more difficult to plumb to the the gear leg towers.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith Hughes" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down |
Thanks Scott, You just made my point.
The original poster used the words, "rude hotshot jerk" referencing guys
that are flying an overhead. In your example, the other guy wasn't flying
an overhead, just a (sloppy sounding) pattern. An overhead does not make
you a "hotshot jerk".
It's airmanship that matters.
Keith
Also not a flame.
----- Original Message -----
From: Van Artsdalen, Scott <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Slowing down
> He came in high and hot on a crosswind
> entry and made a sweeping turn all the way around onto final. I came in
low
> and slow on base. Who was right? Neither of us. Big deal. I saw him,
got
> out of his way and landed right behind him. He couldn't see me even
though
> I was rocking my wings to beat the band.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down |
There are a lot of good points on both sides of this issue. Personally, I
don't buy that an overhead break is a safer way to land an RV (as some
people have posted). I agree it IS a safer way to land a military jet,but
they have far different needs than we do and they also tend to land at
military, tower controlled fields. Not much chance of a NORDO champ or
Ultralight wandering into your path.
I certainly agree that an overhead is a fun way to land, and if done at a
towered airport or by yourself (hopefully) at an uncontrolled field it's
usually safe. I've also seen hotshots do it at field where others were in a
normal pattern, and that can get ugly real quick.
Just as another data point, birds spend a fair amount of time at 1000agl,
and the likelihood of one not getting out of your way is a lot higher at
180kts vs 80kts. The damage done would be far greater as well, as proven by
some RV pilots already.
Ed Bundy - RV6A N427EM 400+ hours
160hp 0320 w/Sensenich 70x78
Eagle, ID
ebundy(at)velocitus.net
> Keith said...
> "The point is that knowing more ways to fly does not make me a "rude,
> hotshot jerk". It makes me an ex-AF pilot that has another trick in my
bag.
> Yeah, if there is a busy airport, and everyone else is flying a standard
> pattern and I come up initial at 180 kts in my RV, I'm probably not
> demonstrating a lot of airmanship, but if I'm by myself and the home base,
> and there no one around and it's a glorious day.... "Experimental RV-6
TC,
> Initial.""
>
> Yeah, I think the point was to just show some courtesy to other people who
> might be in the pattern. Even that NORDO cub or champ that's coming in
low
> and slow. Just cause you can't hear them on the radio doesn't mean they
> aren't there. I was one of those NORDO Champs and got chewed out by an
> ex-AF pilot for not announcing my position in the pattern. He was
visiting
> my home airport. We were the only two airplanes in the sky that
afternoon,
> he thought he was alone, he wasn't. He came in high and hot on a
crosswind
> entry and made a sweeping turn all the way around onto final. I came in
low
> and slow on base. Who was right? Neither of us. Big deal. I saw him,
got
> out of his way and landed right behind him. He couldn't see me even
though
> I was rocking my wings to beat the band.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/26/01 7:58:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, CW9371(at)aol.com
writes:
>
> either way, I personally know several people who want to buy a flying F1
> and
> there are harmons for sale, but then again there much harder to insure
> then
> a F1.
>
> chris
>
>
>
Chris you should be doing this on the Rocket list, and you make a post try to
be more accurate in what you say or at least know what you are talking about.
The Rocket list banged on you for doing the same thing and now you are doing
on the RV list. When a new builder / pilot that may not up on the Rockets
reads your post they are getting false information. There is only 1 f1 Rocket
flying and there are over 70 Harmon Rockets flying. There is no way you can
compare the f1 Rocket to the Harmon Rockets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/26/2001 3:55:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com writes:
> Chris you should be doing this on the Rocket list, and you make a post try
> to
> be more accurate in what you say or at least know what you are talking
> about.
> The Rocket list banged on you for doing the same thing and now you are
> doing
> on the RV list. When a new builder / pilot that may not up on the Rockets
> reads your post they are getting false information. There is only 1 f1
> Rocket
> flying and there are over 70 Harmon Rockets flying. There is no way you can
> compare the f1 Rocket to the Harmon Rockets.
>
>
Really, i seem to recall you were the one of 3 people who went after me,
all who dont know the facts. think
Fact 1, THere are 2 F1s flying,
Fact 2, THere are not 70 harmons flying, 70 were finished some have been
crashed.
Fact 3, Jimmy Cash turned down 160,000 for his flying F1.
Fact 4, Harmons are easy to sell also, due to demand
Fact 5, Harmons are harder to insure. I know this for a fact since i sell
Avation insurance. F1 is considered by Avemco is same class as RV8. Once
again I know this since I did all the insurance work on the F1 for Team
Rocket and have also had Harmon guys ask me for insurance.
Fact 6, This wasnt a new builder, he was looking for another kit to build
after he finsihed his first one.
Fact 7, I can go on and on with design differences between the two aircraft
but you still wont understand they are comparable, but yet very different.
chris wilcox
f1 rocket builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
----- Original Message -----
From: <KBoatri144(at)aol.com>
> I simply taped the fairings in place a few inches outboard of their final
> position, then transferred the shape of the fuselage to the fairing. I
taped
> a pencil to one end of a spacer, and used the other end of the spacer to
> follow the fuselage contour. The pencil (or was it a Sharpie?) made a
useful
> reference line on the fairing.
> Kyle Boatright - Kennesaw, GA
> RV-6 Slider, O-320/Aymar-Demuth
Somewhere I read that pencils should not be used to mark aluminum in
aircraft (except where it gets cut completely off anyway). The graphite
forms areas of increased corrosion, hence a stress riser. The Sharpie does
not, and the ink can be chemically removed. Lead pencil bad, Sharpie good.
Ed Buck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Insurance-the bigger picture |
In a message dated 6/26/01 2:13:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, CW9371(at)aol.com
writes:
> Fact 5, Harmons are harder to insure. I know this for a fact since i sell
> Avation insurance. F1 is considered by Avemco is same class as RV8. Once
> again I know this since I did all the insurance work on the F1 for Team
> Rocket and have also had Harmon guys ask me for insurance.
>
I think I am starting to understand why Avemco rasied the rates by about 400%
**F1 is considered by Avemco is same class as RV8**
I see the simularity.. they both have wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down |
>
> Keith said...
> "The point is that knowing more ways to fly does not make me a "rude,
> hotshot jerk". It makes me an ex-AF pilot that has another trick in my
bag.
> Yeah, if there is a busy airport, and everyone else is flying a standard
> pattern and I come up initial at 180 kts in my RV, I'm probably not
> demonstrating a lot of airmanship, but if I'm by myself and the home base,
> and there no one around and it's a glorious day.... "Experimental RV-6
TC,
> Initial.""
>
> Yeah, I think the point was to just show some courtesy to other people who
> might be in the pattern. Even that NORDO cub or champ that's coming in
low
> and slow.
The NORDO Cub is exactly the reason to do an overhead in a blind airplane,
unless you are turning you can fly right up the tail pipe of anything
including a King Air and never ever see if you are in a turn the only
airplane you can't see is one on the slightly wider arc than you are on.
The chances of that are
The overhead 360 has a place and should be used by those airplanes that
require that type of flying. (RV's are probably not in this group. Pitts's
and Stearman's are) It should be practiced (simulated) dead stick by
everyone so when the fire goes out you make the airport, not the ditch that
is 100 yds short of the runway.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
dougr(at)petroblend.com
www.petroblend.com/dougr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down: entering the break for a landing |
| From: | james freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
on 6/26/01 12:36 PM, Johnny Johnson at Johnny(at)wiktel.com wrote:
> ust ask for an overhead approach, or at an uncontrolled airfield announce
> same and commence what amounts to a straight-in approach at pattern
> altitude. You can maintain speed almost to the runway, then start to ease
> the power back, fly right down the runway centerline, start your turn
> downwind a ways down the runway by easing into a 2-1/2 to 3 g turn. By the
> time you're downwind and passing abeam the numbers, you'll be at/arriving at
> flap speed. You can turn downwind sooner if you can sneak a little climb in
> there during the turn; you for sure don't want to be high and trying to get
> down to pattern altitude during the turn or it won't work out very
> well--better to dive a bit before getting to the runway and deal with the
> speed later. Some folks like a bit of stabilized downwind leg, just start
> your downwind turn later; some folks like to be quite wide, just use less g
> (3 g's results in a pretty tight pattern in my -3); maybe you're faster than
> the speed of heat, just start the turn later and pull more g. A very
> flexible and expeditious pattern--the military uses it for good reason.
The overhead approach works well in RVs for reasons already mentioned, but
is potentially unsafe in most general aviation planes because of poor
visibility to the inside of a steep turn. Be very careful that you don't
encourage someone in a c150 to imitate your overhead break, lest he run over
somebody on the "normal" downwind because he can't see through the high
wing.
That said, in bubble canopy airplanes the overhead approach is fun, more
efficient, and probably safer except for the possibility of confusing
others. If properly executed, you can always make the runway, even if the
engine quits during the pattern. This is not true with the wide "standard"
pattern most GA pilots fly.
There are several warbirds based at my home field and they invariably fly
overhead approaches, but they are careful to carry copies of an FAA advisory
circular discussing overhead approaches and the appropriate flight manuals
which prescribe overhead approaches for these round-engined taildraggers
(which glide like well shaped bricks and are blind to the front on landing).
It's not uncommon for the Fun Police (you know--the People with Too Much
Time on Their Hands) ar the occasional underinformed Fed to try and get them
violated for "aerobatics in the pattern" etc.
Mike, do you think it would be worthwhile to describe overhead approaches in
our flight manuals like some of the old military manuals? As I understand
it, reference to these flight manuals has prevented violations for some of
these pilots at uncontrolled fields.
James Freeman
RV8Q ordering finish kit (finally)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
But in this case... it was a rude hotshot jerk! You know how those AF types
can be. :-) :-)
--
Scott (don't forget to look at the smileys) VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Administrator
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Hughes [mailto:rv6tc(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:42 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slowing down
Thanks Scott, You just made my point.
The original poster used the words, "rude hotshot jerk"
referencing guys
that are flying an overhead. In your example, the other guy
wasn't flying
an overhead, just a (sloppy sounding) pattern. An overhead
does not make
you a "hotshot jerk".
It's airmanship that matters.
Keith
Also not a flame.
----- Original Message -----
From: Van Artsdalen, Scott <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Slowing down
> He came in high and hot on a crosswind
> entry and made a sweeping turn all the way around onto
final. I came in
low
> and slow on base. Who was right? Neither of us. Big
deal. I saw him,
got
> out of his way and landed right behind him. He couldn't
see me even
though
> I was rocking my wings to beat the band.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
Ah! You've obviously been to Oakdale Muni!
--
Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Administrator
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
It should be practiced (simulated) dead stick by
everyone so when the fire goes out you make the airport,
not the ditch that
is 100 yds short of the runway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
CW9371(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 6/26/2001 3:55:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
> MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com writes:
>
> > Chris you should be doing this on the Rocket list, and you make a post try
> > to
> > be more accurate in what you say or at least know what you are talking
> > about.
> > The Rocket list banged on you for doing the same thing and now you are
> > doing
> > on the RV list. When a new builder / pilot that may not up on the Rockets
> > reads your post they are getting false information. There is only 1 f1
> > Rocket
> > flying and there are over 70 Harmon Rockets flying. There is no way you can
> > compare the f1 Rocket to the Harmon Rockets.
> >
> >
>
> Really, i seem to recall you were the one of 3 people who went after me,
> all who dont know the facts. think
> Fact 1, THere are 2 F1s flying,
> Fact 2, THere are not 70 harmons flying, 70 were finished some have been
> crashed.
> Fact 3, Jimmy Cash turned down 160,000 for his flying F1.
> Fact 4, Harmons are easy to sell also, due to demand
> Fact 5, Harmons are harder to insure. I know this for a fact since i sell
> Avation insurance. F1 is considered by Avemco is same class as RV8. Once
> again I know this since I did all the insurance work on the F1 for Team
> Rocket and have also had Harmon guys ask me for insurance.
> Fact 6, This wasnt a new builder, he was looking for another kit to build
> after he finsihed his first one.
> Fact 7, I can go on and on with design differences between the two aircraft
> but you still wont understand they are comparable, but yet very different.
>
> chris wilcox
> f1 rocket builder
>
Is Marks insured as a Harmon Rocket or a f1? Also could you explain why it
is that a f1 is easier to insure than a HR?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | old ogre <jollyd(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
pardon the dumb question...but...why not make a fiberglass fairing for the
root?..it's done with the tail group..why not the wing root?...see dumb
question
RV8A..contemplating wing install, and paint.
ebuck wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <KBoatri144(at)aol.com>
> > I simply taped the fairings in place a few inches outboard of their final
> > position, then transferred the shape of the fuselage to the fairing. I
> taped
> > a pencil to one end of a spacer, and used the other end of the spacer to
> > follow the fuselage contour. The pencil (or was it a Sharpie?) made a
> useful
> > reference line on the fairing.
> > Kyle Boatright - Kennesaw, GA
> > RV-6 Slider, O-320/Aymar-Demuth
> Somewhere I read that pencils should not be used to mark aluminum in
> aircraft (except where it gets cut completely off anyway). The graphite
> forms areas of increased corrosion, hence a stress riser. The Sharpie does
> not, and the ink can be chemically removed. Lead pencil bad, Sharpie good.
> Ed Buck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slowing Down |
Good questions Are B. I have not tried to gather any scientific data, but
intuitively and from flying an 0-320
cs prop 4, I believe the fact that the airplane has so much less drag than
a Cessna makes descent planning vs. engine cooling more of an issue. As
others have indicated it takes only minor descent rates to increase speed
and therefore cooling flow significantly. So, if you need to get down
quickly you are forced to make substantial power reductions to keep the
speed below redline. This is not hard to get used to, it just means
starting down earlier than in a typical production airplane. You will learn
to love starting down from 10,000 plus levels 50 miles from your
destination. The constant speed prop provides some additional flexibility
in managing drag and engine loading. When flying formation if a constant
speed ship is leading others with fixed pitch props, the leader must
remember not to make big power reductions in combination with steeper
descent angles as his wing men will be unable to stay with him. It is an
interesting comparison.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Are Barstad" <abarstad(at)sympatico.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: RE: Slowing Down
>
> Alright, I shouldn't put my nose into this since I have no RV experience
as PIC. My intent is not to tell anyone how it works. I'm rather asking how
it works. Here's why:
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: story on RV6 accident |
An elderly Mandeville man died Monday morning when the one-seater airplane he
was piloting crashed in a wooded area just north of the Hammond Municipal
Airport.
Officials notified the pilot's next of kin Monday afternoon. This morning,
after verifying dental records, the pilot was identified as Charles Mottier
Jr., 77, 771 Bo Cage Lane, No. 3, said Tangipahoa Parish sheriff's
spokeswoman Patti Giannoble.
Emergency agencies received the call about the crash just before 11 a.m. The
wooded area was so thick that a plumb of black smoke was the only indication
of where the airplane was located, said Hammond Fire Chief Paul Collura.
Hammond and Natalbany firefighters located the small plane several minutes
later about 200 yards in the dense woods, 47037 Conrad Anderson Drive. Using
water cans and dry chemical fire extinguishers, firefighters put out the fire
and then discovered the pilot's burned body.
Officials with State Police Troop L, Hammond Police Department, Tangipahoa
Parish Sheriff's Department, Acadian Ambulance and the 7th Ward Marshal's
Office responded to the emergency. Dozers from the state forestry department
and the city of Hammond were used to make a path to the charred airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration agents arrived about 3:30 p.m. to investigate
the scene.
Witnesses told officials they first saw the pilot land the RV-6 experimental
plane early Monday in a cleared field, Giannoble said. The pilot walked to
the airport's office about 10 a.m. and told the assistant director he was
having fuel line problems.
The pilot then got into his truck and drove to Hammond City Hall to find out
who owned the field in an effort to get the field's gate unlocked, said Tanya
Hernandez, airport assistant director. Before Hernandez could report the
airplane's first emergency landing, the pilot had driven back to his plane
and attempted to take off again.
"I saw him get out that first time and walk around the plane," said nearby
Party Universe warehouse worker Curtis Savoie.
Less than an hour later, BSP worker Gabriel Gonzalez said he saw the pilot
use the cleared field as a runway and take off.
"It went up, went to the left and then was no more," he said.
Gonzalez's supervisor, Roy Davis, said he heard the low-wing airplane's
engine cut off and then saw the propeller quit. The plane went beyond his
vision, and then he saw the smoke.
The plane topped three trees as he crashed almost nose first into the woods.
Davis called 911 and was one of the first people at the scene.
"It was bad," he said.
The RV-6 Experimental plane is a do-it-your-own airplane kit, said Airport
Authority board member Sonny Yokum. The last fatal crash at the Hammond
airport was in the early '70s when a plane went down as it was approaching
the airport. The pilot and a passenger were killed in that crash.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brian wallis" <brianpwallis(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-8 kit for sale |
post message
Hello, The RV-8 kit is still for sale; marriage and college dues draw
landing lights already installed)..(gas tanks already done!) FUSELAGE NEW IN
BOX. Extra tail just started available with kit as package deal. Please tell
your friends.. Aircraft kit located in NY. 20 min North of Syracuse.. Local
Mailboxes ETC will package and mail anywhere.
315-775-7913 home
315-772-4109 work
315-486-3117 cell
brianpwallis(at)hotmail.com
brianpwallis(at)aol.com
Thank you for your time.
Brian Wallis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owens, Laird" <Owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | Overhead Approach |
Hi all,
Like Rick, I use the overhead approach all the time at my home controlled field,
even though the usual approach is straight in from the direction most people
are coming. On initial call up I request an overhead approach. I've never had
them deny it. I've even had the say "Nice overhead 15L".
I like it for a couple of reasons.
1. It keeps the speed up until you in the pattern and incase of an engine failure,
you've got airspeed. I just hate dragging it in 3 miles out. You'd never
make the field if the motor gave up.
2. It gives you better situational awareness of the aircraft in the pattern.
3. It makes for better landings because your doing the same thing every time. Expecting
the same throttle position, airspeed, and flap settings every time.
4. It's good practice for when I'm flying formation, as that's the standard entry.
5. It was a good way to bleed airspeed when I had a fixed pitch prop.
6. It looks cool (Ok, that's not a valid reason, but I've got a lot of nice comments
about it and it's probably not as impressive with a C-150).
I don't think I'm am an inconsiderate pilot for wanting to do an approved entry
to the pattern.
Give it a try and learn something new. You may like the results.
Laird
RV-6 SoCal 275 hrs
From: rv-list(at)matronics.com on Tue, Jun 26, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: RV-List: Overhead Approach
I regularly fly an overhead approach as a flight of 3 in class D airspace.
The tower assigns us an altitude (1,000 or 1,500 ft), spacing, runway and
break direction to avoid traffic conflict, in addition to us listening &
Lead looking for the traffic. Never had an incident to make me believe this
is compromising safety. I'm sure the tower likes it, not (only) for the
show, but to get us out of the pattern quickly.
Now, untowered fields require digilent planning, looking and communications
on the part of the Lead. But the result is a Flight landing quickly, which
decreases the time available in the traffic pattern for conflict to happen
than if we all flew in separately with the normal pattern.
Rick Caldwell
-6 Melbourne, FL
>If we take the advice of some of the people on this list and fly
>downwind over the runway,do a 3G 180 turn to bleed speed we will not win
>many friends among FBO's and fellow pilots.We will be correctly labled
>as a bunch of rude hotshot jerks.A low time pilot could lesson the
>chance ot seeing his grandchildren grow up.
>
>Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up! |
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
06/27/2001 08:02:36 AM
Todd came by my hangar saturday for that purpose. It is in the works.
Eric
Don Winters (at)matronics.com on 06/26/2001 01:01:45 PM
Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: RE: RV-List: Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up!
I would like to order a -6 canopy from 1/4" tinted. If there is enough
interest here, maybe we can convince Todd to make a -6 canopy.
Don Winters
dtw_rv6(at)yahoo.com
(getting ready to proseal fuel tanks)
-----Original Message-----
From: czechsix(at)juno.com [mailto:czechsix(at)juno.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:22 PM
todd_rudberg(at)yahoo.com; czechsix(at)juno.com; menavrat(at)collins.rockwell.com
Subject: RV-List: Todd's Canopies---RV-8/8A builders listen up!
Ok guys,
I asked Todd Silver at Todd's Canopies about a group discount on -8/8A
canopies. Here is his reply:
"If I get to sell 4 at a time, I'll take $100 off the listed
price. For 6 at a time I'll take $125 off the price. This discount
applies to
the tint and clear that I have now. I will have to have a bunch of orders
for
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
06/27/2001 08:18:49 AM
If F-1's are cheaper to insure than rockets, then why aren't quickbuilds
much cheaper to insure than a slow build kit? Scott (Sky) Smith told me
there was not any difference in rates. Seems like one of those quirky
Avemco rules.
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Slowing Down |
I agree with Mr. Willig. In April 2000 this 65 hour new private pilot
started transition training in my new (purchased) RV-4. All previous time
was in a C-152. First time I took off with my instructor he left me alone.
I ended up probably 500 ft above pattern alt at 140 mph. Hmmm. . not your
fathers cessna. With that said, it didn't take me much more than 5 or 6
hours to adjust. You just have to think more ahead of the plane. (i.e. it
makes you a better pilot) My RV-4 with fixed pitch prop is arguably the
hardest RV to slow down and it is not really a problem. I usually plan my
decent at 180 mph. 3 miles a minute, 500 ft per minute = 6 miles per 1000
ft. Its not rocket science. Also, I like to fly high, 8 to 10 thousand
feet (ok, high for us flatlander easterners) and even in busy areas around
new york and boston have not had a problem getting a descent I like. Lets
face it in any areas other than class B, we're going to be down below 5000
feet before we enter the C or D airspace anyway. That go down while slowing
down arguement is pretty old.
Just my .02
Regards,
Don Mei
N92CT RV-4
3B9 - Chester, CT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/27/2001 7:37:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com writes:
> If F-1's are cheaper to insure than rockets, then why aren't quickbuilds
> much cheaper to insure than a slow build kit? Scott (Sky) Smith told me
> there was not any difference in rates. Seems like one of those quirky
> Avemco rules.
>
> Eric
Also the IAA program is no longer insuring Harmon rockets, As they have had
to many claims on Harmon Rockets, Its not the a fact about a quickbuild
being cheaper to insure then a slow build, its about the fact that the F1 is
different in some aspects to the Harmon. The landing gear is a major one and
so is the fact that is not as nose heavy as the Harmon. These 2 things make
the F1 less like to have claims, Also by them being different aircraft you
look at is this way. No F1 claims yet, granted only 2 flying, however out
of 55 or 58 harmons flying last year there were 5 major claims. Granted one
claim was the result of a tornado, but when you look at what was paid out in
claims, its hard to show a profit for the company even if there were 200
Harmons flying.
One other thing about the qb to the slowbuild, thats not a problem, but in
somecases companies are walking away from the aircraft that are a combination
of kits, The harmon hasnt had this problem yet, since there are so many
flying, but I know for a fact that the gentleman who owns the Super 6, The
streched RV 6 with a 540 on it had problems getting insurance.
Also one other thing with the insurance market, A few years ago there were
11 companies righting aviation insurance now there are 7 I beleive and tsome
of those are owned by the same parent company. However there are some
companies looking at getting into the avation insurance market which would be
a godsend.
chris wilcox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
I just read Scotts post where he said:
If I pulled into a 3-G turn, I would have a brand new ex-wife!
I just have to brag for a minute or two. I've been dating a woman since
December and always thought she was great. She even tolerated my obsession
with flying. Recently we were on our way to a friends house north of Boston
and she said over the intercom "I'm bored, do some tricks". With that I
departed to a nearby officially FAA blessed, legal aerobatic area. Put on
our parachutes ;-) and performed some mediocre but safe rolls and what I
call extreme lazy 8s. When I asked her how it was, she told me that the
rolls were ok but she wanted some more Gs. Could I do some really steep
turns. I was happy to oblige. I'm in love, and no she doesn't have a
sister.
Finally, to honor departure of a particular list member and all this new
found civility on the list, I think we should name ourselves after some kind
of metal working tool. Just a thought.
Don "SQUEEZER" Mei
RV-4 N92CT
3B9 - Chester, CT
all events described herein were for recreational purposes only. any infered
superiority of nosewheel or tailwheel aircraft was purely coincidental.
listing of an RV-4 in above post was not an endorsement of said aircraft or
its superiority over RV - 3,5,6,6a,7,7a,8,8a,9,9a.
no clecos were harmed in the making of this post.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com> |
| Subject: | Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
Don,
That will all change... My wife of 15+ years (3 year courtship first)
used to go hang-gliding with me every weekend, she even started hang-gliding
herself for a few years, now I can't even get her to get in a plane.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Mei <don_mei(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend.
>
> I just read Scotts post where he said:
>
> If I pulled into a 3-G turn, I would have a brand new ex-wife!
>
> I just have to brag for a minute or two. I've been dating a woman since
> December and always thought she was great. She even tolerated my
obsession
> with flying. Recently we were on our way to a friends house north of
Boston
> and she said over the intercom "I'm bored, do some tricks". With that I
> departed to a nearby officially FAA blessed, legal aerobatic area. Put on
> our parachutes ;-) and performed some mediocre but safe rolls and what I
> call extreme lazy 8s. When I asked her how it was, she told me that the
> rolls were ok but she wanted some more Gs. Could I do some really steep
> turns. I was happy to oblige. I'm in love, and no she doesn't have a
> sister.
>
> Finally, to honor departure of a particular list member and all this new
> found civility on the list, I think we should name ourselves after some
kind
> of metal working tool. Just a thought.
>
> Don "SQUEEZER" Mei
> RV-4 N92CT
> 3B9 - Chester, CT
>
> all events described herein were for recreational purposes only. any
infered
> superiority of nosewheel or tailwheel aircraft was purely coincidental.
> listing of an RV-4 in above post was not an endorsement of said aircraft
or
> its superiority over RV - 3,5,6,6a,7,7a,8,8a,9,9a.
>
> no clecos were harmed in the making of this post.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clifford Begnaud" <shoeless(at)barefootpilot.com> |
| Subject: | Re: losing a girlfriend. |
Amazing how that happens. I got lucky this time around, two years ago my
wife said she wanted a Kitfox for her birthday, (yup, she's a pilot) you
better believe that she got one!
Now she's happily helping me build a Rv9a, and looking forward to flying it
as much as I am. I wasn't so lucky with all the other wives I've had.
Otherwise I guess I would have kept them. ;-)
Cliff
PS. she's a real prize, when we got married she said she wanted to go fly
fishing in Canada for her honeymoon, it just don't get no better than that.
> Don,
>
> That will all change... My wife of 15+ years (3 year courtship
first)
> used to go hang-gliding with me every weekend, she even started
hang-gliding
> herself for a few years, now I can't even get her to get in a plane.
>
> Chuck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck" <chuck(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
Amen, Chuck. I'm divorcing mine right now. Started my RV9A a year and a
month ago, and she won't come out to the hanger and help me buck one
stinkin' rivet. She's outta there! My new motto is gonna be, Ya gotta buck
if ya wanna ... Know what I mean Vern?
Chuck Weyant
> Don,
>
> That will all change... My wife of 15+ years (3 year courtship
first)
> used to go hang-gliding with me every weekend, she even started
hang-gliding
> herself for a few years, now I can't even get her to get in a plane.
>
> Chuck
>
> > I just read Scotts post where he said:
> >
> > If I pulled into a 3-G turn, I would have a brand new ex-wife!
> >
> > I just have to brag for a minute or two. I've been dating a woman since
> > December and always thought she was great. She even tolerated my
> obsession
> > with flying. Recently we were on our way to a friends house north of
> Boston
> > and she said over the intercom "I'm bored, do some tricks". With that I
> > departed to a nearby officially FAA blessed, legal aerobatic area. Put
on
> > our parachutes ;-) and performed some mediocre but safe rolls and what I
> > call extreme lazy 8s. When I asked her how it was, she told me that the
> > rolls were ok but she wanted some more Gs. Could I do some really steep
> > turns. I was happy to oblige. I'm in love, and no she doesn't have a
> > sister.
> >
> > Finally, to honor departure of a particular list member and all this new
> > found civility on the list, I think we should name ourselves after some
> kind
> > of metal working tool. Just a thought.
> >
> > Don "SQUEEZER" Mei
> > RV-4 N92CT
> > 3B9 - Chester, CT
> >
> > all events described herein were for recreational purposes only. any
> infered
> > superiority of nosewheel or tailwheel aircraft was purely coincidental.
> > listing of an RV-4 in above post was not an endorsement of said aircraft
> or
> > its superiority over RV - 3,5,6,6a,7,7a,8,8a,9,9a.
> >
> > no clecos were harmed in the making of this post.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AV8TURDON(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
Now you have kids. Right??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <tomvelvick(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: losing a girlfriend. |
>
>PS. she's a real prize, when we got married she said she wanted to go fly
>fishing in Canada for her honeymoon, it just don't get no better than that.
This sounds like an urban legend to me.
Regards,
Tom Velvick
N9233A rv-4
N188KJ reserved wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Im7shannon(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RMI uMonitor oil pressure |
On startup I am getting maxed out oil pressure readings from my RMI Monitor,
then they drop to normal readings after warmup. I have looked in the archives
and found nothing. Has anyone else noticed this? I am thinking it is just air
in the line running uphill from my accessory case to the transducer manifold,
but also thinking it may be an inop or sticking oil pressure relief valve.
But on the other hand, it's just a ball and a spring, how could it "stick"?
Also, I can not get the display to read OAT permanently in place of MP. I
have run through the special programming sequence several times.
Your thoughts ??
Kevin -9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Duckett <perfeng(at)3rivers.net> |
Guess I'll throw my 3.33 Cents in (adjusted for inflation and tax).
First a lot of good things posted here about tubing and bending.
IMHO if your going to bend tube, get a good quality bender that is
degreed. We use Blue Point TBS-200 availible through Snap-On Tools.
Whether your bending 1/8" or 1" EMT conduit the goal is the
same...smooth mandel type bends. Most if not all "degreed benders" give
you an offset to figure the center of your radius for the dia. tube your
bending. Just like sheet metal, the minimum bend radius is dependant on
the size and wall of the tube. We always put a 360 loop in long runs to
absorb vibration and hydralic shock as well as one at each connection
end thats in a confined space to ease assembly/disassembly.
The main thing is go slow. Make a bend, check for fit, make the next
bend and so on. If you have a lot of "dog legs" in a short area try
making them as a unit and coupling them to the straighter runs.
Sure you'll have another place that might leak and yea, there's the cost
of the fittings but, trying to snake everything through what will always
be an impossible access point, it's worth it.
Jim Duckett
Back Van's soon for more 7 stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
The curved fiberglass wing root fairing (at least for the -6) increases
the frontal flat plane area of the aircraft and slows top speed by a few
mph. Since the wings and fuselage meet at a 90 degree angle, their is
no need for anything other than the grooved rubber strip from the flat
metal wing fairing to the fuselage. Many airspeed tests done by Tracy
Saylor, Dave Anders and others have proven this beyond doubt. Sam James
says the fiberglass fairings have made stalling gentler and perhaps a
little slower and increased the top speed of his -4 by a few mph--but,
then again, he is selling them. So, I sold my fiberglass fairings to a
friend building a -4. I'm sticking with the stock flat metal strip and
the grooved rubber "gasket' or "liner".
Boyd Braem
RV-Super6
old ogre wrote:
>
>
> pardon the dumb question...but...why not make a fiberglass fairing for the
> root?..it's done with the tail group..why not the wing root?...see dumb
> question
> RV8A..contemplating wing install, and paint.
>
> ebuck wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <KBoatri144(at)aol.com>
> > > I simply taped the fairings in place a few inches outboard of their final
> > > position, then transferred the shape of the fuselage to the fairing. I
> > taped
> > > a pencil to one end of a spacer, and used the other end of the spacer to
> > > follow the fuselage contour. The pencil (or was it a Sharpie?) made a
> > useful
> > > reference line on the fairing.
> > > Kyle Boatright - Kennesaw, GA
> > > RV-6 Slider, O-320/Aymar-Demuth
> > Somewhere I read that pencils should not be used to mark aluminum in
> > aircraft (except where it gets cut completely off anyway). The graphite
> > forms areas of increased corrosion, hence a stress riser. The Sharpie does
> > not, and the ink can be chemically removed. Lead pencil bad, Sharpie good.
> > Ed Buck
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Schlosser" <kevinschlosser(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
A friend of mine in the club is on his second homebuilt. He's building a Glastar,
but he's still ok :-). About 3 years ago he had the fuselage in his kitchen
with the nose sticking out the sliding door. He went to move the microwave
because it was in his way and the wife had her fill of this. She told him to
pick her or the plane. Wrong thing to say to Ed.
He's installing the upholstery in his Glastar now with no wife to bother
him :-0!
-< PropellerHead >-
Preview Plans
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend.
Amen, Chuck. I'm divorcing mine right now. Started my RV9A a year and a
month ago, and she won't come out to the hanger and help me buck one
stinkin' rivet. She's outta there! My new motto is gonna be, Ya gotta buck
if ya wanna ... Know what I mean Vern?
Chuck Weyant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Schlosser" <kevinschlosser(at)msn.com> |
Had a long debate with the rivet smashers in my model airplane club over
dinner. Some of them are mechanics, and one of them restores warbirds for some
rich doctor. There were 2 sides to the argument on how to pronounce the word
Cleco.
1) 'Cleeeko' 2) 'Kleckoe'
So: What is it? :-)
-< PropellerHead >-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill VonDane <bvondane(at)cso.atmel.com> |
| Subject: | Van's Map Box... |
Hi All...
Anyone have any thoughts on an alternate location for Van's pre-punched map
box in an RV-8(A)? You just can't do much with that panel with that box in
there...
-Bill VonDane
Colorado Springs, CO
RV-8A - N8VD
http://vondane.com/rv8a/
mailto:bill(at)vondane.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
It seems to me if there is only one or two F1's flying, the insurance
company hasn't formed an opinion either way. Of the 7 companies you say are
writing policies, only two of them have ever heard of an F1, and I would
assume they treat it like the one off, special built aircraft it is. I
don't think that puts it in the same reliability or dependability league as
say an RV-4, or even a harmon rocket. I'm still building and haven't had to
look into insurance yet, but if the companies are not treating the F1's with
kid gloves, then they are every bit as out of touch as their reputations
reflect. Geeze, two of them flying.....how in the world could an insurance
company form an opinion on that? Being one off's I doubt they have a ton
of hours on them either. So, I guess when there were 13 RV-8's flying and
the factory plane snapped a spar the insurance companies raised RV-8 rates?
Insurance companies......well, they suck. :-)
Bill
-4 wings
----- Original Message -----
From: <CW9371(at)aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: next kit choice
>
> In a message dated 6/27/2001 7:37:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
> Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com writes:
>
>
> > If F-1's are cheaper to insure than rockets, then why aren't quickbuilds
> > much cheaper to insure than a slow build kit? Scott (Sky) Smith told me
> > there was not any difference in rates. Seems like one of those quirky
> > Avemco rules.
> >
> > Eric
>
> Also the IAA program is no longer insuring Harmon rockets, As they have
had
> to many claims on Harmon Rockets, Its not the a fact about a quickbuild
> being cheaper to insure then a slow build, its about the fact that the F1
is
> different in some aspects to the Harmon. The landing gear is a major one
and
> so is the fact that is not as nose heavy as the Harmon. These 2 things
make
> the F1 less like to have claims, Also by them being different aircraft
you
> look at is this way. No F1 claims yet, granted only 2 flying, however
out
> of 55 or 58 harmons flying last year there were 5 major claims. Granted
one
> claim was the result of a tornado, but when you look at what was paid out
in
> claims, its hard to show a profit for the company even if there were 200
> Harmons flying.
> One other thing about the qb to the slowbuild, thats not a problem, but
in
> somecases companies are walking away from the aircraft that are a
combination
> of kits, The harmon hasnt had this problem yet, since there are so many
> flying, but I know for a fact that the gentleman who owns the Super 6,
The
> streched RV 6 with a 540 on it had problems getting insurance.
> Also one other thing with the insurance market, A few years ago there
were
> 11 companies righting aviation insurance now there are 7 I beleive and
tsome
> of those are owned by the same parent company. However there are some
> companies looking at getting into the avation insurance market which would
be
> a godsend.
>
> chris wilcox
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slowing down--overhead approach |
I'm afraid I would likely have responded with something like this:
"Aircraft 3 miles west of field, Negative on your last, the pattern is busy
with other aircraft who have been waiting their turn. Unless you are
declaring an emergency, please fly a holding pattern until there is room for
you to approach, or find a less intrusive way to enter the pattern. Thank
you very much for your participation in the PUBLIC airport you are
approaching. Your personal runway my differ considerably....but then you
are not landing there at the moment."
I can't help it though...I'm a smart ass. :-)
Bill
> Like any other "non standard" procedure good judgment is the key. An
> example of "marginal judgment" that I witnessed recently was at Lansing
> Airport here in IL. The patter was busy with about 3 planes, there were 4
> of us lined up to depart and there were helicopter operations taking
place.
> Suddenly over the freq. we hear Nxxxx, 3 miles west, flight of three, mid
> field break......give us room!
>
> "What the hell is this all about?" I ask, my buddy who is waiting to take
> off in front of me. Sure enough, these three cowboys come barreling on in
> (2 Cessna's and a Navion) and do their thing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Slowing down & Landing Short |
You come in on the crosswind around 220-230mph, Break left pulling 4 Gs
slowing down to 100mph on or about left base doing the race track approach to
the run way and landing in 500-600 ft squeaking it on 1 wheel with a 14 knot
direct cross wind all while listening to country music, just a typical week
end in the San Joaquin Valley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Miller <rmiller3(at)earthlink.net> |
Dear Fred..
A generous offer.
I am a student pilot... training at Taunton, Mass.
Flying 152's. Have long been studying various designs to build with my son...
who is
also doing flight training. Have considered the 6A and more recently the 7A and
9A.
Family wants four seats.. this pointed us toward CH 640... but I have problems
with the
design. Now likely to wait for the RVxx four seat design that Van's tells me is
in
development. Would like to be working on it now, but I am going to try to have
patience
for a bit and see if development of that kit continues to remain on schedule.
If you find yourself at any of Taunton, Newport (Rhode Island), North Central
(Rhode
Island), Mansfield (Mass), New Bedford or Norton, Mass. Any of these are reasonably
convenient. At the least, would be an opportunity to see an RV up close.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Bob
rmiller3(at)earthlink.net
"Stucklen, Frederic IFC" wrote:
>
> Northeast Listers,
>
> I'm on vacation 6/30 - 7/8 and plan on flying around the Northeast. If
> anybody is interested in a ride in an RV-6A, email me at the address's
> below.
> Sat/Sun, 6/30-7/1, I'll be in Oswego, NY, giving a few rides to some
> friends, and enjoying the EAA Chapter breakfast on Sunday Morning. Other
> locations during the week will be Beverly Mass, and CHatham Mass......
> Depending on the wind, I let those who have pilot certificates, sit in the
> left seat.....
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N925RV (1730 hrs/7.75 Yrs)
> E. Windsor, CT 06088
> WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
> Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVPilot4(at)webtv.net (BOBE.) |
A friend drilled 5 ----3/8" holes one half inch apart in the bottom of
his exhaust pipes and bent the metal between the holes so the exhaust
would deflect down.He claims this dissipates the sound and makes it
less noisey.Is this possible?Perhaps someone who knows more about this
can tell me.I have a Vetterman 4 pipe system on my RV4 and its pretty
loud.
Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry & Karen Gooding <GOODING(at)hargray.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
Chuck,
It's because yer puttin the tailwheel on the wrong end, man. The chick is
embarrassed for yez.
Karen Gooding
PA-17, J-3
"The Bucking Bar Queen"
>I'm divorcing mine right now. Started my RV9A a year and a
>month ago, and she won't come out to the hanger and help me buck one
>stinkin' rivet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
I do too and would be interested in any answers you get to this question.
--
Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Administrator
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
-----Original Message-----
From: RVPilot4(at)webtv.net [mailto:RVPilot4(at)webtv.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:23 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: exaust noise
A friend drilled 5 ----3/8" holes one half inch apart in the
bottom of
his exhaust pipes and bent the metal between the holes so
the exhaust
would deflect down.He claims this dissipates the sound and
makes it
less noisey.Is this possible?Perhaps someone who knows more
about this
can tell me.I have a Vetterman 4 pipe system on my RV4 and
its pretty
loud.
Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: exaust noise |
In a message dated 6/27/01 3:41:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
svanarts(at)unionsafe.com writes:
> I do too and would be interested in any answers you get to this question.
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
> Network Administrator
> Union Safe Deposit Bank
> 209-946-5116
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RVPilot4(at)webtv.net [mailto:RVPilot4(at)webtv.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: exaust noise
>
>
> A friend drilled 5 ----3/8" holes one half inch apart in the
> bottom of
> his exhaust pipes and bent the metal between the holes so
> the exhaust
> would deflect down.He claims this dissipates the sound and
> makes it
> less noisey.Is this possible?Perhaps someone who knows more
> about this
> can tell me.I have a Vetterman 4 pipe system on my RV4 and
> its pretty
> loud.
>
> Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
OK guys, her`es what works for me. I`ve got larrys four
pipe system too. I converted my headsets to ANR using kits from Headsets
Inc. In Texas. You have to try them out to believe them.
Fred LaForge RV-4 180 CS 200 hrs. EAA tech counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/27/2001 3:29:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
billshook(at)earthlink.net writes:
> It seems to me if there is only one or two F1's flying, the insurance
> company hasn't formed an opinion either way. Of the 7 companies you say are
> writing policies, only two of them have ever heard of an F1, and I would
> assume they treat it like the one off, special built aircraft it is. I
> don't think that puts it in the same reliability or dependability league as
> say an RV-4, or even a harmon rocket. I'm still building and haven't had to
> look into insurance yet, but if the companies are not treating the F1's with
> kid gloves, then they are every bit as out of touch as their reputations
> reflect. Geeze, two of them flying.....how in the world could an insurance
> company form an opinion on that? Being one off's I doubt they have a ton
> of hours on them either. So, I guess when there were 13 RV-8's flying and
> the factory plane snapped a spar the insurance companies raised RV-8 rates?
>
> Insurance companies......well, they suck. :-)
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
wow thats amazing, only 2 have heard of a f1, nope sorry not true, every
company that writes experimentals has heard of it casue i have talked to the
underwriters. But then again the person your dealing with may not have heard
of the F1. I guess you don't understand risk management or underwriting in
general. Anyways, if you show the simularities and difference and stress
tests etc etc to an underwriting they can place a new aircraft where they
beleive it will fit. However that can be adjusted when real loss ratios come
into play. Right now the F1 gets the benefit of the doubt, it has a perfect
record, 1 day that will change, and damn i hope i am not the one who
changes that stat., Anyways, actually as far as i know there has never been
any true engingring and stess testing and cad work done on the harmon, I do
know that the harmon has had more then 1 claim for every 10 flying. I am not
sure of true numbers, but there were 5 harmons that were totals last year i
bleieve. Even Mark harmon has been damaged. I heard of 1 guy who has
totaled 2 harmons, not sure if this is true or not though, its a rumor,
How is the F1 a one off, if the flying F1 is a one off so are the RV9s and
RV7s casue u can take any f1 wing and mount it to any f1 fueslage, there all
the same parts. So there are 60 f1 kits delieved in less then 3 years, not
to shabby,
No 1 accident does casue a company to raise rates, but they do look at
everything and see if its needed. If another RV8 braeks a spar, i bet they
will though.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kempthornes" <kempthornes(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aerobatics/Gyros |
IFR brand, eh? 430 hours is a long life for any gyro in any airplane I
suspect.
Hal Kempthorne
RV6a N7HK (Valentine) FLYING
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
>
> In a message dated 6/24/01 7:32:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
larywil(at)home.com
> writes:
>
> << >So, in my experience, it seems you can get a couple of years from
> >non-cageable gyros, with only occasional aerobatics, but they won't last
> >much beyond that. I now wish I had made a removable gyro panel with
> >quick-connects for the hose connections. Oh well, live and learn.
> >
> >Brian Denk >>
>
> Well I do light acro virtually every time I go up (3 yrs and 430 hrs) and
my
> always running IFR brand vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyros
> still perform as new. No problemo. Don't worry, be happy and go fly your
> birds however you like. If the gyros go, Grasshopper, it will be their
time
> to leave.
>
> -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> vanremog(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: exaust noise |
As the neighbors to the airport were complaining about my Mazda rotary
powered RV-3, I added a 24" length of 2" diameter 1/16" pipe to my (free)
exhaust pipe. Drilled some 250 1/8" holes on the underside of it (5 rows
of 25 holes, 1/2" apart) and squeezed the end of the pipe almost shut. It
hangs a couple of inches underneath (along) my fuselage. Made a marked
difference. Don't know how it would work on a Lycoming. Would be cheap to
try though. Connect it and and your current exhaust with a short piece of
flex tubing (to avoid putting load on your existing exhaust system).
Finn
"BOBE." wrote:
>
> A friend drilled 5 ----3/8" holes one half inch apart in the bottom of
> his exhaust pipes and bent the metal between the holes so the exhaust
> would deflect down.He claims this dissipates the sound and makes it
> less noisey.Is this possible?Perhaps someone who knows more about this
> can tell me.I have a Vetterman 4 pipe system on my RV4 and its pretty
> loud.
>
> Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Thomas Mosher" <tgmosher(at)earthlink.net> |
I'll go ask the one-hundred odd thousand we have on the shop floor tomorrow
to see which way they want their name pronounced.
I've always heard it pronounced with a "C" double "C" sound "cleecko"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Schlosser" <kevinschlosser(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cleco?
>
> Had a long debate with the rivet smashers in my model airplane club over
> dinner. Some of them are mechanics, and one of them restores warbirds fo> r
some rich doctor. There were 2 sides to the argument on how to pronoun> ce the
word Cleco.
>
> 1) 'Cleeeko' 2) 'Kleckoe'
>
> So: What is it? :-)
>
> -< PropellerHead >-
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aerobatics/Gyros |
kempthornes wrote:
>
>
> IFR brand, eh? 430 hours is a long life for any gyro in any airplane I
> suspect.
>
> Hal Kempthorne
> RV6a N7HK (Valentine) FLYING
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
>
> >
> > In a message dated 6/24/01 7:32:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> larywil(at)home.com
> > writes:
> >
> > << >So, in my experience, it seems you can get a couple of years from
> > >non-cageable gyros, with only occasional aerobatics, but they won't last
> > >much beyond that. I now wish I had made a removable gyro panel with
> > >quick-connects for the hose connections. Oh well, live and learn.
> > >
> > >Brian Denk >>
> >
> > Well I do light acro virtually every time I go up (3 yrs and 430 hrs) and
> my
> > always running IFR brand vacuum artificial horizon and directional gyros
> > still perform as new. No problemo. Don't worry, be happy and go fly your
> > birds however you like. If the gyros go, Grasshopper, it will be their
> time
> > to leave.
> >
> > -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> > vanremog(at)aol.com
> >
> >
>
I have about 700 hours on my RC Allen's with no problems. They also have a lot
of
loops and rolls on them.
Jerry S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: ANTENNA'S AGAIN |
>
> > 4. mount the nav/loc/gs/vor ant. at the tail, underneath pointing
> rearward.
> NO mount this one in the wing tip using the Bob Archer design.
>
> > that would leave only 1 ant. out in the wind (nav).
I put Vans homemade strip nav ant in one wingtip and Bob Archers com ant in
the other wingtip.
> Still not enough antennae for some. GPS - Second comm - but surely no
ADF.
My second com ant is handled by Bob Archers com ant splitter. Wire two
radios through this box and use only one antenna. I haven't heard any
comments on this little box but Bob is quite confident about it. If you have
one I'd love to hear how it works. I bought this around four years ago so I
forget all the numbers but I do remember that Comat makes the same box for
something like double the price. I made the decision to go this route when I
was building my wings and planning wiring/cable runs.
Enough people seem to be happy with putting the GPS antenna on a little
shelf under the cowl at the top of the firewall. Several people have
mentioned this in posts during the last two years.
Sorry, no ADF plans for now.
> > mount the transponder ant. between the exhaust stacks right behind the
> > right behind the scoop.
Has anyone done this? Sounds interesting to me.
I would also like to hear comments on how well a transponder antenna works
when mounted in the lower engine compartment.
Regards,
Norman Hunger
RV6A Christina Lake BC
________________________________________________________________________________
I usually refer to them by color, silver: gold, bronze, black----- as in
hand me a silver one, the bronze ones are over there. ect ect. Thats the way
I refer to them.Works for me. Terry E. Cole N468TC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: exaust noise |
Didn't you guys see the write up in the RVator on the piccolo pipes? Don't
tell me you don't get the RVator? Well, then I won't tell you what they
found by using them.
Just kidding...they said they did indeed quiet the plane down.
Bill
-4 wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Finn Lassen" <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: exaust noise
>
> As the neighbors to the airport were complaining about my Mazda rotary
> powered RV-3, I added a 24" length of 2" diameter 1/16" pipe to my (free)
> exhaust pipe. Drilled some 250 1/8" holes on the underside of it (5 rows
> of 25 holes, 1/2" apart) and squeezed the end of the pipe almost shut. It
> hangs a couple of inches underneath (along) my fuselage. Made a marked
> difference. Don't know how it would work on a Lycoming. Would be cheap to
> try though. Connect it and and your current exhaust with a short piece of
> flex tubing (to avoid putting load on your existing exhaust system).
>
> Finn
>
> "BOBE." wrote:
>
> >
> > A friend drilled 5 ----3/8" holes one half inch apart in the bottom of
> > his exhaust pipes and bent the metal between the holes so the exhaust
> > would deflect down.He claims this dissipates the sound and makes it
> > less noisey.Is this possible?Perhaps someone who knows more about this
> > can tell me.I have a Vetterman 4 pipe system on my RV4 and its pretty
> > loud.
> >
> > Bob Murphy Poplar Grove ILL. (C77)
>
>
> NetZero Platinum
> No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
> Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
> http://www.netzero.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aerobatics/Gyros |
Jerry,
Those RC Allens are vaccum or electron powered?
Bill
-4 wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
>
> kempthornes wrote:
> >
> >
> > IFR brand, eh? 430 hours is a long life for any gyro in any airplane I
> > suspect.
> >
> > Hal Kempthorne
> > RV6a N7HK (Valentine) FLYING
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
> >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 6/24/01 7:32:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > larywil(at)home.com
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > << >So, in my experience, it seems you can get a couple of years from
> > > >non-cageable gyros, with only occasional aerobatics, but they won't
last
> > > >much beyond that. I now wish I had made a removable gyro panel with
> > > >quick-connects for the hose connections. Oh well, live and learn.
> > > >
> > > >Brian Denk >>
> > >
> > > Well I do light acro virtually every time I go up (3 yrs and 430 hrs)
and
> > my
> > > always running IFR brand vacuum artificial horizon and directional
gyros
> > > still perform as new. No problemo. Don't worry, be happy and go fly
your
> > > birds however you like. If the gyros go, Grasshopper, it will be
their
> > time
> > > to leave.
> > >
> > > -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> > > vanremog(at)aol.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> I have about 700 hours on my RC Allen's with no problems. They also have a
lot of
> loops and rolls on them.
>
> Jerry S
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: aerobatics/Gyros |
Bill, they are vacuum.
Jerry S
Bill Shook wrote:
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Those RC Allens are vaccum or electron powered?
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:18 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
>
> >
> > kempthornes wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > IFR brand, eh? 430 hours is a long life for any gyro in any airplane I
> > > suspect.
> > >
> > > Hal Kempthorne
> > > RV6a N7HK (Valentine) FLYING
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: aerobatics/Gyros
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 6/24/01 7:32:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > larywil(at)home.com
> > > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > << >So, in my experience, it seems you can get a couple of years from
> > > > >non-cageable gyros, with only occasional aerobatics, but they won't
> last
> > > > >much beyond that. I now wish I had made a removable gyro panel with
> > > > >quick-connects for the hose connections. Oh well, live and learn.
> > > > >
> > > > >Brian Denk >>
> > > >
> > > > Well I do light acro virtually every time I go up (3 yrs and 430 hrs)
> and
> > > my
> > > > always running IFR brand vacuum artificial horizon and directional
> gyros
> > > > still perform as new. No problemo. Don't worry, be happy and go fly
> your
> > > > birds however you like. If the gyros go, Grasshopper, it will be
> their
> > > time
> > > > to leave.
> > > >
> > > > -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> > > > vanremog(at)aol.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > I have about 700 hours on my RC Allen's with no problems. They also have a
> lot of
> > loops and rolls on them.
> >
> > Jerry S
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
>
>Dear Fred..
>A generous offer.
>I am a student pilot... training at Taunton, Mass.
>Flying 152's. Have long been studying various designs to build with
>my son... who is
>also doing flight training. Have considered the 6A and more
>recently the 7A and 9A.
>Family wants four seats.. this pointed us toward CH 640... but I
>have problems with the
>design. Now likely to wait for the RVxx four seat design that Van's
>tells me is in
>development. Would like to be working on it now, but I am going to
>try to have patience
>for a bit and see if development of that kit continues to remain on schedule.
>If you find yourself at any of Taunton, Newport (Rhode Island),
>North Central (Rhode
>Island), Mansfield (Mass), New Bedford or Norton, Mass. Any of
>these are reasonably
>convenient. At the least, would be an opportunity to see an RV up close.
> Look forward to hearing from you.
>Bob
>rmiller3(at)earthlink.net
Bob,
While you are waiting for the four seater RV, you might want to check
out the builders in your area. There are so many RVs under
construction, that there is probably a builder closer than you think.
You might find someone who would let you help them once in a while.
That would help you develop the skills needed to build an RV, and
give you a much better idea what is involved.
There are probably several flying RVs in your area too. Van's will
send you a list of builders and flyers in your area if you ask them.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: exaust noise |
>
>As the neighbors to the airport were complaining about my Mazda rotary
>powered RV-3, I added a 24" length of 2" diameter 1/16" pipe to my (free)
>exhaust pipe. Drilled some 250 1/8" holes on the underside of it (5 rows
>of 25 holes, 1/2" apart) and squeezed the end of the pipe almost shut. It
>hangs a couple of inches underneath (along) my fuselage. Made a marked
>difference. Don't know how it would work on a Lycoming. Would be cheap to
>try though. Connect it and and your current exhaust with a short piece of
>flex tubing (to avoid putting load on your existing exhaust system).
>
>Finn
>
Finn,
Can you detect any difference in power? Is the static rpm the same,
or the rpm at full throttle at a given airspeed?
I certainly interested in anything that will reduce the noise, but I
hate to give up power, or increase the drag.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f4av8r(at)netscape.net |
Listers,
Do any of you RV-3 drivers know, either by accident or experimentation, what
speeds the -3 can be flown open or partially open canopy? Is there a degree
of "openess" that will permit a reasonable, albeit slow, maneuvering airspeed?
Also, I understand from Van's that a 3A is restricted to "utility" category
flight -- spins/stalls only -- right? Okay, "fess up", do any of you 3A guys
on occassion do a little more than these ho-hum maneuvers? Feel free to reply
"off-list" if need be.
Please, NO FLAMES!
f4av8r
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | f4av8r(at)netscape.net |
RV-4 kit for sale: Excellent workmanship, Phlogiston spar, tinted canopy option,
reduced for quick sale, very near "QB" stage, all sub-kits-tailwheel to spinner.
Will deliver within reasonable distance. 512-328-3631(D), 512-892-8895(E).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
-----Original Message-----
From: Boyd C. Braem <bcbraem(at)home.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing Root Fairings
>
>The curved fiberglass wing root fairing (at least for the -6) increases
>the frontal flat plane area of the aircraft and slows top speed by a few
>mph. Since the wings and fuselage meet at a 90 degree angle, their is
>no need for anything other than the grooved rubber strip from the flat
>metal wing fairing to the fuselage. Many airspeed tests done by Tracy
>Saylor, Dave Anders and others have proven this beyond doubt. >>
I would be interested in seeing the data that supports the above statements.
The presence of a radiused fairing, depending on how the trailing edge is
handled, could result in a reduction of the airframe wetted area. Whether
or not it increases drag is a question in my mind. Some of the best
aircraft that I know of use them (AJ-2 for example) and while one might
expect that the largest benefit from them would be at the low speed end,
Smith would not likely have used them if he thought they would increase the
drag at high speed. Years ago Schreder had a glider with a high mid wing
and no dihedral and, acting on the above belief, left it unfaired except for
a gap closure. When he finally did build a radiused fairing he found that
his speed and high speed L/D were undiminished but his stalling speed was
reduced by about 10%.
If someone has data on this I would love to see it published.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net> |
Thanks Eustace,
I'd been searching all over to find out what type of mounts the different
versions of the 0-235 were using. I've vowed to steer clear of the conical
mounts since my Cherokee is blessed with them and they do transmit a bit
more vibration than the dynofocals. Is there a dyno 1 and dyno type 2 with
this engine also??
Is there any troubles I should be aware of with the 0-235's? are the carbs
mounted on the sumps?(the Cessna's I remember flying all had to have carb
heat below 1900 rpm or something).
If you couldn't tell I'm leaning towards the rv-9 as I've seen used engines
in the range of 2500 - 5500 for mid to high time. (0-235).
I'm getting almost excited about starting a new kit as flying the one I
just finished. This must be a sickness. But, It keeps me sane, somehow late
nights, cigar smoke, a cold beer and aluminum dust are a magical
combination.
Steven DiNieri
Niagara Falls, New York
RV-6A, P28A-160, RV-9?
Yes the engine mount will fit both the 0235 and the 0320 just be sure you
have the correct engine ( conical or dyno). The 0235C is conical and the
0235 NC &LC are Dyno. The H2AD is Dyno.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Austin" <6430(at)axion.net> |
No, I don't mean a spy leaving, I was wondering about a film which is on my
glass leg fairings.
I was taping the seams together with masking tape when I had to re-adjust
one.
When I pulled it off, a patch of clear film was stuck to it.
Very hard to notice on the fairing.
I assume this is a parting film.
How do I get it all off ?
Austin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Are Barstad" <abarstad(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | MD-42BS Drilling out? |
Has anyone successfully drilled out a MD-42BS rivet?
I set one on the flap (inboard aft position) and realized too late that I
could have used a CS 4-4 for a nicer countersunk finish. In fear of making
it worse, I'll probably just leave it alone unless someone can convince me
otherwise.
Are
RV-8 Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
Gordon or Marge Comfort wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boyd C. Braem <bcbraem(at)home.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:53 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing Root Fairings
>
> >
> >The curved fiberglass wing root fairing (at least for the -6) increases
> >the frontal flat plane area of the aircraft and slows top speed by a few
> >mph. Since the wings and fuselage meet at a 90 degree angle, their is
> >no need for anything other than the grooved rubber strip from the flat
> >metal wing fairing to the fuselage. Many airspeed tests done by Tracy
> >Saylor, Dave Anders and others have proven this beyond doubt. >>
>
> I would be interested in seeing the data that supports the above statements.
> The presence of a radiused fairing, depending on how the trailing edge is
> handled, could result in a reduction of the airframe wetted area. Whether
> or not it increases drag is a question in my mind. Some of the best
> aircraft that I know of use them (AJ-2 for example) and while one might
> expect that the largest benefit from them would be at the low speed end,
> Smith would not likely have used them if he thought they would increase the
> drag at high speed. Years ago Schreder had a glider with a high mid wing
> and no dihedral and, acting on the above belief, left it unfaired except for
> a gap closure. When he finally did build a radiused fairing he found that
> his speed and high speed L/D were undiminished but his stalling speed was
> reduced by about 10%.
>
> If someone has data on this I would love to see it published.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
I flew my Rv-6 about 300 hundred hours with the flat stock fairings, then just
for
looks, built some curved fairings similar to the ones used on the RV-4's. I found
no
decrease in top or cruise speed, but did find as close as I could tell the the
stall
speed decreased by a couple MPH.
Jerry S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <martin.hone(at)tradergroup.com.au> |
| Subject: | RE: Engine weights |
As a newbie about to purchase an RV6,
can anyone give me an installed weight for an O-320 also O-360, with and
without C/S prop fitted?
What effect would these different engines/props have on battery position.?
Thanks in anticipation
MH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Engine weights |
engine weights....look up
www.lycoming.textron.com/main.html
mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruce Gray <bruce.gray(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Parting Agent |
Usually, just soap and water will do the trick. If you're going to laminate
over the suspect surface make sure you clean it, sand the surface to remove the
gel coat and take the fiberglass to a dull finish with 80 grit paper, and then
wipe with acetone.
Bruce
Glasair III
Austin wrote:
>
> No, I don't mean a spy leaving, I was wondering about a film which is on my
> glass leg fairings.
> I was taping the seams together with masking tape when I had to re-adjust
> one.
> When I pulled it off, a patch of clear film was stuck to it.
> Very hard to notice on the fairing.
> I assume this is a parting film.
> How do I get it all off ?
> Austin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-3 question |
>
> Listers,
> Do any of you RV-3 drivers know, either by accident or experimentation,
what speeds the -3 can be flown open or partially open canopy? Is there a degree
of "openess" that will permit a reasonable, albeit slow, maneuvering airspeed?
My canopy is a tip-over and I've flown it around the pattern at approx 120 mph
in the "taxi" position, which is with a 2" opening.
> Also, I understand from Van's that a 3A is restricted to "utility" category
flight -- spins/stalls only -- right? Okay, "fess up", do any of you 3A guys
on occassion do a little more than these ho-hum maneuvers? Feel free to reply
"off-list" if need be.
Utility is up to 4 Gs. You can easily do rolls without pulling Gs. Even though
I've done the spar modification, and should be able to pull +6/-3 Gs, I've only
pulled 3 Gs in steep turns so far. Still working up the courage to do my first
loop.
Finn
RV-3 #488, Mazda 13-B rotary powered, 120+ hours.
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: exaust noise |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> >
> >As the neighbors to the airport were complaining about my Mazda rotary
> >powered RV-3, I added a 24" length of 2" diameter 1/16" pipe to my (free)
> >exhaust pipe. Drilled some 250 1/8" holes on the underside of it (5 rows
> >of 25 holes, 1/2" apart) and squeezed the end of the pipe almost shut. It
> >hangs a couple of inches underneath (along) my fuselage. Made a marked
> >difference. Don't know how it would work on a Lycoming. Would be cheap to
> >try though. Connect it and and your current exhaust with a short piece of
> >flex tubing (to avoid putting load on your existing exhaust system).
> >
> >Finn
> >
>
> Finn,
>
> Can you detect any difference in power? Is the static rpm the same,
> or the rpm at full throttle at a given airspeed?
>
> I certainly interested in anything that will reduce the noise, but I
> hate to give up power, or increase the drag.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to do a full static run-up as the prop
starts fluttering at 2000 RPM and so I'm only able to add full power once I'm
rolling or near take-off speeds. I haven't done any comparison runs with and
without that muffler. Don't remember much of any RPM drop at climbout, though.
I tried to make so many small holes that the area of them adds up to the
exhaust pipe cross area, and thus minimal restriction.
Finn
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
>
> I would be interested in seeing the data that supports the above
statements.
> The presence of a radiused fairing, depending on how the trailing edge is
> handled, could result in a reduction of the airframe wetted area. Whether
> or not it increases drag is a question in my mind.
Several years ago there was an article in Sport Aviation, I believe, which
also supports Van's contention that radiused wing root fairings on the 6A do
not increase top speed. The author of this article was versed in
computational fluid dynamics, and had modeled (analyzed) various wing root
fairings on the 6A. He was unable to increase "speed" in the model beyond
the simple 90 degree fairings that Van designed. This analytical data point
seems to support the various real life experiences that the previous writers
to this list have gained. There will be a litany of writers convinced of
the other viewpoint, but as always, assign credibility as you wish.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
6A
------ http://USFamily.Net/info - Unlimited Internet - From $8.99/mo! ------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | old ogre <jollyd(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-3 question |
do you mean that there IS a nose wheel RV3?
f4av8r(at)netscape.net wrote:
>
> Listers,
> Do any of you RV-3 drivers know, either by accident or experimentation,
what speeds the -3 can be flown open or partially open canopy? Is there a degree
of "openess" that will permit a reasonable, albeit slow, maneuvering airspeed?
> Also, I understand from Van's that a 3A is restricted to "utility" category
flight -- spins/stalls only -- right? Okay, "fess up", do any of you 3A guys
on occassion do a little more than these ho-hum maneuvers? Feel free to reply
"off-list" if need be.
> Please, NO FLAMES!
>
> f4av8r
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-3 question |
Don't know if you're joking, but the "A" was first added back in the 80's after
doing some mods that were thought to handle wing failures (strengthening wing
root rib, doubling the rear spar attach points). "A" stood for aerobatic. It
was Van's attempt to handle
IAC's "prohibition" of the RV-3 doing aerobatics. Later (in the 90s) Van came out
with a main spar strengthening mod to safely allow +6/-3Gs.
As you may know, the RV-3 is now available with a new wing (spar) and is called
the RV-3B. I guess you could consider all RV-3s prior to the RV-3B an RV-3A,
but there is the above destinctions.
If purchasing an (older) RV-3 with the intention of doing aerobatics, you certainly
need to find out what mods (if any) were done to make it safe for aerobatics.
Finn
old ogre wrote:
>
> do you mean that there IS a nose wheel RV3?
>
> f4av8r(at)netscape.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Listers,
> > Do any of you RV-3 drivers know, either by accident or experimentation,
what speeds the -3 can be flown open or partially open canopy? Is there a degree
of "openess" that will permit a reasonable, albeit slow, maneuvering airspeed?
> > Also, I understand from Van's that a 3A is restricted to "utility" category
flight -- spins/stalls only -- right? Okay, "fess up", do any of you 3A
guys on occassion do a little more than these ho-hum maneuvers? Feel free to
reply "off-list" if need be.
> > Please, NO FLAMES!
> >
> > f4av8r
> >
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill VonDane <bvondane(at)cso.atmel.com> |
| Subject: | iPAQ 3650 & Accy 4SALE! |
"Rv8list@Egroups" , Rv-List
6 months old......I have a Compaq iPAQ 3650 32MB with USB cradle, and extra
Compaq serial cradle, Compaq CompactFlash Sleeve, Compaq 56K CompactFlash
Modem, Socket Low Power CompactFlash NIC, 2x SanDisk 32 mb CompactFlash
Memory Cards for sale...
I was going to use it for the AnyWhere Map software but have since decided
on doing something different...
This is over $1000 retail... Best offer over $900...
-Bill VonDane
Colorado Springs, CO
RV-8A - N8VD
http://vondane.com/rv8a/
mailto:bill(at)vondane.com
719-540-1997
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ENewton57(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Minimum Staic RPM |
Just a quick question. What is the minimum acceptable Static RPM for a given
fixed pitch prop? Is it a certain percentage of max RPM allowable for the
engine?
Thanks in advance.
Eric Newton - Long Beach, Mississippi
RV-6A N57ME (Reserved) O-320 (160hp) Ed Sterba 68x76
http://www.ericsrv6a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Are Barstad" <abarstad(at)sympatico.ca> |
Chris,
I don't think your statement below has a lot of merit (my opinion only!).
There are more than 190 flying RV-8(A)'a and there has been a total of _1_
spar broken due to a positive overload (this has been proven many times
over). There has been 3 other RV-8 accidents (AFAIK). One was engine related
(fatal), another was an unfortunate landing (non-fatal) and the last was due
to the fuel pick-up tube being twisted away from a position were it could
not pick up fuel (engine failure) (also non-fatal).
If someone breaks an RV-8 by over-stressing it, I certainly hope the
insurance companies won't make the pilots that flies within an already
'generous' envelope pay.
The F1 *will* break too if design limits are being neglected.
Then again... sport scars are very expensive to ensure (don't ask me how I
know) and this is mainly since they can be broken much easier than i.e. a
small Toyota due to the hp/weight ratio. Ferrari drivers are (for some
reason :) ) also much more likely (temptation..) to push (or break) the
design envelope and get into speed related accidents.
So... you may be right. If the insurance companies have reason to believe
that RV-8 drivers are prone to constantly exceed the design limits, then
maybe they'll do something. Let's hope this isn't the case though. On the
other side of the coin, the more RV-8's that flies and the longer they fly
without incidents should make a stronger case for 'us' against the insurance
companies. Having said all this, I don't know much about underwriting and
how insurance copmpanies work either.
This is not a flame, just my opinion.
Are
RV-8 Wings - Once I get all my speeding tickets paid off I can order my
fuselage kit...
No 1 accident does casue a company to raise rates, but they do look at
everything and see if its needed. If another RV8 braeks a spar, i bet they
will though.
chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill VonDane <bvondane(at)cso.atmel.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin Pilot III on the glare shield |
Hi All...
Anyone out there have a Garmin Pilot III up on the glare shield of an -8(A)?
I guess the question could also include a compass on the glare shield...
Do these things up on the glare shield cause you any problems of any kind?
-Bill VonDane
Colorado Springs, CO
RV-8A - N8VD
http://vondane.com/rv8a/
mailto:bill(at)vondane.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Grajek" <algrajek(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-8 kit for sale |
Brian: Do you want to sell the whole kit or will you sell it in peices( wings,
fuselage,etc)? Is the fuselage quick build? Vans sells the whole kit for about
17,000 I think. What would you take for the whole deal? I am
still building the tail, so storage will be an issue for me but for the right price
I might take the whole kit off your hands. Al Grajek. algrajek(at)msn.com
859-361-9460
----- Original Message -----
From: brian wallis
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: Rv-8 kit for sale
post message
Hello, The RV-8 kit is still for sale; marriage and college dues draw
landing lights already installed)..(gas tanks already done!) FUSELAGE NEW IN
BOX. Extra tail just started available with kit as package deal. Please tell
your friends.. Aircraft kit located in NY. 20 min North of Syracuse.. Local
Mailboxes ETC will package and mail anywhere.
315-775-7913 home
315-772-4109 work
315-486-3117 cell
brianpwallis(at)hotmail.com
brianpwallis(at)aol.com
Thank you for your time.
Brian Wallis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Garmin Pilot III on the glare shield |
My compass is on the glareshield and doesn't get in the way at all. Now if I
would just take the time to swing it. I use the Pillot III as my sole means
of navigation and love it. It is built into my avionics stack however. I
like the fact that there is automatic battery backup if the ship's power
goes down.
Randy Lervold
RV-8 N558RL, ~52 hrs
www.rv-8.com
> Anyone out there have a Garmin Pilot III up on the glare shield of
an -8(A)?
> I guess the question could also include a compass on the glare shield...
>
> Do these things up on the glare shield cause you any problems of any kind?
>
> -Bill VonDane
> Colorado Springs, CO
> RV-8A - N8VD
> http://vondane.com/rv8a/
> mailto:bill(at)vondane.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owens, Laird" <Owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
Hi Austin,
I work with composites at my day job and might be able to answer your questions.
There are generally 2 types of mold release used on composite parts that we deal
with.
First is a wax paste that is rubbed on the mold and them polished out. The glass/epoxy
or whatever is then layed up over it. (This is the method I use on my
Composite panels for the side by side RV's). This will leave a wax residue on
the molded surface that needs to be removed. Generally sanding the surface with
220 or 320 wet or dry is the accepted method of removing the mold release.
Sand until all of the gloss is gone. You can test by running distilled water
over it and see that it completely sheets over. If there is any water beading,
then the mold release could still be there.
The second method is a PVA that is sprayed or wiped on the mold. This is probably
what you have because of the description of it coming off in a sheet. It's
usually a greenish color. You should wash the part in warm soapy water and
use a small scotchbrite pad to help get the release all off. I'd also sand with
220 if your going to bond anything to it or when you ready to shoot primer
on the part to give the primer something to stick to.
Hope that helps,
Laird (Composites R Us)
RV-6 SoCal
http://www.planes-wings-things.com/rv-6_panel.htm
From: rv-list(at)matronics.com on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: Parting Agent
No, I don't mean a spy leaving, I was wondering about a film which is on my
glass leg fairings.
I was taping the seams together with masking tape when I had to re-adjust
one.
When I pulled it off, a patch of clear film was stuck to it.
Very hard to notice on the fairing.
I assume this is a parting film.
How do I get it all off ?
Austin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: next kit choice |
In a message dated 6/28/2001 9:27:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
abarstad(at)sympatico.ca writes:
>
> Chris,
> I don't think your statement below has a lot of merit (my opinion only!).
> There are more than 190 flying RV-8(A)'a and there has been a total of _1_
> spar broken due to a positive overload (this has been proven many times
> over). There has been 3 other RV-8 accidents (AFAIK). One was engine related
> (fatal), another was an unfortunate landing (non-fatal) and the last was due
> to the fuel pick-up tube being twisted away from a position were it could
> not pick up fuel (engine failure) (also non-fatal).
> If someone breaks an RV-8 by over-stressing it, I certainly hope the
> insurance companies won't make the pilots that flies within an already
> 'generous' envelope pay.
>
> The F1 *will* break too if design limits are being neglected.
>
> Then again... sport scars are very expensive to ensure (don't ask me how I
> know) and this is mainly since they can be broken much easier than i.e. a
> small Toyota due to the hp/weight ratio. Ferrari drivers are (for some
> reason :) ) also much more likely (temptation..) to push (or break) the
> design envelope and get into speed related accidents.
>
> So... you may be right. If the insurance companies have reason to believe
> that RV-8 drivers are prone to constantly exceed the design limits, then
> maybe they'll do something. Let's hope this isn't the case though. On the
> other side of the coin, the more RV-8's that flies and the longer they fly
> without incidents should make a stronger case for 'us' against the insurance
> companies. Having said all this, I don't know much about underwriting and
> how insurance copmpanies work either.
>
> This is not a flame, just my opinion.
>
> Are
> RV-8 Wings - Once I get all my speeding tickets paid off I can order my
> fuselage kit...
Your very correct on this, but then again if you have those sports cars,
then you know how cheap aviation insurance really is. I mean I pay 2300 in
vehicle insurance, 500,000 liability limits and about 45,00 in vehicle
coverage. I have a clean record, but I have race bike which account for 2
of the 5 vehicles. Now for 2800 a year i can insure my F1 for 120,000 hull
and 1,000,000 liability. Thats cheap when u consider whats at risk.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <chuck(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
Good one Karen, but I always thought that tailwheels were for forklifts. By
the way, I owned a '47 Luscombe and loved it. But nosewheels are better.
Chuck
>
> Chuck,
>
> It's because yer puttin the tailwheel on the wrong end, man. The chick is
> embarrassed for yez.
>
> Karen Gooding
> PA-17, J-3
> "The Bucking Bar Queen"
>
> >I'm divorcing mine right now. Started my RV9A a year and a
> >month ago, and she won't come out to the hanger and help me buck one
> >stinkin' rivet.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cowl Side Hinges |
> Leaving them high in the back is a good idea, much easier to get the
cowling
> on and off.
Yes. This is especially true if the eyes on the top hinges attached to the
fuse are NOT fully exposed. Mine are slightly hidden so I have to tip the
top cowl up slightly to slide it in place.
>It should also work to leave them high in the front if your pins
> are inserted from the back through the firewall.
I thought this also and installed mine this way. It doesn't work!!! I had
to drill the side hinges out and reverse the zipper so the hinge eyes are
exposed in the back of the lower cowl.
Ross Mickey
6-A Cowl Fiberglass......forever
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)Islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Staic RPM |
>
> Just a quick question. What is the minimum acceptable Static RPM for a
given
> fixed pitch prop? Is it a certain percentage of max RPM allowable for the
> engine?
>
In my VariEze Operator's Manual by Burt Rutan, he indicated that static RPM
should be between 77 and 82 % of rated RPM. However, it is not clear
whether this applies only to his slippery airplanes which are allowed to run
higher than rated RPM under full throttle, high altitude conditions in order
to get reasonable take off performance. Higher than rated RPM operation was
only suggested for aircraft with wood propellors where rotational bearing
forces are acceptable.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 80% RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tite-Seal, Sealube, or Bakerseal? |
O.K., now you guys have got me worried. I have been using Bakerseal (white)
from AC Spruce in my brake fittings. Anybody have any experience, good or
bad, with this stuff that you would share before I go much further. Thanks.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
"rv-list(at)matronics.com"
| Subject: | insurance/IO-540 |
I just got off the phone with AVEMCO and now have an "ALL RISK" policy,
coverage for $120,000 at an annual premium of $2,297!!!
When I first apllied, I only had 25 hrs in taildraggers: 15 in a Stinson
Voyager and 10 in the Super6. They told me to go away (even with my
prior military time--and were concerned that the higher hp would let me
deviate from Van's posted V-speeds)--a related problem, was that Harmon
refuses to send any engineering or performance data to the insurers,
even tho they have made multiple requests. Now, with 300 hrs, accident
free, they wrote up the policy without blinking and thanked me for my business.
Boyd Braem
RV-Super6
Big, dam* load off my mind (no jokes, please)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MD-42BS Drilling out? |
In a message dated 6/27/01 10:10:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abarstad(at)sympatico.ca writes:
<< Has anyone successfully drilled out a MD-42BS rivet? >>
Are: I have, but unless you can somehow grab the shop head to keep it from
spinning it is very hard to do. Why not put one on the other side in the
same place and tell anyone who notices that it is for added strength :-).
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Duckett <perfeng(at)3rivers.net> |
Guys,
Basically, what your doing by drilling and louvering your pipes is
making a low restriction muffler baffle. Ever look inside a "Glass Pack"
(Cherry Bomb, Thrush, etc.) muffler? Same, Same without the fiberglass
wrap.
New high performance automotive mufflers have angled panels that "bounce
the shock waves of the exhaust pulses back on themselves. When the
waves collide they counter each other out. So the exhaust is quite with
very little in exhaust gas restriction. The "Glass Pack" style muffler
did this to a little degree.
Lots being done with noise restriction in auto and marine racing right
now. Hopefully, we'll be able to adapt some of this technology.
Jim D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: insurance/IO-540 |
In a message dated 6/28/2001 2:18:39 PM Central Daylight Time,
bcbraem(at)home.com writes:
>
>
> I just got off the phone with AVEMCO and now have an "ALL RISK" policy,
> coverage for $120,000 at an annual premium of $2,297!!!
>
> When I first apllied, I only had 25 hrs in taildraggers: 15 in a Stinson
> Voyager and 10 in the Super6. They told me to go away (even with my
> prior military time--and were concerned that the higher hp would let me
> deviate from Van's posted V-speeds)--a related problem, was that Harmon
> refuses to send any engineering or performance data to the insurers,
> even tho they have made multiple requests. Now, with 300 hrs, accident
> free, they wrote up the policy without blinking and thanked me for my
> business.
>
> Boyd Braem
> RV-Super6
> Big, dam* load off my mind (no jokes, please)
>
>
Boyd, Mark sent all that information in for the F1 so I am sure that helped
also. Glad to hear you finally got that taken care.
Chris WIlcox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Grajek" <algrajek(at)msn.com> |
Has anyone had their fuel tanks done by anybody reputable? If so who, and how much?
Was it worth it? algrajek(at)msn.com
----- Original Message -----
From: HCRV6(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: MD-42BS Drilling out?
In a message dated 6/27/01 10:10:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abarstad(at)sympatico.ca writes:
<< Has anyone successfully drilled out a MD-42BS rivet? >>
Are: I have, but unless you can somehow grab the shop head to keep it
from
spinning it is very hard to do. Why not put one on the other side in the
same place and tell anyone who notices that it is for added strength :-).
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pulling "Gs", losing a girlfriend. |
OH MY GOD!!
Forklifts? Dammit man, that's FUNNY. I hate to admit it, but that's a
really good shot from a nosedragger type guy. Ok, now I'm supposed to get
all offended and threaten to kick your butt or 'be your daisy' (I still
don't understand what that one meant), but I can't because I'm still
laughing. Of course, it was a shot taken by a lessor pilot, but still a
good rib deserves it's due. :-) (and one back if capable, hehehe).
Too funny...happy building.....glad to see our sense of humor is still here.
Bill
-4 wings
> Good one Karen, but I always thought that tailwheels were for forklifts.
By
> the way, I owned a '47 Luscombe and loved it. But nosewheels are better.
> Chuck
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > It's because yer puttin the tailwheel on the wrong end, man. The chick
is
> > embarrassed for yez.
> >
> > Karen Gooding
> > PA-17, J-3
> > "The Bucking Bar Queen"
> >
> > >I'm divorcing mine right now. Started my RV9A a year and a
> > >month ago, and she won't come out to the hanger and help me buck one
> > >stinkin' rivet.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the world
we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. Every other vehicle
on the planet is required to muffle, and we are not. Then people wonder why
GA airports are being attacked every day. Duh, it's the noise. I also hope
the noise restriction technology finds it's way to our planes.
Bill
-4 wings
> Guys,
> Basically, what your doing by drilling and louvering your pipes is
> making a low restriction muffler baffle. Ever look inside a "Glass Pack"
> (Cherry Bomb, Thrush, etc.) muffler? Same, Same without the fiberglass
> wrap.
> New high performance automotive mufflers have angled panels that "bounce
> the shock waves of the exhaust pulses back on themselves. When the
> waves collide they counter each other out. So the exhaust is quite with
> very little in exhaust gas restriction. The "Glass Pack" style muffler
> did this to a little degree.
> Lots being done with noise restriction in auto and marine racing right
> now. Hopefully, we'll be able to adapt some of this technology.
>
> Jim D.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Im7shannon(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Cowl Side Hinges |
Ross,
I wound up configuring mine with the eyes above the spit line on the pilot
side and below on the pass. side in the rear, both are on centerline at
forward end. The horizontal side pins go in from behind through the firewall.
For vertical side pins in the lower cowl, the pilot side is put in, then top
cowl goes on, then pass. side is slid in through oil door. This setup just
seemed to work for me, I think it really all depends on where your split
lines wind up after fitting. I had to add 1/2" to the pass. side cowl lip
because it was too small.
Its sure fun playing with those pins inside that little oil door tho huh? My
wrists still look like I tried to chew off a pair of handcuffs.
Kevin -9A
Ironing out paperwork details, airplane is done
> I thought this also and installed mine this way. It doesn't work!!! I had
> to drill the side hinges out and reverse the zipper so the hinge eyes are
> exposed in the back of the lower cowl.
>
> Ross Mickey
> 6-A Cowl Fiberglass......forever
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tite-Seal, Sealube, or Bakerseal? |
A fellow builder--RV-4 (summer, 2001)--called Van's and was told to use
a Teflon based thread lube very similar to Bakerseal for both the fuel
lines and the brake lines.
Boyd Braem
HCRV6(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> O.K., now you guys have got me worried. I have been using Bakerseal (white)
> from AC Spruce in my brake fittings. Anybody have any experience, good or
> bad, with this stuff that you would share before I go much further. Thanks.
>
> Harry Crosby
> Pleasanton, California
> RV-6, finish kit stuff
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV4" <VansRV4GRVMJ(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the
world
> we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. >
There are some very tough noise restrictions in Europe, especially germany
is very bad. They charge a bit extra for landing fees if you don't have a
noise certificate.
Also Amsterdam (Schiphol Airport) restricts airlines during certain times of
the day.
LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE !!!!!!
Marcel de Ruiter
RV4/G-RVMJ
________________________________________________________________________________
> Has anyone had their fuel tanks done by anybody reputable? If so who, and> how
much? Was it worth it? algrajek(at)msn.com
I had mine done by Don London at Aviacomp in the Portland, Oregon area. He
has since sold the business to Evan Johnson. The workmanship done on the
tanks was very good, but they DID leak. See
http://www.rv-8.com/Wings.htm for the story. Don "guarranteed" my tanks not
to leak. When I called him to ask about what to do with the leak he said
he'd come over and assist with the wing removal and repair effort, but made
no other gesture. So what does "guarranteed not to leak" mean? You got me.
You might ask that question of some you're considering having do your tanks.
Don trained Evan before selling the business. I've seen Evan's work as well
and it's almost as good as Don's.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, N558RL, 52 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Hyde <DonH(at)axonn.com> |
I've pretty much convinced myself to take a chance on the Jabiru 8-cylinder
for my RV-6A. My neighbor's 4-cylinder is running without a hiccup on his
Sonex, though he only has a few hours on it so far.
One of the nice things about the Jabiru is that it actually comes from the
factory with a muffler (actually 2 on the 8). The muffler on my neighbor's
engine looks pretty ordinary -- a can with a few perforated baffles inside.
The plane is not silent, but it's a whole lot quieter than an RV (though
with only half the power...).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Shook [mailto:billshook(at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:44 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
>
>
> Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just
> how in the world
> we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. Every
> other vehicle
> on the planet is required to muffle, and we are not. Then
> people wonder why
> GA airports are being attacked every day. Duh, it's the
> noise. I also hope
> the noise restriction technology finds it's way to our planes.
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
>
> > Guys,
> > Basically, what your doing by drilling and louvering your pipes is
> > making a low restriction muffler baffle. Ever look inside a
> "Glass Pack"
> > (Cherry Bomb, Thrush, etc.) muffler? Same, Same without
> the fiberglass
> > wrap.
> > New high performance automotive mufflers have angled panels
> that "bounce
> > the shock waves of the exhaust pulses back on themselves. When the
> > waves collide they counter each other out. So the exhaust
> is quite with
> > very little in exhaust gas restriction. The "Glass Pack"
> style muffler
> > did this to a little degree.
> > Lots being done with noise restriction in auto and marine
> racing right
> > now. Hopefully, we'll be able to adapt some of this technology.
> >
> > Jim D.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gyro failure backup |
Carl,
As You already know I forwarded your message to Bob Siegfried (Old Bob,
Ancient Aviator)
To fill you in on Bob's qualifications, Bob is just any old pilot. He is a
retired Chief United Pilot with many thousands of hours. Started with the
DC-3 and retired as a 474 Captain. Safety and Safe instrument flying is his
specialty. If you use a GPS, he had a hand in setting it up for us GA
pilots. He is most active in the Bonanza group, but he also flies a
Stearman and a Beach 18. Bob is an A&P, IA of the old school and does
safety seminars. If there is anyone's opinion that I trust, it would be Old
Bob. A real fount of knowledge. I have used his articles several times as
he is down to earth and presents his knowledge in a forthright manner
without a lot of BS.
Thanks once again go out to Bob.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Gyro failure backup
"Carl Cadwell" writes:
<< Can anyone provide any clarity on the FAA requirements?
Would anyone install a back up vacuum pump or second electrical
artificial horizon? Other solutions? >>
Good Afternoon Carl,
Cy Galley has forwarded your message to me for comment.
The following is my interpretation of the FAA safety bulletin
and the Parker communique.
There is no FAA requirement for any back up to required
instrumentation nor is there any requirement for redundant
power sources for those required instruments.
The FAA safety bulletin suggests that one should have an
electrically powered gyroscopic instrument available if the
primary instrument power is pneumatic.
Either a Turn and Bank or Turn Coordinator comfortably
meets the specification of an electrically powered gyroscopic
instrument.
The FAA is currently pressing the applicants for new type
certificates to provide multiple power sources for required
instrumentation, but that requirement is not retroactive
For the past forty years or so, most IFR aircraft have been
fitted with air driven Horizons and Directional instruments
along with an electric rate gyro. That combination easily
meets the specification of the NON-mandatory FAA
safety bulletin.
Obviously, reliance on a rate instrument is not practical
if the operator has not maintained proficiency in the use
of such instrumentation.
I am of the opinion that a Turn and Bank instrument is
much easier to use than the Turn Coordinator, but either
meets the requirement stated.
The communique from Parker is strictly an effort to avoid
any litigation. It has no regulatory status and is unworthy
of any serious consideration.
Practice a little partial panel, continue to maintain the
system conservatively and everything should be just fine.
We will look forward to meeting you and your wife at Oshkosh.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gyro failure backup |
My apologies... Bob isn't just any old pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Gyro failure backup
Carl,
As You already know I forwarded your message to Bob Siegfried (Old Bob,
Ancient Aviator)
To fill you in on Bob's qualifications, Bob isn't just any old pilot.
He is a
retired Chief United Pilot with many thousands of hours. Started with
the
DC-3 and retired as a 474 Captain. Safety and Safe instrument flying is
his
specialty. If you use a GPS, he had a hand in setting it up for us GA
pilots. He is most active in the Bonanza group, but he also flies a
Stearman and a Beach 18. Bob is an A&P, IA of the old school and does
safety seminars. If there is anyone's opinion that I trust, it would be
Old
Bob. A real fount of knowledge. I have used his articles several times
as
he is down to earth and presents his knowledge in a forthright manner
without a lot of BS.
Thanks once again go out to Bob.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Gyro failure backup
"Carl Cadwell" writes:
<< Can anyone provide any clarity on the FAA requirements?
Would anyone install a back up vacuum pump or second electrical
artificial horizon? Other solutions? >>
Good Afternoon Carl,
Cy Galley has forwarded your message to me for comment.
The following is my interpretation of the FAA safety bulletin
and the Parker communique.
There is no FAA requirement for any back up to required
instrumentation nor is there any requirement for redundant
power sources for those required instruments.
The FAA safety bulletin suggests that one should have an
electrically powered gyroscopic instrument available if the
primary instrument power is pneumatic.
Either a Turn and Bank or Turn Coordinator comfortably
meets the specification of an electrically powered gyroscopic
instrument.
The FAA is currently pressing the applicants for new type
certificates to provide multiple power sources for required
instrumentation, but that requirement is not retroactive
For the past forty years or so, most IFR aircraft have been
fitted with air driven Horizons and Directional instruments
along with an electric rate gyro. That combination easily
meets the specification of the NON-mandatory FAA
safety bulletin.
Obviously, reliance on a rate instrument is not practical
if the operator has not maintained proficiency in the use
of such instrumentation.
I am of the opinion that a Turn and Bank instrument is
much easier to use than the Turn Coordinator, but either
meets the requirement stated.
The communique from Parker is strictly an effort to avoid
any litigation. It has no regulatory status and is unworthy
of any serious consideration.
Practice a little partial panel, continue to maintain the
system conservatively and everything should be just fine.
We will look forward to meeting you and your wife at Oshkosh.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose to
quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for us.
Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I would
like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
Anyway, I do fully intend to put the picollo pipes on mine (at least) in an
attempt to keep noise levels down...I just feel it's the right thing to do
all things considered. Even if we take a power loss to quiet them
down...how often are you really using 100% of you power anyway. I doubt it
would affect your cruise performance at all.
Bill
pipes are a long way off for me though :-(
-4 wings
> >
> > Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the
> world
> > we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. >
>
> There are some very tough noise restrictions in Europe, especially germany
> is very bad. They charge a bit extra for landing fees if you don't have a
> noise certificate.
> Also Amsterdam (Schiphol Airport) restricts airlines during certain times
of
> the day.
>
> LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE !!!!!!
>
> Marcel de Ruiter
> RV4/G-RVMJ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | RE: iPAQ 3650 & Accy 4SALE! |
I'm interested in the sleeve and the modem, if you'll consider parting it
out.
Why are you backing away from the AnyWhere Map?
Larry Bowen
Email: Larry(at)BowenAero.com
Web: http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill VonDane
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: Eaa 72; Sonexbuilders; Rv8list@Egroups; Rv-List
> Subject: RV-List: iPAQ 3650 & Accy 4SALE!
>
>
> 6 months old......I have a Compaq iPAQ 3650 32MB with USB cradle,
> and extra
> Compaq serial cradle, Compaq CompactFlash Sleeve, Compaq 56K CompactFlash
> Modem, Socket Low Power CompactFlash NIC, 2x SanDisk 32 mb CompactFlash
> Memory Cards for sale...
>
> I was going to use it for the AnyWhere Map software but have since decided
> on doing something different...
>
> This is over $1000 retail... Best offer over $900...
>
> -Bill VonDane
> Colorado Springs, CO
> RV-8A - N8VD
> http://vondane.com/rv8a/
> mailto:bill(at)vondane.com
> 719-540-1997
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nancy Jean Burkholder" <nancyb(at)mninter.net> |
| Subject: | RV-6A QB for sale |
I have an RV-6A, tip-up canopy, quickbuild for sale:
Delivered in August, 2000. Includes the following:
* Empennage about 1/2 completed, some work completed on the fuselage
* 2 wing landing lights
* Passenger and pilot steps
* Dual vent system
* Electric flaps, elevator and aileron trim systems
* Capacitive fuel probes
* Welded SS firewall box, recessed for CS propeller govenor/oil filter.
$16,500. I live in Minneapolis.
I'm selling the kit becuz I bought Terry Jantzi's RV-6 at the Red Wing
forum in April. At the time I thought that flying an RV while building
one would provide a great opportunity to dial-in some customization
ideas. Then I decided to buy a house in the Twin Cities and it does not
have adequate build space. I also realize that my life is very busy and
I'm having a hard time finding time to devote to building. All things
considered, I realize this is not the right time in my life to build my
airplane.
nancy b. "Good people are always so sure they're right."
Barbara Graham's last words
Executed June 5, 1955 at San Quentin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel" <michelboucher594(at)home.com> |
Hmmm... you got me worried now , I was under the impression that you could
fly it with an open canopy at speeds I believe less than 120mph. I have done
that a few times in the past whithout any ill effects, it is kind a neat. I
use to keep my throttle arm on the edge to hold the canopy back as it has a
tendency to creep forward. The windshield does a great job as you don't feel
much of the wind. Super cool man! :)
Michel Boucher
RV3 1,040hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Finn Lassen
Sent: June 28, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-3 question
>
> Listers,
> Do any of you RV-3 drivers know, either by accident or
experimentation, what speeds the -3 can be flown open or partially open
canopy? Is there a degree of "openess" that will permit a reasonable,
albeit slow, maneuvering airspeed?
My canopy is a tip-over and I've flown it around the pattern at approx 120
mph in the "taxi" position, which is with a 2" opening.
> Also, I understand from Van's that a 3A is restricted to "utility"
category flight -- spins/stalls only -- right? Okay, "fess up", do any of
you 3A guys on occassion do a little more than these ho-hum maneuvers? Feel
free to reply "off-list" if need be.
Utility is up to 4 Gs. You can easily do rolls without pulling Gs. Even
though I've done the spar modification, and should be able to pull +6/-3 Gs,
I've only pulled 3 Gs in steep turns so far. Still working up the courage to
do my first loop.
Finn
RV-3 #488, Mazda 13-B rotary powered, 120+ hours.
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Staic RPM |
>
>
>>
>> Just a quick question. What is the minimum acceptable Static RPM for a
>given
>> fixed pitch prop? Is it a certain percentage of max RPM allowable for the
>> engine?
>>
>
>In my VariEze Operator's Manual by Burt Rutan, he indicated that static RPM
>should be between 77 and 82 % of rated RPM. However, it is not clear
>whether this applies only to his slippery airplanes which are allowed to run
>higher than rated RPM under full throttle, high altitude conditions in order
>to get reasonable take off performance. Higher than rated RPM operation was
>only suggested for aircraft with wood propellors where rotational bearing
>forces are acceptable.
>
>Garth Shearing
>VariEze and 80% RV6A
>
There is not a single number that will work for all aircraft. Fast
aircraft need a coarser pitch prop to avoid overspeeding it in
cruise, so they will naturally have a lower static rpm. Obviously
that will reduce the power available during the initial part of the
take-off roll, but that might not be an issue if the aircraft has a
high enough power to weight ratio (like most RVs).
Tony Bengelis says in Firewall Forward that Lycoming calls for a
static rpm of 2300 plus or minus 50 rpm for engines with a 2700 rpm
redline.
Van discusses the performance of the initial prop used on the RV-6 on
page 11-11 of the RV-8 Construction Manual. This prop had a static
rpm of 2200, and would go up to 2850 rpm at full throttle at low
altitude, and 2775 rpm at full throttle at 8,000 ft.
If the original question was with respect to RVs, Van's opinion is
worth more than anyone else's.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin Pilot III on the glare shield |
Mine's a -6 but I have the GPSIII on the glareshield next to the compass. It
does throw the compass off, but I made a mount for the GPS that just clips
it to the lip of the glareshield so it's easy to move it over, check the
compass, then move it back, when setting the DG.
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~250 hrs)
Portland, OR
www.vanshomewing.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas McIntyre <bogeybrother(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Staic RPM |
2240 static. 2850 max at sl. 2240/2850 = 79%
Works good for me.
Tom McIntyre
RV3
160hp / fixed pitch
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Just a quick question. What is the minimum acceptable Static RPM for a
> >given
> >> fixed pitch prop? Is it a certain percentage of max RPM allowable for the
> >> engine?
> >>
> >
> >In my VariEze Operator's Manual by Burt Rutan, he indicated that static RPM
> >should be between 77 and 82 % of rated RPM. However, it is not clear
> >whether this applies only to his slippery airplanes which are allowed to run
> >higher than rated RPM under full throttle, high altitude conditions in order
> >to get reasonable take off performance. Higher than rated RPM operation was
> >only suggested for aircraft with wood propellors where rotational bearing
> >forces are acceptable.
> >
> >Garth Shearing
> >VariEze and 80% RV6A
> >
>
> There is not a single number that will work for all aircraft. Fast
> aircraft need a coarser pitch prop to avoid overspeeding it in
> cruise, so they will naturally have a lower static rpm. Obviously
> that will reduce the power available during the initial part of the
> take-off roll, but that might not be an issue if the aircraft has a
> high enough power to weight ratio (like most RVs).
>
> Tony Bengelis says in Firewall Forward that Lycoming calls for a
> static rpm of 2300 plus or minus 50 rpm for engines with a 2700 rpm
> redline.
>
> Van discusses the performance of the initial prop used on the RV-6 on
> page 11-11 of the RV-8 Construction Manual. This prop had a static
> rpm of 2200, and would go up to 2850 rpm at full throttle at low
> altitude, and 2775 rpm at full throttle at 8,000 ft.
>
> If the original question was with respect to RVs, Van's opinion is
> worth more than anyone else's.
>
> Take care,
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A QB for sale |
> I'm selling the kit becuz I bought Terry Jantzi's RV-6 at the Red Wing
> forum in April.
Lucky you! That is one fine airplane. What is Terry doing now? Building
again?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Are Barstad" <abarstad(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | RV-6A QB for sale |
Terry will be building an F1 Rocket. He should be on his way back from Texas
right now after picking it up.
Are
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David Burton
Sent: June 28, 2001 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6A QB for sale
> I'm selling the kit becuz I bought Terry Jantzi's RV-6 at the Red Wing
> forum in April.
Lucky you! That is one fine airplane. What is Terry doing now? Building
again?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Internal Primer Poll? |
Ok, from the primer poll at this web site:
http://www.ontariorvators.org/ it looks like most people are using NAPA
Rattle cans to do the internal priming. Is this self etching? What is
the process with it? Is that all it is called? Seems like Dupont
Veri-prime would be the easiest, because it is self etching. If your
using NAPA Rattle cans let me know if you are doing anything else before
applying it.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Starting RV7A empannage :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PlaneWizz(at)cs.com |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
I think some Harleys are louder than RV's, but I sometimes drive with my
window down and I don't think you can do that with an RV.
Hope I didn't P*ss off any Harley Owners
DRP
By the way, there is some great noise cancellation technology being developed
for cars. Maybe they'll adapt it to aircraft, (like they FINALLYdid with
ignition systems.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owens, Laird" <Owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | Minimum Staic RPM |
Just as another data point to add to what Kevin said, my 0-360 would only turn
it's Sensenich 72FM-83 fixed pitch prop at 2150 static. It would turn 2900 at
8000 density altitude and full throttle. When I tried an 85" pitch prop it turned
2075 static. (Didn't get a chance to test it full throttle).
It did unloaded pretty quickly, and takeoff was never an issue.....until I went
to a CS prop. You never know how much you miss those all those ponies until
you get them all running together ;-)
Laird (I LOVE my CS prop, but it's all a compromise of $$$)
RV-6
SoCal
From: rv-list(at)matronics.com on Thu, Jun 28, 2001 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Minimum Staic RPM
>
>
>>
>> Just a quick question. What is the minimum acceptable Static RPM for a
>given
>> fixed pitch prop? Is it a certain percentage of max RPM allowable for the
>> engine?
>>
>
>In my VariEze Operator's Manual by Burt Rutan, he indicated that static RPM
>should be between 77 and 82 % of rated RPM. However, it is not clear
>whether this applies only to his slippery airplanes which are allowed to run
>higher than rated RPM under full throttle, high altitude conditions in order
>to get reasonable take off performance. Higher than rated RPM operation was
>only suggested for aircraft with wood propellors where rotational bearing
>forces are acceptable.
>
>Garth Shearing
>VariEze and 80% RV6A
>
There is not a single number that will work for all aircraft. Fast
aircraft need a coarser pitch prop to avoid overspeeding it in
cruise, so they will naturally have a lower static rpm. Obviously
that will reduce the power available during the initial part of the
take-off roll, but that might not be an issue if the aircraft has a
high enough power to weight ratio (like most RVs).
Tony Bengelis says in Firewall Forward that Lycoming calls for a
static rpm of 2300 plus or minus 50 rpm for engines with a 2700 rpm
redline.
Van discusses the performance of the initial prop used on the RV-6 on
page 11-11 of the RV-8 Construction Manual. This prop had a static
rpm of 2200, and would go up to 2850 rpm at full throttle at low
altitude, and 2775 rpm at full throttle at 8,000 ft.
If the original question was with respect to RVs, Van's opinion is
worth more than anyone else's.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Navaid / GPS /VOR ? |
Dear Listers,
well after being screwed with the e-bay GPS deal. i have purchased A Garmin
295 from a reputable company. The Navaid i have has the built in smart
coupler. my question is : How do i wire the Navaid to receive signals from
the GPS and the Terra Nav receiver? i know it can't handle 2 inputs from 2
differant sources, so there must be a switch or something to install. i don't
know if i'll need to have the abilitiy of having 2 sources or not. but it
will be nice to have the option, if 1 of the 2 goes down.
what do you guys think? i presented this question to navaid, but no answer
yet.
scott
rv6a tipper finishing wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Minimum Static RPM |
Amyar-Demuth calls my prop a 67 x 74. That's 67" diamerer, 74" pitch. I get
off the ground at 2050 rpm or so, and can just exceed 2700 rpm in level
flight. 2050 rpm is 76% of redline.
The low rpm at takeoff limits acceleration some, but I'm still off the ground
in under 500' unless I've got a passenger or a bunch of baggage. I wish I
knew what the manifold pressure was on takeoff, but I'm not a big gauge
watcher in the takeoff or landing phases...
Kyle Boatright - Kennesaw, GA
RV-6 Slider, O-320/Aymar-Demuth
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Nellis" <mnellis(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A QB for sale |
Terry is building an F1 Rocket.
Mike Nellis - http://bmnellis.com
Plainfield, IL
RV6 N699BM (res) Building Flaps
Stinson 108-2 N9666K
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6A QB for sale
>
> > I'm selling the kit becuz I bought Terry Jantzi's RV-6 at the Red Wing
> > forum in April.
>
> Lucky you! That is one fine airplane. What is Terry doing now? Building
> again?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel" <michelboucher594(at)home.com> |
Kevin Horton, noticed you put your engine on the bare fuselage, I would
assume you require weight on the tail to prevent the thing from falling on
its nose. I will be doing the same shortly and would like to know how much
weight is required.
Michel Boucher
RV81117
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
In a message dated 6/28/01 4:03:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
billshook(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose to
quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for us.
Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I would
like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do. >>
I really think that the noise issue is a red herring for the closure of
airports. If all of a sudden (thru some advanced noise canceling technology
invented by the combined talents of Bose/Lightspeed) our airplanes suddenly
were stone silent, how many airports could really be saved? How many more
new airports would actually be built? IMO there are larger issues at stake
here and they don't have anything to do with noise and everything to do with
economics and real estate speculation. For some it's enough to see all that
"free" land going to waste for an activity they find threatening and
dangerous. Ask yourself, would glider landing only operations at your local
airport really be any more welcome than powered operations?
-GV (RV-6A N1GV)
vanremog(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piper Pitot-Static Heat wiring |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys,
I have a Piper pitot-static blade just like what is found on Warriors,
Archers, Arrows, etc....I got it used and don't have any specs on how to
wire it. It appears to have four wires coming out of it, looks like
maybe two separate elements with a power and ground wire for each?? Can
someone confirm this, and how many amps it pulls? I just need to know
what size wiring to run and breaker size req'd.
Thanks!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A fuselage, O-360-A4A, Sensenich 87"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Have you ever lived near a GA airport? I have, and I can tell you the noise
issue is no red herring. I wanted that airport shut down as much as the
next guy (wasn't flying back then). If they put an airport near my
neighborhood now, I would likely be one of those protesting it. I'm sorry,
but it does detract from the neighborhood prices, because it does bring
unwanted noise into my bedroom. Now, force all the 'it's all about me'
types to put mufflers on their aircraft (like every car, truck and lawnmower
since the stone ages) and people will not complain as much. Yes, there will
be some who don't like that chunk of aluminum flying over their homes...but
for the most part people are oblivious...until you disturb their sleep, or
scare their dog.
I really don't see the issue here. If your neighbor brought home a V8 car
with open headers which he religiously drove to breakfasts each weekend
(while you were trying to sleep in) and took friends for rides all the
time...oh, and invited 100 of his open header friends to base their cars out
of his house....you would throw a fit.
Of course aircraft should be quieter... I mean really guys.....do you
seriously think this isn't going to be a real issue sometime soon? I'm all
for the government keeping their noses and their laws out of my
business....but sooner or later, the majority is going to win...and we, the
few, are going to lose.
Bill
-4 wings
>
> I really think that the noise issue is a red herring for the closure of
> airports. If all of a sudden (thru some advanced noise canceling
technology
> invented by the combined talents of Bose/Lightspeed) our airplanes
suddenly
> were stone silent, how many airports could really be saved? How many more
> new airports would actually be built? IMO there are larger issues at
stake
> here and they don't have anything to do with noise and everything to do
with
> economics and real estate speculation. For some it's enough to see all
that
> "free" land going to waste for an activity they find threatening and
> dangerous. Ask yourself, would glider landing only operations at your
local
> airport really be any more welcome than powered operations?
>
> -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> vanremog(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <skydog-8(at)home.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Lervold <randy@rv-8.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Tanks
>
> > Has anyone had their fuel tanks done by anybody reputable? If so who,
and> > how much? Was it worth it? algrajek(at)msn.com
>
> Don trained Evan before selling the business. I've seen Evan's work as
well
> and it's almost as good as Don's.
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, N558RL, 52 hrs.
> www.rv-8.com
> Home Wing VAF
>
> almost as good......ALMOST AS GOOD!!!!!!!!!!! Oh crap, now you tell me
{:-(
Randy Griffin
Evan Johnson tanks
RV-8
Hanging wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | RV-9AFirewall Penetraton Points |
RV-9A Dwg 19 shown numerous firewall penetration points for carb cables
gascolators, cabin heat, etc.
Has any one using Van's Lyc O-320160hp engine verified thatt hese points
are correct? Are the cable runs "fair" and not kinked?
Richard Reynolds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal Primer Poll? |
> Ok, from the primer poll at this web site:
> http://www.ontariorvators.org/ it looks like most people are using NAPA
> Rattle cans to do the internal priming. Is this self etching? What is
> the process with it? Is that all it is called?
Whew! That sure is an expensive way to put primer on the inside of an
airplane. The primer wars have gone on since I got on the list. The
opinions vary widely. For example, I used Variprime on everything inside my
airplane. I found out that it really doesn't keep out moisture; so, it's
best to put real paint on all steel parts.
Bobby, in our area, corrosion isn't such a big deal; so, you could actually
get by with no primer inside the airplane. Ever look inside Cessnas?
They've been around for a very long time. No primers inside. You could
maybe use some at the rivet lines to keep down the corrosion cause by
different metals. That would keep down the cost of the project and maybe
even lighten up the airplane by a few pounds. Another thing, be sure to
paint the cabin area inside before putting all of the stuff in them. That
way, it's done and doesn't become a finishing problem later on. Ask me how
I know. :-)
I flew my RV down to Pine Bluff, Ark the other day to look at a C210 for a
friend of mine. We did the 800+ nm round trip in six hours. Not bad for a
little 150hp RV. :-) I thought about you as we passed close to
Hopkinsville.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jim jewell" <jjewell(at)okanagan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Listers,
A point of view, It is a bit long.
Keeping in mind that I have not yet seen a lycoming powered RV with a
muffled exhaust including my own to date.
Unfortunately the issue of "exhaust noise" is not of one of those that is
either one side or the other of any given point of view that we the flying
public might choose.
We have the benefit of knowledge about aircraft and flying them, the public
do not. We know that at full power and maximum prop speed that the tips of a
propeller make far more noise than the exhaust system, muffled or not. Until
someone in the propeller design field comes up with a propeller that is in
fact truly quiet in the above condition, we will live with the fact.
We hear an aircraft above and as often as not prideful identify it's type
before looking up.
The public hears noise.
More "noise" in a noisy environment irritates. Any "noise" in a peaceful
environment is generally viewed by the public as an intrusion at some level
or another and this gets their attention.
The fact is that if our aircraft made less noise they would attract less
attention.
We can listen to the average aircraft overhead with a trained ear and know
weather or not the aircraft is in cruse mode or pulling full power while
climbing or if it is maneuvering. We can also tell by the sound weather the
aircraft in question is muffled or not.
Most often an aircraft's exhaust system in cruise mode contributes greatly
to the overall sound level that is heard from the ground. the un-muffled
ones of course would be the worst offenders.
"Less attention", weather positive or negative, in this case is easier to
for us to manage than "more attention".
More positive attention can be created at will by advertising, being good
neighbors, good citizens and doing good things in our respective areas.
If we continue to just keep a low profile and go on as we have and currently
do in respect to open (read non silenced exhaust systems) we will annoy the
few that feel it is their right and duty to complain loudly when given what
they perceive to be just cause.
The majority do not complain but they do have at some point have a voice.
More often than not negative attention arises out of making noise in the
public domain. This fact is indisputable. Many groups have suffered from
denying the fact that the public will first be annoyed and eventually rise
up in anger that is far out of proportion to the original perceived affront.
They then justify fighting the source of the annoyance out of existence
where, when, and if at all possible using any and all the weapons they can
muster.
We make "noise". If we take the initiative and do every thing in our power
to reduce the level of the "noise" we make we will at least be managing our
circumstance to some degree and thereby be attracting somewhat less
attention.
Technology will be and could be of use to some extent. The advent of muffled
extraction type exhaust systems have of late begun to show up in the
aircraft industry.
It seems to me that piloting technique can play a roll in managing the
situation to some degree also.
I have watched various car, bike and snowmobile sport racing groups struggle
with this "noise" issue while literally being put out of action by the
public whom had moved into the area long after the racing facilities where
established. In most cases after starting too late to act, the racing groups
where still busy infighting about the situation at hand when the gates where
being locked for the last time.
Yes things other than "noise" come into play. Others have mentioned the
property value issue for instance. Without a doubt all the "other issues"
are very important and require attention. This is a very complex
circumstance, however the "noise" issue exists and requires our attention
regardless. It is something that we can do. If we wait until we are forced
to do it we will not likely be pleased with the decisions that are made for
us.
We not only occupy airports and fly around them we fly over all kinds of
public areas. How we fly and what we fly and how we are equipped effects to
some degree and kind of attention we get.
It is after all our responsibility to manage our own situation.
This is not a perfect world, it is our world none the less.
This point of view is not expressed with any intent to argue or otherwise
take issue with any other views that have been or will be expressed.
It is offered freely for the sake of any value that might be found within.
If no value is found consider the source and the asking price
Jim in Kelowna -its late, Goodnight.
I will leave it to others to decide if this is worth archiving, do not
archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shook <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Have you ever lived near a GA airport? I have, and I can tell you the
noise
> issue is no red herring. I wanted that airport shut down as much as the
> next guy (wasn't flying back then). If they put an airport near my
> neighborhood now, I would likely be one of those protesting it. I'm
sorry,
> but it does detract from the neighborhood prices, because it does bring
> unwanted noise into my bedroom. Now, force all the 'it's all about me'
> types to put mufflers on their aircraft (like every car, truck and
lawnmower
> since the stone ages) and people will not complain as much. Yes, there
will
> be some who don't like that chunk of aluminum flying over their
homes...but
> for the most part people are oblivious...until you disturb their sleep, or
> scare their dog.
>
> I really don't see the issue here. If your neighbor brought home a V8 car
> with open headers which he religiously drove to breakfasts each weekend
> (while you were trying to sleep in) and took friends for rides all the
> time...oh, and invited 100 of his open header friends to base their cars
out
> of his house....you would throw a fit.
>
> Of course aircraft should be quieter... I mean really guys.....do you
> seriously think this isn't going to be a real issue sometime soon? I'm
all
> for the government keeping their noses and their laws out of my
> business....but sooner or later, the majority is going to win...and we,
the
> few, are going to lose.
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
>
> >
> > I really think that the noise issue is a red herring for the closure of
> > airports. If all of a sudden (thru some advanced noise canceling
> technology
> > invented by the combined talents of Bose/Lightspeed) our airplanes
> suddenly
> > were stone silent, how many airports could really be saved? How many
more
> > new airports would actually be built? IMO there are larger issues at
> stake
> > here and they don't have anything to do with noise and everything to do
> with
> > economics and real estate speculation. For some it's enough to see all
> that
> > "free" land going to waste for an activity they find threatening and
> > dangerous. Ask yourself, would glider landing only operations at your
> local
> > airport really be any more welcome than powered operations?
> >
> > -GV (RV-6A N1GV)
> > vanremog(at)aol.com
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jim jewell" <jjewell(at)okanagan.net> |
Michel,
To get the nose wheel of my otherwise "bare" 180 equipped without the C/S
prop RV6A off the ground this afternoon I sat on the horizontal stab deck .
I weigh 195 lb. I could just get enough traction with my feet to move a few
inches at a time.
My guess is that 250 + lb. would add enough for safety sake.
However do consider putting a bolt in the floor and tying it down to that.
Much safer!
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel <michelboucher594(at)home.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: tail weight
>
> Kevin Horton, noticed you put your engine on the bare fuselage, I would
> assume you require weight on the tail to prevent the thing from falling on
> its nose. I will be doing the same shortly and would like to know how much
> weight is required.
>
> Michel Boucher
> RV81117
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald R. Eaves" <doneaves(at)bigfoot.com> |
| Subject: | Peter Rummell - Audio Flight Avionics? New email address: |
Peter Rummell has a new email:
afatechsupport(at)home.com
Don Eaves
RV6 Flying
-----Original Message-----
Has anyone had contact with Peter Rummell of Audio Flight Avionics?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6A QB for sale |
He just wwent to Texas to pick up an F-1 Rocket kit.
David Burton wrote:
>
>
> > I'm selling the kit becuz I bought Terry Jantzi's RV-6 at the Red Wing
> > forum in April.
>
> Lucky you! That is one fine airplane. What is Terry doing now? Building
> again?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Calvert" <rv6bldr(at)home.com> |
My RV6 has engine mounted and the empennage is off. The tail is normally on
a stand that keeps it about a foot off the ground and I have two ten pound
weights at the horizontal attach area. I am always leaning over into it and
it has never budged the tail.
Jerry Calvert
RV6 finish
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel <michelboucher594(at)home.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: tail weight
>
> Kevin Horton, noticed you put your engine on the bare fuselage, I would
> assume you require weight on the tail to prevent the thing from falling on
> its nose. I will be doing the same shortly and would like to know how much
> weight is required.
>
> Michel Boucher
> RV81117
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
--- Jerry Calvert wrote:
>
> My RV6 has engine mounted and the empennage is off. The tail is
> normally on
> a stand that keeps it about a foot off the ground and I have two ten
> pound
> weights at the horizontal attach area. I am always leaning over into
> it and
> it has never budged the tail.
>
> Jerry Calvert
Jerry and I have been running neck-and-neck for a couple of years
now... I also have the engine on my -6 and empennage dismounted (Momma
has to park at night!).
I have about 30 pounds strapped to the space where the stab sits - and
still about have the same "tongue weight" as before mounting the
engine.
The whole exercise was a good physics lesson in forces and moment arms
for my daughter.
I was surprised to read a previous post of a 250 pounds on the tail!
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
Firewall Forward (is Aeroquip a public company - I should buy stock!)
====
Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver(at)yahoo.com)
Austin, TX, USA
RV-6 in progress, N140RV (Reserved)
EX-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
Thread-Topic: Pictures of folding bike in a RV
Thread-Index: AcEAmCnTdSjdp9uzS7yVAzWn38Uo4A=
| From: | "Reeves, Doug" <Douglas.Reeves(at)archongroup.com> |
Morning listers,
Peter Berra of Bike Friday (www.bikefriday.com) sent me one of their
'New World Tourist' folding bikes to test fit in a RV and ride for a few
weeks. David Spears was kind enough to volunteer the baggage
compartment of his RV-6 N910RS (tip up canopy) as a testbed. I shot 28
pictures of the process and put them online at:
http://members4.clubphoto.com/doug315697/Folding_Bike_In_A_RV/
<http://members4.clubphoto.com/doug315697/Folding_Bike_In_A_RV/>
Hope everyone has a nice weekend,
Doug Reeves
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
<http://www.vansaircraft.net> http://www.vansaircraft.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRGSCHMIDT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
Come over to hangar row 6 on Saturday morning and I'll show you the ones we
made for Jerry's RV6A and how simple they are. I will be there from around
0430 until 0800.
Greg
RV6S
Still wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
Already been there. nice bike. your one of the first on the computer in the
morning and the first after the lunch update. Terry E. Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
--- Mike Thompson wrote:
> I was surprised to read a previous post of a 250 pounds on the tail!
>
Re-read Jim's post. 6A. Biiiig difference in moment arms! Makes more
sense. Would think the point moot on a 6A, though...
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
Firewall Forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david schaefer" <dwschaefer(at)hotmail.com> |
Anyone know where I can pickup a good used Century NSD-360 HSI for a
reasonable price?
Thanks..
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Navaid / GPS /VOR ? |
Dale
thats not unusual. when Todd from Gulf Coast Avionics did a talk about gps at
our eaa group one night, i asked him the same question. he would not give out
any info and said that anyone at the teck service will not give out that
info. i think it is a liability thing. i would call them up and ask how to
hook up to a boat autopilot system, i bet you'll get your answer.
scott
tampa
final wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
yes
but can you fit 2 bikes in there, or a 2 seater.
scott
tampa
final wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
06/29/2001 09:16:28 AM
Speaking of noise restrictions, you guys wait its coming.
RANT MODE ON:
Did you guys see in AVweb what is happening to the Oceanside Ca airport?
The CITY under pressure from the citizens have declared that all airplanes
will have big registration numbers under the wings so the ground worms can
all nark on them. Each aircraft operating from the airport has to first get
a city license. I'm thinking that our pal Boyd would get his licensed
pulled pretty quickly for his aural intrusion into the busy day of all the
many suburban driving soccer moms. I'm telling, you this is a tiny airport
nestled in a little valley but it does happen to be on a major highway. The
real shocker is, this is OCEANSIDE, home to the First Marine Division made
up of 30,000 life taking heart breaking drunken hell raisers. God Bless Em!
I'm sure some day I will smoke a turd in purgatory for the things me and my
pals did in that town through the miracles of alcohol. This should be the
last place on earth that anyone gives a rip about a cessena flying over.
They regularly invade the place with hovercraft, gunships, artillery,
Harriers, tanks and other fun testosterone building toys that any male
worth his nads dreams of getting his hand on. And the city gets fired up
about a 100 HP lycoming.
Its not about the noise man, its about conformity. We pilots are different,
we stepped out over the lines, we dare to do something that normal people
don't do. People hate that "sh#$%. Just speaking for my fellow pompous
Americans we are force fed a constant diet of how we are to be. It is
dictated out of Hollywood through the media and the average ground worm
buys it lock stock and barrel. I see it every week on the news. A reporter
will give the lowdown on how the robber took the $38 from the register and
then killed the store owner and his wife then fled on foot. Next story is
the Cessena that ran out of gas and pronged itself on the city street with
minor injuries to the pilot and passengers. The tone of the reporter is
much more passionate and expressive while talking about an engine out than
the brutal murder of innocent people. More people die in railway accidents
than in small planes, but only presidential sexcapades are more
sensationalized than a plane crash. The next day, the rail tragedy is long
forgotten.
Used to be a time that people welcomed aviators. One would land in a field
outside of town and the whole town would walk out to meet him and maybe
take a quick ride. After years of unrealistic media bombardment we are
regarded at best with suspicion. People no longer get it, why would anyone
risk their life in a flying bomb? The general publics understanding of our
passion is right out of science fiction. I can see a time when someone
galvanizes the opposition to small aircraft operations in general. Any lie
could be used to vilify the entire general aviation community, the average
PTA soccer mom would not have the knowledge to know they were being handed
a lie. Even lukewarm support of a measure to limit aviation would easily
decimate us based on numbers. Its already happening in California, why
should the community give a rip if they close down the airport? Might be
nice to have a Chucky Cheese there anyway.
Sure wish I could offer a great capstone idea to all this ranting, lord
knows I've been thinking about it a lot. In the back of my mind I prepare
myself for the day when I have to move back to Western Oklahoma to operate
and afford my airplane. All I can come up with, is be damn aware and damn
vocal. Educate the people you work with every time you get the chance. When
they ask "what if the engine quits" don't give a glib answer, take that
opportunity to let them know that a forced landing is something you train
hard for. Even more important, never let any freedom you currently have go
away without writing your congressman and senator. Every time you loose a
freedom, it get that much easier for them to take away the next one. Does
your airport have a local pilots association? If so join, and help. If not,
go to the FBO and start one and make your presence known to your city
government. Does your airport have an open hangar day for the community?
The term "stand your ground" gets used a lot. I can't think of a case more
appropriate than defending your airport. We are often the users of the
last choice open ground within the city. It would make the city a lot more
revenue if it was converted into video stores and insurance offices than
left a big open field where a handful of old airplanes are operated by a
handful of old pilots. Better stand your ground now. Next time you go rent
that spam can, just ask if there is an airport pilots association. If you
think there is nothing you can do about it, very soon there will come a
time where there will be nothing you can do about it.
RANT MODE OFF:
Whew!
Eric Henson
Jarhed & Freedom Fighter
"RV4" (at)matronics.com on 06/28/2001 05:57:06 PM
Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the
world
> we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. >
There are some very tough noise restrictions in Europe, especially germany
is very bad. They charge a bit extra for landing fees if you don't have a
noise certificate.
Also Amsterdam (Schiphol Airport) restricts airlines during certain times
of
the day.
LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE !!!!!!
Marcel de Ruiter
RV4/G-RVMJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
Thread-Topic: RV-List: Pictures of folding bike in a RV
Thread-Index: AcEAn55DtJyu/WyKEdWAMwAIxwleHwAARmwg
| From: | "Reeves, Doug" <Douglas.Reeves(at)archongroup.com> |
Yes, and yes (I'm speculating here, since we didn't have two bikes with
us). Once the bike was in we figured you could tilt it forward a
little, allowing enough room to squeeze a second one behind it (at least
that's what it looked like to us). They make a 2-seater that 'quick
folds' into an area roughly the size of two separate bikes
'quickfolded'. Of course, with a tandem you'd have two less tires to
deal with, so at least in theory it should take up less space than two
separate bikes.
Regards,
Doug
www.vansaircraft.net
-----Original Message-----
From: ABAYMAN(at)aol.com [mailto:ABAYMAN(at)aol.com]
yes
but can you fit 2 bikes in there, or a 2 seater.
scott
tampa
final wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary & Sandi" <flying(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Tip-up vs Slider |
I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know how
many builders have chosen each type, and why. Do the tip-ups offer
enough ventilation while taxiing? Are they hard to seal? Strong enough
when open in windy conditions? What do you guys think?
I am building a -9A, but I assume there is very little functional
difference between the 9 and the 6 in the canopy. Thought I'd ask you
guys who have been flying yours for a while.
Thanks,
Gary Crowder
Belt, Montana
#90263 on the wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Exhaust noise options |
I was just leafing through the JC Whitney catalog, page 193, Exhaust
Cutout. It's a "Y" with a butterfly valve in it.
Maybe use a muffler near airports and at low altitude and wide-open
exhaust at altitude (8,000'+) for full power?
Finn
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Navaid / GPS /VOR ? |
In a message dated 6/28/01 10:59:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ABAYMAN(at)aol.com
writes:
Scott
You should have received a wiring diagram with the Navaid instructions that
shows the wire/switch arrangement. If you do not have it send me a fax number
off line and I'll send you a copy.
Dale Ensing
<< The Navaid i have has the built in smart
coupler. my question is : How do i wire the Navaid to receive signals from
the GPS and the Terra Nav receiver? i know it can't handle 2 inputs from 2
different sources, so there must be a switch or something to install. i
don't
know if I'll need to have the ability of having 2 sources or not. but it
will be nice to have the option, if 1 of the 2 goes down. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tip-up vs Slider |
Thread-Topic: RV-List: Tip-up vs Slider
Thread-Index: AcEAqneNtJy+yGyKEdWAMwAIxwleHwAAB29Q
| From: | "Reeves, Doug" <Douglas.Reeves(at)archongroup.com> |
Hi Gary.
Read http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/tipupvsslider.htm
Enjoy,
Doug Reeves
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary & Sandi [mailto:flying(at)3rivers.net]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:54 AM
Subject: RV-List: Tip-up vs Slider
I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know how
many builders have chosen each type, and why. Do the tip-ups offer
enough ventilation while taxiing? Are they hard to seal? Strong enough
when open in windy conditions? What do you guys think?
I am building a -9A, but I assume there is very little functional
difference between the 9 and the 6 in the canopy. Thought I'd ask you
guys who have been flying yours for a while.
Thanks,
Gary Crowder
Belt, Montana
#90263 on the wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Im7shannon(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-9AFirewall Penetraton Points |
Richard, I used all the penetrations shown on the drawing, I didnt have my
engine yet at the time, but they all came out right on the money. I have a
160 HP 0-320D2J in mine.
Kevin -9A
Apex, WA
> RV-9A Dwg 19 shown numerous firewall penetration points for carb cables
> gascolators, cabin heat, etc.
>
> Has any one using Van's Lyc O-320160hp engine verified thatt hese points
> are correct? Are the cable runs "fair" and not kinked?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jim jewell" <jjewell(at)okanagan.net> |
Hi Mike,
You are right Mike, I am guilty of not reading Jerry's post well enough.
The difference of main gear position between the 6 and the 6A sure does show
up
at this stage of construction though.
Bye for now,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: tail weight
>
> --- Jerry Calvert wrote:
> >
> > My RV6 has engine mounted and the empennage is off. The tail is
> > normally on
> > a stand that keeps it about a foot off the ground and I have two ten
> > pound
> > weights at the horizontal attach area. I am always leaning over into
> > it and
> > it has never budged the tail.
> >
> > Jerry Calvert
>
> Jerry and I have been running neck-and-neck for a couple of years
> now... I also have the engine on my -6 and empennage dismounted (Momma
> has to park at night!).
> I have about 30 pounds strapped to the space where the stab sits - and
> still about have the same "tongue weight" as before mounting the
> engine.
> The whole exercise was a good physics lesson in forces and moment arms
> for my daughter.
>
> I was surprised to read a previous post of a 250 pounds on the tail!
>
> Mike Thompson
> Austin, TX
> -6 N140RV (Reserved)
> Firewall Forward (is Aeroquip a public company - I should buy stock!)
>
>
> ====
> Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver(at)yahoo.com)
> Austin, TX, USA
> RV-6 in progress, N140RV (Reserved)
> EX-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
> PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piper Pitot-Static Heat wiring |
Mark,
The Piper blade pitot tube has two heater elements in it. Just hook them up in
parallel to the same switch/breaker. I think I used a 15A breaker.
-Don
RV8 NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Benson, Bradley" <bbenson(at)trane.com> |
| Subject: | RV6A floor rib Q's |
I hope this question isn't too simplistic, but I'm curious...
What's the easiest way of make sure the floor ribs are absolutely straight?
I can get them almost straight (within 3/32" for the length of the rib)
using either wood or foam blocks, but that last little bit is killing me.
As I use the blocks between the ribs, the pressure from the innermost ribs
causes the successive outer ribs to shift slightly. Is this something that
is not big deal and a beginner (me) is worrying too much about, or is it one
of the "Something that has to be exactly straight - just keep at it"-kinds
of things?
Thanks!
Brad Benson
RV6AQB...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dan <dan(at)oregon.com> |
RV6 emp kit for sale. Partially complete. McMinnville, Oregon
Tools. Make offer.
503.789.9063
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Gary & Sandi"
> I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know
Gary Crowder
I've flown in both "TU & S" and prefer the slider for reasons mentioned
by others especially the taxing and wind. The down side is access behind
the panel. The instrument panel should be mounted for easy removal or
access panels installed - - a real must.
Tom Jones Chevy powered Tip Up & Buick powered Slider. Belted Air
Powered. RV6As
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Root Fairings |
Thanks, Greg...I'll drop by..I plan on being at the
airport about 0600.
Paul
--- GRGSCHMIDT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Come over to hangar row 6 on Saturday morning and
> I'll show you the ones we
> made for Jerry's RV6A and how simple they are. I
> will be there from around
> 0430 until 0800.
>
> Greg
> RV6S
> Still wiring
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
How much power loss are we talking about if I muffle my O-360: 2, 5, 20%?
Does anyone know?
I heard a Mooney do a low approach at an airport I was at one day. He
sounded nice. Quiet. I decided right then I wanted my RV-8 to sound like
that....someday. If it means 176 hp instead of 180, fine.
Larry Bowen
RV-8 canoe
Email: Larry(at)BowenAero.com
Web: http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Duckett
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:24 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Noise
>
>
> Yes, it's true that just noise alone will not shut down your local
> airport but it's another nail in the coffin.[snip]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
Tom:
> --> RV6-List message posted by: tom144(at)juno.com
snip
> Tom Jones Chevy powered Tip Up & Buick powered Slider. Belted Air
> Powered. RV6As
I'm interested in your Buick conversion. Is it a 215 or a V6? I've been
told that the Buick V6 is lighter than the Chevy V6--lighter even than the
Buick 215. What have you found?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot Newsletter Subscription |
SPORT PILOT & LIGHT AIRCRAFT NEWSLETTER NOW AVAILABLE
-----------------------------------------------------
EAA has just introduced a new "Sport Pilot & Light
Aircraft" newsletter.
The
first issue was just published. To get your FREE copy
of this new and
exciting
newsletter e-mail us at: sportpilot(at)eaa.org -- with
the following
information:
Name
E-mail Address
Company Name
Address
City
State
Zip
EAA Membership Number (Required)
Please state if you want to receive the new newsletter
via e-mail or regular
mail.
====
Paul Besing
RV-6A 197AB Arizona
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Getting Close
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)home.com> |
I too am planning a quiet Chevy V6 RV9a. My thoughts, right now, are
towards using a Super Trap muffler (I sell motorcycle parts). I believe
that many race tracks (car) in the Northeast require some silencing and
they often use super trap.
Barry Pote RV9a Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kempthornes" <kempthornes(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A floor rib Q's |
Brad Benson asks:
> What's the easiest way of make sure the floor ribs are absolutely
straight?
> I can get them almost straight (within 3/32" for the length of the rib)
> using either wood or foam blocks, but that last little bit is killing me.
Good enuf!! The main idea here is to create a 'beam'. Ideal beams are
vertical to the loads. Just where the rivet goes is much less important.
Just get the rib perpendicular with the floor. Since we have no quality
criteria as yet, you have to 'swag' it. Swag is a scientific wild ass guess
which is much better than a 'wag'.
Since this beam is held rather strongly at top and bottom, my swag is that
the loss in strength in one that looks straight but isn't would be
negligible. Some will urge you to perfection but if you delve into the
science of product quality control, you will find that perfection is
exceedingly expensive. Now if you were building for a trip to the moon....
Don't waste too much time and energy on quality issues as they can drain you
before you complete and fly which is the goal and a wonderful reward.
Hal Kempthorne
RV6a N7HK (Valentine) FLYING
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey" <jrein(at)tdin.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Gary, I have flown both the tip-up and slider versions of thr Rv-6. I also
own a 6a w/ a tip-up. The biggest difference I can see is visibility. On the
slider the roll bar is fwd of you and slightly above your forehead. There is
also the center post, which in my opinion also deters from visibilty. On the
tip-up the roll bar is behind you . The visibility is truely noticiably
better. Now some may argue that in windy conditions the canopy is less
stable. This is partly true. But just as you wouldn't let your flight
controls "slop" around why ,why you let your canopy. The fix is very easy,
you just close the canopy on to the taxi latch. I have also installed a sun
shield which helps keep the temps down inside while the canopy is down if it
is windy. As far as taxing, I have the NACA scoops installed and big
"eyeball sockets" that bring in plenty of fresh air from the prop wash.There
is also an added benefit from the tip-up which I personally don't put too
much wait on nor would soley base my decision. That is accessibilty to
behind the panel. Of the years of had mine, maybe just once I had to really
get behind the panel. I recommend that if you could sit in both and close
the canopy, and get the "feel" you'll make a choice. In my opinion, its all
about visiblity..Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary & Sandi <flying(at)3rivers.net>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Gary & Sandi"
>
> I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know how
> many builders have chosen each type, and why. Do the tip-ups offer
> enough ventilation while taxiing? Are they hard to seal? Strong enough
> when open in windy conditions? What do you guys think?
>
> I am building a -9A, but I assume there is very little functional
> difference between the 9 and the 6 in the canopy. Thought I'd ask you
> guys who have been flying yours for a while.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary Crowder
> Belt, Montana
> #90263 on the wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James D. Ivey" <jim(at)iveylaw.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
I'm curious about an aspect nobody's mentioned yet. I sat in a 9A at last
year's Golden West and it had a slider canopy with an overhead sliding
curtain. I could feel a huge difference in pilot head temperature with and
without the curtain overhead (my hair doesn't insulate nearly as well as it
used to).
I've seen sticky plastic shades stuck inside tip-ups -- aesthetically
challenged, IMHO. I've also seen painted tip-ups to provide shade. And, of
course, I've seen many baseball caps inside tip-ups. What else do people do
for shade in tip-ups? Can one install the sliding curtains?
Thanks,
Jim Ivey
jim(at)iveylaw.com
Oakland, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
06/29/2001 01:45:05 PM
Thats the Kroger sun shade. It works great. My hangar mate has one and its
a life saver on long trips. You don't even know its there.
Eric
"James D. Ivey" (at)matronics.com on 06/29/2001 01:23:53 PM
Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
I'm curious about an aspect nobody's mentioned yet. I sat in a 9A at last
year's Golden West and it had a slider canopy with an overhead sliding
curtain. I could feel a huge difference in pilot head temperature with and
without the curtain overhead (my hair doesn't insulate nearly as well as it
used to).
I've seen sticky plastic shades stuck inside tip-ups -- aesthetically
challenged, IMHO. I've also seen painted tip-ups to provide shade. And,
of
course, I've seen many baseball caps inside tip-ups. What else do people
do
for shade in tip-ups? Can one install the sliding curtains?
Thanks,
Jim Ivey
jim(at)iveylaw.com
Oakland, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Christie" <billc(at)dancris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
I am afraid that I will have to agree with Bill Shook on this issue. Our
plant is right under the pattern for runway 1 at Glendale (GEU) and while
the newer 172s are fairly quite, some of the older ones are extremely noisy.
So far, we just have a 10 degree right turn for noise abatement, but this is
one of the fastest growing areas in the US, and most of the ones moving here
are not pilots. There have been some complaints, but so far, the Glendale
administration is pro aviation and wants to expand. However, all it takes is
a change of administration due to complaints from homeowners and we're in
trouble. See Oceanside, CA problems on AOPA's site for a good example.
Bill C., Phoenix, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shook <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose to
> quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for us.
> Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
> real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I
would
> like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
>
> Anyway, I do fully intend to put the picollo pipes on mine (at least) in
an
> attempt to keep noise levels down...I just feel it's the right thing to do
> all things considered. Even if we take a power loss to quiet them
> down...how often are you really using 100% of you power anyway. I doubt
it
> would affect your cruise performance at all.
>
> Bill
> pipes are a long way off for me though :-(
> -4 wings
>
>
> > >
> > > Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the
> > world
> > > we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. >
> >
> > There are some very tough noise restrictions in Europe, especially
germany
> > is very bad. They charge a bit extra for landing fees if you don't have
a
> > noise certificate.
> > Also Amsterdam (Schiphol Airport) restricts airlines during certain
times
> of
> > the day.
> >
> > LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE !!!!!!
> >
> > Marcel de Ruiter
> > RV4/G-RVMJ
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal Primer Poll? |
The NAPA primer (p/n 7220) is self-etching and quiet inexpensive
compared to some other internal primers. It can also be used for
external primers and the product info says that it can be used under
"any" topcoat paint product. I've seen people clean with naphtha,
Coleman white gas and/or vinegar (to help with the etching).
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>
> Ok, from the primer poll at this web site:
> http://www.ontariorvators.org/ it looks like most people are using NAPA
> Rattle cans to do the internal priming. Is this self etching? What is
> the process with it? Is that all it is called? Seems like Dupont
> Veri-prime would be the easiest, because it is self etching. If your
> using NAPA Rattle cans let me know if you are doing anything else before
> applying it.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> Starting RV7A empannage :-)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Yes, the Koger sunshade will work in the Tip up as
well...You can order from Cleveland Tool.
====
Paul Besing
RV-6A 197AB Arizona
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Getting Close
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
At $150 (also sold by Van's), IMHO, the Koger is way overpriced. I had
one but took it out because I didn't like the way it looked--messed up
the canopy, also hit my head on it in turbulence--and replaced it the
$20 sun screen from Team Rocket (which you can also get thru JC Whitney
or any RV (motorhome) dealer) and it does a much better job since you
can custom fit the area of exposure.
Boyd Braem
Paul Besing wrote:
>
>
> Yes, the Koger sunshade will work in the Tip up as
> well...You can order from Cleveland Tool.
>
> ====
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A 197AB Arizona
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Getting Close
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Buick Power |
> --> RV6-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry
> > --> RV6-List message posted by: tom144(at)juno.com
> snip> Chevy powered Tip Up & Buick powered Slider. Belted
> Air> > Powered. RV6As
>
> I'm interested in your Buick conversion. Is it a 215 or a V6? I've
> been> told that the Buick V6 is lighter than the Chevy V6--lighter even
> than the> Buick 215. What have you found?> Tedd McHenry> Surrey, BC
>
The Buick that I referred to was owned by Glen Smith. It is a 215 all
aluminum V8 and it is lighter than the Chevy V6. At this time I believe
Belted Air Power is not supplying the Buick conversion but concentrating
on the installation of the Chevy V6 in Van's aircraft as it produces more
power and is readily available, whereas the Buick is becoming rather
scarce. I'm not familiar with the Buick V6 weights. Although we all
like to "keep it light" I don't believe the all cast iron Chevy V6 is out
of line weight wise. Jess Meyers RV6A has the cast iron engine in it
without any necessary changes to weight & balance. It balances just as
any RV powered Lycoming does with a constant speed prop. With a three
paddle blade Warp Drive fixed pitch prop it performs equal to or better
than an 0320 with a constant speed. Of course the original and
subsequent maintenance cost is but a fraction of the Lycomings.
Tom Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cole, Ed" <Ed_Cole(at)maximhq.com> |
I'm not picking on anyone in general but something to think about...
I don't mind giving up a little freedom................
I don't mind if my airplane needs a muffler
I don't mind paying $35000 for a Lycoming
I don't mind that I can't buy a gun or rifle,
I don't mind if I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt,
I don't mind begging the city to let me remodel my own home.
I don't mind that I have to use an HMO
I don't mind that I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.
I don't mind paying $3/ gallon for gas
I don't mind paying a little extra for electricity
I don't mind if the minorities get into college ahead of me
I don't mind that they closed the Sprint Car track because of noise
I don't mind paying to talk to a teller
I don't mind paying ATM charges
I don't mind if I can't use the commuter lane
I don't mind paying full Sales tax on my RV kit
I don't mind paying Alternative Use Tax on a rented hanger
I don't mind paying $700/MO for my hanger
I don't mind if they close a few airports.
I don't mind that the RV list has gone political...
Anyone want to add to this?
What do you mind ??
If we all want to be "NICE" , let's all sell our aircraft and projects,
bulldoze all the airports,
give the money to Habitat for Humanity and build houses for the poor on the
land. I'm sure we'd
all sleep better knowing what good people we are.
Ed Cole
---Outlaw noisy RV driver with no regard for others !
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Shook [SMTP:billshook(at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:01 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
>
> I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose to
> quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for us.
> Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
> real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I
> would
> like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Aren't we all experimenters when it comes to aircraft? Why not look at what
Schweitzer(sp?) did for the USAF during Vietnam with their ultra-quiet,
powered aircraft. Apparently, it was so quiet that those on the ground only
became aware of its presence if its shadow went over them or they happened
to see it. Yes, it was slow, being basically a sailplane. It featured a
totally enclosed, engine diriving a huge tractor propellor that turned very
slow through a reduction drive and a long, externally-mounted drive shaft.
None of this applies to an RV. What does apply is the upward exhausting
cooling flow and the two extra-effective mufflers that also exhaust
upwards. This upward idea takes into account the fact that the cylinder
cooling fins also have the effect of amplifying the noise generated within
whereas a liquid jacket absorbs the noise( compare a air-cooled diesel to a
liquid-cooled one) and therefore the cooling airflow exhaust should be
treated as another noise source. The muffler could have double walls for
further noise suppression. Hey- just think, if our exhaust and cooling flow
exited at the top of the cowling( or the combustion exhaust over the top of
the wing root area to prevent the sound propagating downwards) we'd have
heated windshields for IFR flying! Is there any loss of efficiency in what
the conventional engine layout makes air do? By this, I mean making the cool
induction air flow uphill when its natural tendency is to flow downhill,
while the air heated by the cylinders is forced down while it would want to
rise; to say nothing of forcing the exhaust straight down as well. Multiple
propellor blades enable a reduced diameter which should reduce tip noise.
I seem to be rambling here and I apologize. I read about that Schweitzer
decades ago and it's the first day of school holidays for our four children
who are roaring around the house.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cole, Ed <Ed_Cole(at)maximhq.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> I'm not picking on anyone in general but something to think about...
>
>
> I don't mind giving up a little freedom................
>
> I don't mind if my airplane needs a muffler
> I don't mind paying $35000 for a Lycoming
> I don't mind that I can't buy a gun or rifle,
> I don't mind if I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt,
> I don't mind begging the city to let me remodel my own home.
> I don't mind that I have to use an HMO
> I don't mind that I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.
> I don't mind paying $3/ gallon for gas
> I don't mind paying a little extra for electricity
> I don't mind if the minorities get into college ahead of me
> I don't mind that they closed the Sprint Car track because of noise
> I don't mind paying to talk to a teller
> I don't mind paying ATM charges
> I don't mind if I can't use the commuter lane
> I don't mind paying full Sales tax on my RV kit
> I don't mind paying Alternative Use Tax on a rented hanger
> I don't mind paying $700/MO for my hanger
> I don't mind if they close a few airports.
> I don't mind that the RV list has gone political...
>
> Anyone want to add to this?
>
> What do you mind ??
>
> If we all want to be "NICE" , let's all sell our aircraft and projects,
> bulldoze all the airports,
> give the money to Habitat for Humanity and build houses for the poor on
the
> land. I'm sure we'd
> all sleep better knowing what good people we are.
>
> Ed Cole
> ---Outlaw noisy RV driver with no regard for others !
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Shook [SMTP:billshook(at)earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:01 PM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
> >
> >
> > I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose to
> > quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for us.
> > Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
> > real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I
> > would
> > like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust noise options |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Finn Lassen" <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
> I was just leafing through the JC Whitney catalog, page 193, Exhaust
> Cutout. It's a "Y" with a butterfly valve in it.
> Maybe use a muffler near airports and at low altitude and wide-open
> exhaust at altitude (8,000'+) for full power?
> Finn
You would have a more complex system and still have the weight of mufflers.
Better to tune the exhaust length to the engine and fuel system. See
SuperTrapp on a Google search for small muffler.
Ed Buck.
________________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Duckett" <perfeng(at)3rivers.net>
, June 29, 2001 2:23 AM
Subject: RV-List: Noise
. An exhaust company called Flow Master has developed mufflers that
are huge, I mean
3-3 1/2" inlet/outlet mothers for all out racing that are very quite and
actually increase power over open dumps> Jim D.
Another brand is SuperTrapp. They offer some models that weigh only a pound
or so. The principle is to vent gasses between an array of plates.
Advantage: small, light. Disadvantage: the weight is at the very end of the
pipe and may require bracing to stop vibration caused tube failure. The
FlowMaster is indeed huge, and weighty. I have used both on various cars.
Ed Buck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Caldwell" <racaldwell(at)hotmail.com> |
Ok, you guys, you're making me send out a post just so I can pick a cool
tool name. Alright, might as well post something that may be worthwhile
since I'm here.
My new O-320-D1A from Van's has 235 hrs on it. At about 180 hrs, I noticed
fuel stain around the carb float bowl to throat seam. Yep, the screws were
loose. I could wiggle them with my fingers. So I pried open the locking
ears, tightened each screw one flat, & rebent the lock ears. Yea, I know I
should have replaced them but I didn't bend them open very much.
Couple weeks ago at 225 hrs, I noticed the trace of frsh fuel stain on the
same seam. Yep, the screws are loose again. Oops, one of the locking washers
had all its long ears broken off. Not the small ears around the screw head
which I bent earlier, but the long ears that wrap down the carb bowl.
So I go up to the local aircraft fuel repair station, SE Fuel Systems, and
ask to buy some new locking washers. Bill tells me they don't have any and
he has ordered drilled head screws because those locking washers are crap.
They don't work, he said. Safety wire is the only sure way to keep those
screws tight. He didn't have to convince me. When he got his order in (12-20
screws I think), he gave me four. Now my carb bowl is saftied on and hope
that one potential for disaster is history. You all may want to do the
same.
Rick "ratchet" Caldwell, after those snap rolls I recently learned
-6 Melbourne, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Now there is a great idea. Route the exhaust out the top and onto the
canopy...that way the lycosaurs can cover the plexy with oil. I'm worried
about my plexy drying out and cracking anyway...that oil should do the trick
in keeping it lubricated.
:-)
Bill
-4 wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Aren't we all experimenters when it comes to aircraft? Why not look at
what
> Schweitzer(sp?) did for the USAF during Vietnam with their ultra-quiet,
> powered aircraft. Apparently, it was so quiet that those on the ground
only
> became aware of its presence if its shadow went over them or they happened
> to see it. Yes, it was slow, being basically a sailplane. It featured a
> totally enclosed, engine diriving a huge tractor propellor that turned
very
> slow through a reduction drive and a long, externally-mounted drive shaft.
> None of this applies to an RV. What does apply is the upward exhausting
> cooling flow and the two extra-effective mufflers that also exhaust
> upwards. This upward idea takes into account the fact that the cylinder
> cooling fins also have the effect of amplifying the noise generated within
> whereas a liquid jacket absorbs the noise( compare a air-cooled diesel to
a
> liquid-cooled one) and therefore the cooling airflow exhaust should be
> treated as another noise source. The muffler could have double walls for
> further noise suppression. Hey- just think, if our exhaust and cooling
flow
> exited at the top of the cowling( or the combustion exhaust over the top
of
> the wing root area to prevent the sound propagating downwards) we'd have
> heated windshields for IFR flying! Is there any loss of efficiency in what
> the conventional engine layout makes air do? By this, I mean making the
cool
> induction air flow uphill when its natural tendency is to flow downhill,
> while the air heated by the cylinders is forced down while it would want
to
> rise; to say nothing of forcing the exhaust straight down as well.
Multiple
> propellor blades enable a reduced diameter which should reduce tip noise.
> I seem to be rambling here and I apologize. I read about that Schweitzer
> decades ago and it's the first day of school holidays for our four
children
> who are roaring around the house.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cole, Ed <Ed_Cole(at)maximhq.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:34 PM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
>
> >
> > I'm not picking on anyone in general but something to think about...
> >
> >
> > I don't mind giving up a little freedom................
> >
> > I don't mind if my airplane needs a muffler
> > I don't mind paying $35000 for a Lycoming
> > I don't mind that I can't buy a gun or rifle,
> > I don't mind if I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt,
> > I don't mind begging the city to let me remodel my own home.
> > I don't mind that I have to use an HMO
> > I don't mind that I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.
> > I don't mind paying $3/ gallon for gas
> > I don't mind paying a little extra for electricity
> > I don't mind if the minorities get into college ahead of me
> > I don't mind that they closed the Sprint Car track because of noise
> > I don't mind paying to talk to a teller
> > I don't mind paying ATM charges
> > I don't mind if I can't use the commuter lane
> > I don't mind paying full Sales tax on my RV kit
> > I don't mind paying Alternative Use Tax on a rented hanger
> > I don't mind paying $700/MO for my hanger
> > I don't mind if they close a few airports.
> > I don't mind that the RV list has gone political...
> >
> > Anyone want to add to this?
> >
> > What do you mind ??
> >
> > If we all want to be "NICE" , let's all sell our aircraft and projects,
> > bulldoze all the airports,
> > give the money to Habitat for Humanity and build houses for the poor on
> the
> > land. I'm sure we'd
> > all sleep better knowing what good people we are.
> >
> > Ed Cole
> > ---Outlaw noisy RV driver with no regard for others !
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Shook [SMTP:billshook(at)earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:01 PM
> > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we choose
to
> > > quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for
us.
> > > Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
> > > real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away. I
> > > would
> > > like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6A floor rib Q's |
In a message dated 6/29/01 8:43:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bbenson(at)trane.com writes:
<< What's the easiest way of make sure the floor ribs are absolutely
straight? >>
When I did mine I made a bunch of short 1x2 wood blocks that were
approximately the right length to hold the floor ribs straight. I then
started from the outside on each side and put one block about two-thirds of
the way from the F-604 bulkhead and another about one-third aft between each
rib. I used duct tape on the ends of each block as required to adjust their
length until I had them within about 1/16 to 1/8 in of straight over their
length before I drilled the seat and baggage floors. After drilling you can
easily force the ribs into alignment with a pin punch when you are ready to
pop rivet, or use screws and nutplates as I did. Hope this helps.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Finally getya to do somethin' about those leaks....Of course there's all the
extra heat being blasted onto the windshield to think about too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shook <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Now there is a great idea. Route the exhaust out the top and onto the
> canopy...that way the lycosaurs can cover the plexy with oil. I'm worried
> about my plexy drying out and cracking anyway...that oil should do the
trick
> in keeping it lubricated.
>
> :-)
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jayeandscott" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
>
> >
> > Aren't we all experimenters when it comes to aircraft? Why not look at
> what
> > Schweitzer(sp?) did for the USAF during Vietnam with their ultra-quiet,
> > powered aircraft. Apparently, it was so quiet that those on the ground
> only
> > became aware of its presence if its shadow went over them or they
happened
> > to see it. Yes, it was slow, being basically a sailplane. It featured a
> > totally enclosed, engine diriving a huge tractor propellor that turned
> very
> > slow through a reduction drive and a long, externally-mounted drive
shaft.
> > None of this applies to an RV. What does apply is the upward exhausting
> > cooling flow and the two extra-effective mufflers that also exhaust
> > upwards. This upward idea takes into account the fact that the cylinder
> > cooling fins also have the effect of amplifying the noise generated
within
> > whereas a liquid jacket absorbs the noise( compare a air-cooled diesel
to
> a
> > liquid-cooled one) and therefore the cooling airflow exhaust should be
> > treated as another noise source. The muffler could have double walls
for
> > further noise suppression. Hey- just think, if our exhaust and cooling
> flow
> > exited at the top of the cowling( or the combustion exhaust over the top
> of
> > the wing root area to prevent the sound propagating downwards) we'd
have
> > heated windshields for IFR flying! Is there any loss of efficiency in
what
> > the conventional engine layout makes air do? By this, I mean making the
> cool
> > induction air flow uphill when its natural tendency is to flow downhill,
> > while the air heated by the cylinders is forced down while it would want
> to
> > rise; to say nothing of forcing the exhaust straight down as well.
> Multiple
> > propellor blades enable a reduced diameter which should reduce tip
noise.
> > I seem to be rambling here and I apologize. I read about that
Schweitzer
> > decades ago and it's the first day of school holidays for our four
> children
> > who are roaring around the house.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Cole, Ed <Ed_Cole(at)maximhq.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:34 PM
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not picking on anyone in general but something to think about...
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't mind giving up a little freedom................
> > >
> > > I don't mind if my airplane needs a muffler
> > > I don't mind paying $35000 for a Lycoming
> > > I don't mind that I can't buy a gun or rifle,
> > > I don't mind if I get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt,
> > > I don't mind begging the city to let me remodel my own home.
> > > I don't mind that I have to use an HMO
> > > I don't mind that I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.
> > > I don't mind paying $3/ gallon for gas
> > > I don't mind paying a little extra for electricity
> > > I don't mind if the minorities get into college ahead of me
> > > I don't mind that they closed the Sprint Car track because of noise
> > > I don't mind paying to talk to a teller
> > > I don't mind paying ATM charges
> > > I don't mind if I can't use the commuter lane
> > > I don't mind paying full Sales tax on my RV kit
> > > I don't mind paying Alternative Use Tax on a rented hanger
> > > I don't mind paying $700/MO for my hanger
> > > I don't mind if they close a few airports.
> > > I don't mind that the RV list has gone political...
> > >
> > > Anyone want to add to this?
> > >
> > > What do you mind ??
> > >
> > > If we all want to be "NICE" , let's all sell our aircraft and
projects,
> > > bulldoze all the airports,
> > > give the money to Habitat for Humanity and build houses for the poor
on
> > the
> > > land. I'm sure we'd
> > > all sleep better knowing what good people we are.
> > >
> > > Ed Cole
> > > ---Outlaw noisy RV driver with no regard for others !
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bill Shook [SMTP:billshook(at)earthlink.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:01 PM
> > > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure we should let this one lie. I mean, either we
choose
> to
> > > > quiet our planes down ourselves, or someone else will choose to for
> us.
> > > > Doubt it? Look at how many GA airports have been attacked. This is
> > > > real...and putting our heads in the sand will not make it go away.
I
> > > > would
> > > > like my grandchildren to be able to fly as easily as I do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Buick Power |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
My experiences while researching with the BAP bird a few years ago (not simply
reading marketing literature, but flying it and hanging out with the test pilots
and designers of it):
>like to "keep it light" I don't believe the all cast iron Chevy V6 is out
>of line weight wise.
When I flew the BAP plane, it weighed in at 1150 lbs (or about 100-150 lbs. more
than a lycosaur fixed pitch bird). Dry weight of a Lycosaur O-320 is about
245 lbs, the Chevy is 292 lbs (add water plumbing and the like for comparable
dry weights). Seems the 100-150 lbs heavier figure is about right.
Have they lightened it up somehow since?
>Jess Meyers RV6A has the cast iron engine in it
>without any necessary changes to weight & balance. It balances just as
>any RV powered Lycoming does with a constant speed prop.
Have they lightened it up somehow since?
>With a three
>paddle blade Warp Drive fixed pitch prop it performs equal to or better
>than an 0320 with a constant speed.
The BAP test pilot at the time also owned a 150hp/f.p. RV-6 and has told me the
lycosaur, to paraphrase, runs circles around the BAP plane.
Jess Myers recently posted an article describing a flight to Copperstate in the BAP bird at http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/howmuchcanyoucarry.htm. He candidly describes just how much weight you can put into the BAP plane and stay within c.g. (though quite overgross) limits, and also notes that plane normally has a 1150 fpm normal rate of climb (lycosaur 160/f.p. birds climb a bit better than that at gross). His comments seem to indicate the BAP RV-6A being both heavier and heavier up front than a standard RV-6A.
>Of course the original and
>subsequent maintenance cost is but a fraction of the Lycomings.
Did they reduce the the price substantially? When I was looking it was $10-12K
FWF (price was not yet set). I bought my first-run freshly overhauled (with
new cylinders and all new accessories) for $12K. What is the current FWF pricing?
What is included in that price?
I myself ultimately believe that auto conversions will save sport aviation, but
there is still a reason most all homebuilts get old, overpriced technology up
front (as mine did). I myself have my eyes set on the Powersport Rotary, but
its still too expensive compared to a freshly overhauled Lycoming.
Kudos to those doing the pioneering work, just keep comparisons between engines
apples to apples.
Rob Acker (RV-6, painting and wiring).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carb Bowl Loose |
My bolts are staying in. You're probably
putting too many Gs on them and working them
out. :-)
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Hyde <DonH(at)axonn.com> |
| Subject: | RV6A floor rib Q's |
I messed around for a while trying to get wood blocks just right, but wound
up just doing it like aligning wing ribs to prepunched skins.
I figured out where they should line up, measured and drilled the floor
pans, then used my sharpie to make a nice red line down the centerline of
the flange. I was able to stick one hand in from the front of the seat pans
far enough to scoot the floor ribs into place long enough to drill and cleco
them. It wasn't really very bad, though as I recall there was a place or
two where I needed to use a stick to reach in far enough to push them into
place.
I managed to do it without any help. Since then I've had those floor pans
out and back in a couple of times and have gotten pretty skilled at it. I
don't intend to rivet them any sooner than I have to...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HCRV6(at)aol.com [mailto:HCRV6(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:04 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV6A floor rib Q's
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/29/01 8:43:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> bbenson(at)trane.com writes:
>
> << What's the easiest way of make sure the floor ribs are absolutely
> straight? >>
>
> When I did mine I made a bunch of short 1x2 wood blocks that were
> approximately the right length to hold the floor ribs
> straight. I then
> started from the outside on each side and put one block about
> two-thirds of
> the way from the F-604 bulkhead and another about one-third
> aft between each
> rib. I used duct tape on the ends of each block as required
> to adjust their
> length until I had them within about 1/16 to 1/8 in of
> straight over their
> length before I drilled the seat and baggage floors. After
> drilling you can
> easily force the ribs into alignment with a pin punch when
> you are ready to
> pop rivet, or use screws and nutplates as I did. Hope this helps.
>
> Harry Crosby
> Pleasanton, California
> RV-6, finish kit stuff
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Gary & Sandi,
All of us who fly put a certain amount of consideration into the safety
aspects of flying.. Any option you choose should be done with safety in
mind. I think the canopy decision is one of these options. I would
suggests that you look at the three view drawings of the RV6s in Van's
Aircraft web page. Lay a straight edge over the drawing of the tip up with
the straight edge touching the top of the cowling and the top of the
vertical fin. Drop it down a couple of inches to allow for crushing of the
fin and see what would hit the ground first in the event of a flip over that
ended up side down. Do the same with drawing of the slider. You will see
that your head will strike the ground before the rear roll over bar touches
the ground in the tip up. The forward roll over bar in the slider would
stand a lot better chance of protecting you. This type of accident does
happen and fairly frequently. You would have a much better chance of
escaping with a slider. The tip up would be impossible to get out of.
These two factors made my decision for me. Mine is a 6A with slider. Good
luck
Leon York
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary & Sandi" <flying(at)3rivers.net>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:54 AM
Subject: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Gary & Sandi"
>
> I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know how
> many builders have chosen each type, and why. Do the tip-ups offer
> enough ventilation while taxiing? Are they hard to seal? Strong enough
> when open in windy conditions? What do you guys think?
>
> I am building a -9A, but I assume there is very little functional
> difference between the 9 and the 6 in the canopy. Thought I'd ask you
> guys who have been flying yours for a while.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary Crowder
> Belt, Montana
> #90263 on the wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
Mike Robbins has specifically modified his RV-8 rear baggage compartment to
fit two Bike Fridays. See...
http://www.rv-8.com/MikeRobbins.htm
Randy Lervold
www.rv-8.com
> Peter Berra of Bike Friday (www.bikefriday.com) sent me one of their
> 'New World Tourist' folding bikes to test fit in a RV and ride for a few
> weeks. David Spears was kind enough to volunteer the baggage
> compartment of his RV-6 N910RS (tip up canopy) as a testbed. I shot 28
> pictures of the process and put them online at:
>
> http://members4.clubphoto.com/doug315697/Folding_Bike_In_A_RV/
> <http://members4.clubphoto.com/doug315697/Folding_Bike_In_A_RV/>
>
> Hope everyone has a nice weekend,
>
> Doug Reeves
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> <http://www.vansaircraft.net> http://www.vansaircraft.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Leon York" <westtexflyboy@cox-internet.com>
snip
> Any option you choose should be done with safety in
> mind. I think the canopy decision is one of these options.
If it were clear that you would not survive a tip-over with a tip-up canopy,
and clear that you would survive a tip-over with a slider, it would still
not be a decisive factor for me. I believe the probability of a tip-over is
pretty small (though I agree that the consequences could be very high). On
the other hand, I will live with other consequences of my choice of canopy
every time I fly or work on my plane.
And it isn't clear at all that one canopy is significantly safer than the
other in a tip-over. I accept that there might be a small advantage in
survivability with a slider, but I suspect it's awfully small. Both
roll-over bars are a joke compared to what is used in racing cars of the
same weight as an RV, so I'm not inclined to count on either one for much
protection.
I haven't yet decided what canopy I will build, but safety will not be a
consideration.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)wcvt.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Regarding the slider's rollover bar: Is it really a rollover bar? Does it
have the structural integrity to protect you much against the weight of an
airplane?
Conversely, if rollovers are more-or-less frequent occurrences, does the
tip-up have a better record of protecting the pilot?
Rick McCraw
Beech A36 N2044W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Buick Power |
I talked with Van's yesterday and I will not tell you who the rude fella
was in tech (to be honest ,he is a nice guy. always helpful and I was
not offended, he's just trying to save my wretched life);
I told him I might not be using the recess box in my firewall, because
I was going Chevy 4.3 V6. He said, "BAD CHOICE!"
I have talked with a number of people using the Chevy in an RV.
I have not talked to an unhappy one.
Everyone seems to agree that the Chevy comes in heavy but with proper CG
(assumimg BAP's set up). But that is with the cast iron set up.
I found (took some doing, but they are around) an aluminum block. That
chops almost 100 pounds. Brodix heads (even if you have to go new, are
under $2000, ready to go. Saves another 30-34 pounds.
Jess Meyers is my choice (BAP) admonishes me, saying I will have to move
stuff forward to make up for the lighter engine.
He also is not a proponent of going too far away form stock.
But I am an old hotrodder (emphasis on old) and have built lots of
engines, so I am not too intimadated by building a special engine.
Let keep in touch...all those that have used the Chevy , and those that
are thinking of it. Send me an email (private) and I save it. Anything
new happens, I'll let everyone know.
I love the company and Van himself...exceptional company with
exceptional people, but I think when I have put in 500 hours on this
plane and engine, someone out there , in their conservative style, will
say, "Barry's engine was aluminum and special built, most people go for
the cheap cast iron, and that is not the same." Oh well.
Barry Pote RV9a Wings and....fuelage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James D. Ivey" <jim(at)iveylaw.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
> Regarding the slider's rollover bar: Is it really a rollover
> bar? Does it
> have the structural integrity to protect you much against the
> weight of an
> airplane?
At last year's Golden West, the Van's people kindly reminded me repeatedly
to not grab the windscreen frame as I got into and out of the RV9A there.
That suggests to me that the windscreen/canopy frame is pretty fragile and
would not support the weight of the plane.
Anybody else know different? For proper appreciation of context, I weigh
about 250 (but still much lighter than an RV with engine, fuel, avionics,
prop, etc.).
Regards,
Jim Ivey
jim(at)iveylaw.com
Oakland, CA
RVator Wannabe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Lumpkin" <tlump(at)mediaone.net> |
I understand that there are many, many RV's flying in Europe even with
their noise restriction laws. How do they modify their RV exhaust their to
meet the regulations?
Ted
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
I'm sure there are current SCCA members out there who can provide more
accurate information, but here is my recollection of the requirements for
race car rollover protection. The design loads are 9 times the vehicle
weight vertically, combined with 6 times vehicle weight laterally, and three
times vehicle weight longitudinally. For an RV-6/6A, those would be loads
of 14,850 pounds vertically, 9,900 pounds laterally, and 4,950 pounds
longitudinally. I believe it is a point load at the highest point of the
structure.
I'm pretty darned sure the roll bars in both the slider and the tip-up fall
somewhat short of what would be required to sustain those loads.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
<westtexflyboy@cox-internet.com>
>
> Gary & Sandi,
> All of us who fly put a certain amount of consideration into the safety
> aspects of flying.. Any option you choose should be done with safety in
> mind. I think the canopy decision is one of these options. I would
> suggests that you look at the three view drawings of the RV6s in Van's
> Aircraft web page. Lay a straight edge over the drawing of the tip up
with
> the straight edge touching the top of the cowling and the top of the
> vertical fin. Drop it down a couple of inches to allow for crushing of
the
> fin and see what would hit the ground first in the event of a flip over
that
> ended up side down. Do the same with drawing of the slider. You will see
> that your head will strike the ground before the rear roll over bar
touches
> the ground in the tip up. The forward roll over bar in the slider would
> stand a lot better chance of protecting you.
I do not know which configuration is safer but I have seen a slider that
ended up on its back on the first flight. The pilot was not hurt but the
rollbar was crushed down quite a bit. Enough that the pilot did not have
room to clear without ducking. Maybe the same would happen with a tipup. I
don't know. Does anyone?
The particular pilot involved in this incident was reluctant to make public
what happened to the rollbar. It seemed to me the reason was a reluctance
to offend the Van's factory or something. I have heard of other cases of
people wanting to keep quiet what happened when it might reflect badly on
our airplanes.
As for me, I say if it is a fact, I want to know about it.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
There is an article in the upcoming August Experimenter about having an
adequate roll bar for protection if your plane does flip over. It was
written by a RV owner that had an off field landing and did flip. If it can
happen to a pro like Charlie Hillard, what makes you think it can't happen
to you?
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Leon York"
<westtexflyboy@cox-internet.com>
snip
> Any option you choose should be done with safety in
> mind. I think the canopy decision is one of these options.
If it were clear that you would not survive a tip-over with a tip-up canopy,
and clear that you would survive a tip-over with a slider, it would still
not be a decisive factor for me. I believe the probability of a tip-over is
pretty small (though I agree that the consequences could be very high). On
the other hand, I will live with other consequences of my choice of canopy
every time I fly or work on my plane.
And it isn't clear at all that one canopy is significantly safer than the
other in a tip-over. I accept that there might be a small advantage in
survivability with a slider, but I suspect it's awfully small. Both
roll-over bars are a joke compared to what is used in racing cars of the
same weight as an RV, so I'm not inclined to count on either one for much
protection.
I haven't yet decided what canopy I will build, but safety will not be a
consideration.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ENewton57(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RE: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Jim,
On the slider there is a fiberglass fairing over the rollbar that extends about
3/4" back from the rear edge of the roll bar. This is designed to provide a
seal for the sliding canopy when it shuts. This fiberglass can be cracked by
putting any weight on it. I believe the roll bar for the slider to very stout
and would quite probably survive a rollover incident such as a forced landing
into a soft field where the nose digs in and the plane flips over on its top.
It is tubular steel and bolts directly to the main longeron and in addition
has a 3/4 X 3/4 angle 1/8" thick that runs from the center support bar to the
firewall. I fell very confident in its ability to protect me in a situation like
described above.
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
RV-6A - N57ME (reserved) (Engine Baffles)
www.ericsrv6a.com
In a message dated Fri, 29 Jun 2001 7:57:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "James D.
Ivey" writes:
<< --> RV6-List message posted by: "James D. Ivey"
> Regarding the slider's rollover bar: Is it really a rollover
> bar? Does it
> have the structural integrity to protect you much against the
> weight of an
> airplane?
At last year's Golden West, the Van's people kindly reminded me repeatedly
to not grab the windscreen frame as I got into and out of the RV9A there.
That suggests to me that the windscreen/canopy frame is pretty fragile and
would not support the weight of the plane.
Anybody else know different? For proper appreciation of context, I weigh
about 250 (but still much lighter than an RV with engine, fuel, avionics,
prop, etc.).
Regards,
Jim Ivey
jim(at)iveylaw.com
Oakland, CA
RVator Wannabe
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PlaneWizz(at)cs.com |
| Subject: | Re: Eugene Fly-In Aug 25th |
Boyd:
Did you get any takers on your offer on taping Tracy Saylor?
Dave Pohl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
It's not because you "hurt" the roll bar but because of the tendency to
bend the aluminum/fiberglass overlap that covers the canopy from the
windscreen, causing a binding problem when trying to close the canopy.
The roll bar is adequate to prevent collapse in "moderate g-force"
accidents. I do
not know what its load limit is, but I feel better having it there than
NOT having it there.
"James D. Ivey" wrote:
>
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "James D. Ivey"
>
> > Regarding the slider's rollover bar: Is it really a rollover
> > bar? Does it
> > have the structural integrity to protect you much against the
> > weight of an
> > airplane?
>
> At last year's Golden West, the Van's people kindly reminded me repeatedly
> to not grab the windscreen frame as I got into and out of the RV9A there.
> That suggests to me that the windscreen/canopy frame is pretty fragile and
> would not support the weight of the plane.
>
> Anybody else know different? For proper appreciation of context, I weigh
> about 250 (but still much lighter than an RV with engine, fuel, avionics,
> prop, etc.).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Ivey
> jim(at)iveylaw.com
> Oakland, CA
> RVator Wannabe
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jim jewell" <jjewell(at)okanagan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Buick Power |
Tom,
You might already be aware some of this:
The Buick and Oldsmobile 215 ci. V/8 design was sold to(I think) British
Leland (sp) the manufacturer of the Rover. It then became the Rover 3500
engine.
I was told some time ago that it continued to be developed both in Britain
and also in Australia where it's cubic inch displacement was said to be
increased by a noticeable margin.
The Rover people left much of the original design alone. Most if not all the
block parts where interchangeable.
The heads use different valve train pieces and the castings are improved
around the valve cover gasket area, less leaks. and the cylinder head bolt
pattern uses five bolts not four.
I was also told that the addition of some machining and the crank out of
some other Olds. would act as a stroker mod and gain some HP.
Maybe somebody out there can give us more accurate information such as part
numbers and separate truth form rumor etc..
If the information re- "The Australian rumor" could be verified that power
plant could be added to the growing list of potential "alternatives".
I know of one of these Rover 3500s that was camed, ported and had four dual
throat Webber carbs mounted on a hand made cross ram manifold that was
polite in traffic and scary when pushed at all. These little V/8 engines
will produce significant HP. but have to rev quite high to do it.
Bye for now,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: <tom144(at)juno.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV6-List: Buick Power
>
> > --> RV6-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry
> > > --> RV6-List message posted by: tom144(at)juno.com
> > snip> Chevy powered Tip Up & Buick powered Slider. Belted
> > Air> > Powered. RV6As
> >
> > I'm interested in your Buick conversion. Is it a 215 or a V6? I've
> > been> told that the Buick V6 is lighter than the Chevy V6--lighter even
>
> > than the> Buick 215. What have you found?> Tedd McHenry> Surrey, BC
> >
> The Buick that I referred to was owned by Glen Smith. It is a 215 all
> aluminum V8 and it is lighter than the Chevy V6. At this time I believe
> Belted Air Power is not supplying the Buick conversion but concentrating
> on the installation of the Chevy V6 in Van's aircraft as it produces more
> power and is readily available, whereas the Buick is becoming rather
> scarce. I'm not familiar with the Buick V6 weights. Although we all
> like to "keep it light" I don't believe the all cast iron Chevy V6 is out
> of line weight wise. Jess Meyers RV6A has the cast iron engine in it
> without any necessary changes to weight & balance. It balances just as
> any RV powered Lycoming does with a constant speed prop. With a three
> paddle blade Warp Drive fixed pitch prop it performs equal to or better
> than an 0320 with a constant speed. Of course the original and
> subsequent maintenance cost is but a fraction of the Lycomings.
>
> Tom Jones
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Carb Bowl Loose |
In a message dated 6/29/01 2:00:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
racaldwell(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< My new O-320-D1A from Van's has 235 hrs on it. At about 180 hrs, I noticed
fuel stain around the carb float bowl to throat seam. Yep, the screws were
loose. I could wiggle them with my fingers. So I pried open the locking
ears, tightened each screw one flat, & rebent the lock ears. Yea, I know I
should have replaced them but I didn't bend them open very much.
Couple weeks ago at 225 hrs, I noticed the trace of fresh fuel stain on the
same seam. Yep, the screws are loose again. Oops, one of the locking washers
had all its long ears broken off. Not the small ears around the screw head
which I bent earlier, but the long ears that wrap down the carb bowl.
So I go up to the local aircraft fuel repair station, SE Fuel Systems, and
ask to buy some new locking washers. Bill tells me they don't have any and
he has ordered drilled head screws because those locking washers are crap.
They don't work, he said. Safety wire is the only sure way to keep those
screws tight. He didn't have to convince me. When he got his order in (12-20
screws I think), he gave me four. Now my carb bowl is safetied on and hope
that one potential for disaster is history. You all may want to do the
same. >>
Rick-
I had the same thing happen at 400 hrs on the carb on my new O-360-A1A, but
it was only one screw that came loose (on the right side just aft of the
throttle butterfly). All the others are just as tight as new (I checked).
Can you give us a phone number for SE Fuel Systems so I can post it in the
Yeller Pages and perform the long term fix on my carb.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV)
vanremog(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise (somewhat long) |
The current discussion of mufflers and how much power may be lost is not
necessarily accurate. The motor racing community has found itself
mandated into mufflers in many classes of cars and as time goes on it
won't be long before ALL race cars will require mufflers. All light
planes in Europe and particularly Germany and Switzerland require
mufflers to meet very low noise standards which have been legislated by
the various governments there. Loss of power isn't a significant issue.
The historical discussions in the motor racing groups have been about
how much power would be lost with mufflers but when push came to shove
and people HAD to run mufflers, surprise, surprise, many cars produced
MORE power WITH the mufflers. A muffler in itself is not necessarily
detrimental to power, it is the overall design of the total airflow path
through the engine which matters. This begins with the intake, the air
filter, the induction system, the ports, the valves, the combustion
chamber, the exhaust valves, ports, pipes, mufflers, and perhaps even
tailpipes. If this complete system is properly designed and tuned the
muffler can be a vital element in realizing the maximum power from the
overall system. If, however, all the elements of the system are treated
individually, and not as a related, co-ordinated system, then any one of
them can be detrimental to power production. If they are all treated as
individual parts of one overall integrated tuned system working together
and closely related to one another then any one element can be optimized
to increase power.
To summarize; if the initial attitude is, "I want a quiet plane because
it will be more comfortable, and I will receive a better reception from
all who come in contact with it", then you can tackle the muffler from
the view of using it as a tool to increase power and make the plane a
more acceptable intrusion into John Q Public's lives. This attitude will
be a win win situation all round. If you tackle the problem as to how
much power I have to sacrifice to loose a few decibels then you are
doomed to failure from an overall satisfaction of the end result point
of view, and you most surely will loose power.
Don't be fooled into playing ostrich by sticking your head in the sand.
Sound level legislation is coming sooner or later as it is in all other
activities which generate noise and as it already has in Europe and
other areas of the world. We would be well advised to accept that fact
and get busy seeing how good a job we can make of making our planes
quieter and more efficient. If we are good enough at this exercise we
might delay the inevitable by another few years and even have the
answers to be able to meet the legislation when it does come.
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exhaust Noise |
Bill Shook wrote:
>
>
> Now there is a great idea. Route the exhaust out the top and onto the
> canopy...that way the lycosaurs can cover the plexy with oil. I'm worried
> about my plexy drying out and cracking anyway...that oil should do the trick
> in keeping it lubricated.
>
> :-)
>
> Bill
> -4 wings
I know Bill's joking, but the old 'updraft cooling leads to
oil on the windscreen' line sounds like uban myth to me.
Ask yourself how many stories you have heard or read where
the engine started losing oil, it covered the windscreen, &
the pilot had to fly & land blind. Now ask yourself how many
of those planes had updraft cooling. High pressure on the
bottom of the cowl, low pressure half way back along the top
of the cowl, then high pressure at the base of the
windscreen to force the oil which was just forced to the top
onto the windscreen.
To me, updraft vs downdraft seems to be not so important
when it comes to oil on the windscreen. I would be more
interested in the effects of high velocity air exiting at an
angle into an area of relatively low pressure & drag, & how
much improvement in low speed cooling there would be with
the inlets low on the cowl.
Comments or criticism?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)apex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal Primer Poll? |
"Boyd C. Braem" wrote:
>
> The NAPA primer (p/n 7220) is self-etching and quiet inexpensive
> compared to some other internal primers. It can also be used for
> external primers and the product info says that it can be used under
> "any" topcoat paint product. I've seen people clean with naphtha,
> Coleman white gas and/or vinegar (to help with the etching).
>
Ok, that sounds good and easy, I'm almost sold. Did you use this? What color
is it and what is the finish like? Dull and fuzzy or semi gloss and smooth?
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Starting RV7A empannage :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jim hurd" <hurd(at)boernenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
a slider that
> ended up on its back on the first flight. The pilot was not hurt but the
> rollbar was crushed down quite a bit.
I don't know if Larry is talking about the same New Mexico accident I saw,
but this 6A wheelbarrowed onto a dirt runway hard enough to snap the nose
gear, then flipped. I was volunteered to crawl into the plane to secure
stuff prior to righting it and dragging it to the hangar. The slider roll
bar was slightly deformed on the pilot's side up near the top. Kinda
crushed down; not pushed back. Don't recall looking at where roll bar
mounts to longerons. Windscreen was intact as I remember but canopy broke
enough for him to crawl out with small cut on his head from glare shield.
Sure sucked up a lot of dirt sliding down the strip... Wait for a *real*
good day weather-wise for that first flight, folks. BTW, second flight was
2 months later.
Jim RV6A slider flying in TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael J. Robbins" <kitfox(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pictures of folding bike in a RV |
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Lervold <randy@rv-8.com>
>
> Mike Robbins has specifically modified his RV-8 rear baggage compartment
to
> fit two Bike Fridays. See...
> http://www.rv-8.com/MikeRobbins.htm
>
> Randy Lervold
> www.rv-8.com
>
And I do have a shot of one bike fitted in the aft baggage compartment.
It's a huge file (400+ kb), but if someone wants to see it I can try and
send it.
Mike Robbins
RV8Q 80591 N88MJ wiring & firewall fwd stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-3 question |
In a message dated 06/28/2001 5:54:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
michelboucher594(at)home.com writes:
>
> Hmmm... you got me worried now , I was under the impression that you could
> fly it with an open canopy at speeds I believe less than 120mph. I have done
> that a few times in the past whithout any ill effects, it is kind a neat. I
> use to keep my throttle arm on the edge to hold the canopy back as it has a
> tendency to creep forward. The windshield does a great job as you don't feel
> much of the wind. Super cool man! :)
>
> Michel Boucher
> RV3 1,040hrs
>
RV-3 sliding canopy open flight speed limitation was given as 110 mph.
Anything faster than that, and you're the test pilot. :-)
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV with RV-4 style side hinged canopy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Oke" <wjoke(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
One factor I have not seen mentioned yet is the relative difficulty in
sealing the forward edge of the tip-up canopy against water ingress both
on-the-ground and in-flight. Any leakage here will usually drip on the
wiring or $$$ avionics boxes on the forward side of the instrument panel.
This is generally not a good thing.
A local friend has been flying his -6 for 10 years now with a tip-up and
still has problems. He says he wishes he had gone with a slider for this
reason - water seepage problems around the forward canopy edge. (I think the
first slider kits were coming out when he was building). I think there must
be workarounds such as poly shrouds which drape over the instruments and
wiring, etc.
Guess if you fly in the desert or only in good weather and/or have a good
hanger this is not a big problem.
Personally and FWIW, I was tinkering with my slider canopy frame this very
afternoon.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-3 C-FIZM
RV-6A C-????
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary & Sandi" <flying(at)3rivers.net>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:54 AM
Subject: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Gary & Sandi"
>
> I am doing the "Tip-up vs Slider" canopy debate. I'd like to know how
> many builders have chosen each type, and why. Do the tip-ups offer
> enough ventilation while taxiing? Are they hard to seal? Strong enough
> when open in windy conditions? What do you guys think?
>
> I am building a -9A, but I assume there is very little functional
> difference between the 9 and the 6 in the canopy. Thought I'd ask you
> guys who have been flying yours for a while.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gary Crowder
> Belt, Montana
> #90263 on the wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Im7shannon(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A 994KS FLIES |
Well I finally hacked my way through the paperwork problems I had and emerged
with an airworthiness cert, so this afternoon was finally the time to fly.
The weather cleared up here in the northwest just at the right time too. The
sun was just going down over the Olympic Mountains as I landed after my
second flight of the day.
The plane flew beautifully, was a little left wing heavy at first but leveled
out nicely after I burned some fuel off the left tank.
What a marvelous machine, I still have a big stupid grin on my face,
everybody at the store I stopped at to get some beer on the way home must
have thought I had too much already!
Like everybody says, keep poundin dem rivets, its worth it!
I will post some performance numbers soon, as well as get some photos to Doug
Reeves site.
Build time was 1750 hours in 15 months, completely finished and painted.
Kevin Shannon -9A N994KS
O-320 D2J Catto Prop
Apex Airport, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Larry Pardue wrote:
>
>
> <westtexflyboy@cox-internet.com>
> >
> > Gary & Sandi,
> > All of us who fly put a certain amount of consideration into the safety
> > aspects of flying.. Any option you choose should be done with safety in
> > mind. I think the canopy decision is one of these options. I would
> > suggests that you look at the three view drawings of the RV6s in Van's
> > Aircraft web page. Lay a straight edge over the drawing of the tip up
> with
> > the straight edge touching the top of the cowling and the top of the
> > vertical fin. Drop it down a couple of inches to allow for crushing of
> the
> > fin and see what would hit the ground first in the event of a flip over
> that
> > ended up side down. Do the same with drawing of the slider. You will see
> > that your head will strike the ground before the rear roll over bar
> touches
> > the ground in the tip up. The forward roll over bar in the slider would
> > stand a lot better chance of protecting you.
>
> I do not know which configuration is safer but I have seen a slider that
> ended up on its back on the first flight. The pilot was not hurt but the
> rollbar was crushed down quite a bit. Enough that the pilot did not have
> room to clear without ducking. Maybe the same would happen with a tipup. I
> don't know. Does anyone?
>
> The particular pilot involved in this incident was reluctant to make public
> what happened to the rollbar. It seemed to me the reason was a reluctance
> to offend the Van's factory or something. I have heard of other cases of
> people wanting to keep quiet what happened when it might reflect badly on
> our airplanes.
>
> As for me, I say if it is a fact, I want to know about it.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
>
I really don't understand the reluctance of making public the fact that the
roll bar did exactly what it was designed to do???? If the aircraft flipped
and the pilot did not get seriously hurt I would say that speaks well for the
roll bar design. We can not expect that there well be no damage in these kinds
of situations. I have been around flying RV's a long time so I have seen a few
damaged RV's that have been on their backs for some reason or other. The tip up
rollover bar does a very good job of protecting the occupants. Normally in a roll
over the canopy fractures or breaks allowing for escape. I would not slide my canopy
open even if I could with a slider because the canopy is still helping to create
a small amount of protection. BTW I have been in a roll over accident in a open
cockpit aircraft with basically no protection and survived with only minor
injuries so do have a small indication of what it is like.
Jerry S
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: RV-8/8A Canopy Group Order |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Listers,
I'm copying this RV-8/8A group order for Todd's Canopies to the List just
in case I missed anyone who placed an order, or screwed up their e-mail
address, or if there's anyone else who wants to get in on this very good
deal while they have the chance you can contact Todd Silver (see contact
info below) and tell him you want in on the group order.
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
loz(at)att.net, algrajek(at)msn.com, jollyd(at)teleport.com,
martin(at)me.engr.wisc.edu, mstephan(at)shr.net,
f_dombroski(at)yahoo.com, rickjory(at)email.msn.com,
czechsix(at)juno.com
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 00:31:55 -0500
Subject: RV-8/8A Canopy Group Order
Todd (and cc: to everyone who has contacted me to get in on the RV-8/8A
canopy group order):
Following is a list of names with e-mail addresses and the type of canopy
ordered (thickness and tint). I refer to Todd's standard tint as "dark"
and for those who wanted a lighter tint (like Vans provides in the
finishing kit) as "light". At this time we don't have enough orders to
justify Todd's purchase of the "light" tint plastic so those who wanted
this tint will have to live with their second choices, which are noted
below. A few people are still awaiting tint samples to decide. If
anyone has changed their mind or believes I've screwed up their order
please correct it with Todd.
-------------------------------------
Bill Christie, billc(at)dancris.com, 1/4" thick, 1st choice Light, 2nd
choice Dark tint.
James Freeman, flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net, 3/16" thick, Dark tint.
Todd Rudberg, todd_rudberg(at)yahoo.com, 3/16" thick, Clear.
Phil Lozman, loz(at)att.net, 1/4" thick, Clear.
Al Grajek, algrajek(at)msn.com, 3/16" thick, Clear.
J. Dawson, jollyd(at)teleport.com, 1/4" thick, Dark tint.
Jay Martin, martin(at)me.engr.wisc.edu, 1/4" thick, Clear.
Michael Stephan, mstephan(at)shr.net, 1/4" thick, 1st choice Light, 2nd
choice Clear.
Frank Dombroski, f_dombroski(at)yahoo.com, 1/4" thick, undecided (awaiting
tint sample)
Rick Jory, rickjory(at)email.msn.com, undecided (awaiting tint sample)
Mark Navratil, czechsix(at)juno.com, 3/16" thick, Clear.
----------------------
Remember the pricing, assuming that at least 6 of the folks listed above
actually follow through by sending Todd a check, then we all get the $125
discount off his standard prices of $450 (clear) and $600 (tint). So if
you are ordering a clear canopy send a check for $325 and if tinted send
$475. Shipping is included.
Todd, I'll let you handle it from here. You might want to send out an
e-mail confirming this info and pricing to everyone, give us the address
to send the check to, and let us know what to expect next (how soon after
you get the checks can we expect our canopies, how long do people have to
get their check to you if they want to get in on this deal, etc etc).
I'm copying an exerpt from your last e-mail to me for everybody to read:
>If anyone wants a tint sample all they have to do is ask me.
>
>My definition of an order: When I receive a check.
>
>I will not cash anyone's check until the canopy is on it's way. If you
>want I
>can give you email addresses of the last 20 or so customers. They will
>all
>tell you that that is the case.
>
>All the builders in this group will receive an optically perfect,
>stress
>relieved, guaranteed RV-8 canopy with the flanges already cut off.
>Lets do
>business.
>
>If anyone has a question about the quality they may want to contact
>Berkut
>Engineering.
>
>Todd
Contact info for Todd Silver:
e-mail: BSILVER05(at)aol.com
website: www.kgarden.com/todd/
phone: 954-579-0874
Thanks everyone for jumping in on this and making it a good deal for all.
Over and out....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A fuselage, O-360-A4A, Sensenich 87"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
> A local friend has been flying his -6 for 10 years now with a tip-up and
> still has problems. He says he wishes he had gone with a slider for this
> reason - water seepage problems around the forward canopy edge. (I think
the
> first slider kits were coming out when he was building). I think there
must
> be workarounds such as poly shrouds which drape over the instruments and
> wiring, etc.
>
Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones on this. I've flown my -6A tip up in rain
and
get maybe a drop or two where I didn't form a good trough at the outer ends
of the canopy drain. I chose to not do the ejection system as drawn.
Instead, I
put in the mechanism; but, I did not cut the slot all the way to the top of
the sub panel
and into the forward top skin. That allowed me to run the drain channels
with no
breaks for water to get through. It works for me. I can still pull the
handle for easier
canopy removal; but, I don't get the water problems I've heard about. In
fact, I
don't have any covers on my radio stack. I actually get more water at the
aft end
of the canopy strucure around the rear window. I need to seal that, I
guess. Just
like the interior, I'll get around to it when I take the time from flying
it. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
>
>Kevin Horton, noticed you put your engine on the bare fuselage, I would
>assume you require weight on the tail to prevent the thing from falling on
>its nose. I will be doing the same shortly and would like to know how much
>weight is required.
>
>Michel Boucher
>RV81117
Michel,
Sorry about the slow reply - I got behind in reading the list e-mail.
I put 35 lb on the rear deck. I didn't need that much just to keep
the tail down, but I wanted to cover the case where I might have
crawled up into the forward fuselage to work on something. I'll
certainly have my wife standing at the tail the first time I try that
manoeuvre though.
I had some plastic covered weights from a weight set sitting in my
basement. A piece of copper water pipe was cut off to go through the
weights and down into the hole in the rear deck to ensure the weights
can't slide off.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine)
Ottawa, Canada
http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider
>
> One factor I have not seen mentioned yet is the relative difficulty in
> sealing the forward edge of the tip-up canopy against water ingress both
> on-the-ground and in-flight. Any leakage here will usually drip on the
> wiring or $$$ avionics boxes on the forward side of the instrument panel.
> This is generally not a good thing.
>
> A local friend has been flying his -6 for 10 years now with a tip-up and
> still has problems. He says he wishes he had gone with a slider for this
> reason - water seepage problems around the forward canopy edge. (I think
the
> first slider kits were coming out when he was building). I think there
must
> be workarounds such as poly shrouds which drape over the instruments and
> wiring, etc.
>
> Guess if you fly in the desert or only in good weather and/or have a good
> hanger this is not a big problem.
>
> Personally and FWIW, I was tinkering with my slider canopy frame this very
> afternoon.
>
> Jim Oke
> Winnipeg, MB
> RV-3 C-FIZM
> RV-6A C-????
>
Having a tilt up, I can attest that water seepage around the forward canopy
edge can be a problem. I formed an aluminum box that extends from
instrument panel through the bulkhead that surrounds my avionics stack (most
critical components in my opinion ) to protects those items. Also, by
carefully selection of rubber sealing strips for the leading edge of the
canopy/fuselage sealing area and placing some electrician (or other tape)
over the hinge slots that water seepage can just about be completely
eliminated. Some have also place Vinyl/canvas strips over the back of the
instrument panel with snaps (for removal) to trap/divert any water to the
side that does get in.
I think its largely a matter of personal preference. Cracking the tilt-up to
the "Taxi Position" provides ample ventilation on hot days thanks mainly to
the excellent airflow through the Naca side vents. I like the unrestricted
visibility of the tilt up, but do think the slider is sexier. My scarf
sticking out from a tilt-up cracked open in the taxi position just does not
have the same glamour as fluttering from a open slider {:>).
Best Regards
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Canopy -NOT tip up vs. slider |
Took a break from building to go flying in my Grumman AA-1A yesterday. It
was warm here so I flew with the canopy open as is permitted in the POH.
What a pleasant feeling. My question for the day:
Has anyone come up with a mod which will allow a RV 6 or 7 slider to remain
open in flight? The Grumman canopy attaches to the fuse with a system of
slider rails. It must be possible, the Grumman can do it. Of course my top
speed is only 120 mph in the Grumman, but how could you strengthen the RV 7
canopy to make topless flight a possibility to some speed?
John McD (builders learning curve taking an upturn)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Laurence" <plaurencepc(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise (long) |
Eric,
you forgot "don't archive"
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:22 AM
Subject: RV-List: Noise (long)
Speaking of noise restrictions, you guys wait its coming.
RANT MODE ON:
Did you guys see in AVweb what is happening to the Oceanside Ca airport?
The CITY under pressure from the citizens have declared that all airplanes
will have big registration numbers under the wings so the ground worms can
all nark on them. Each aircraft operating from the airport has to first get
a city license. I'm thinking that our pal Boyd would get his licensed
pulled pretty quickly for his aural intrusion into the busy day of all the
many suburban driving soccer moms. I'm telling, you this is a tiny airport
nestled in a little valley but it does happen to be on a major highway. The
real shocker is, this is OCEANSIDE, home to the First Marine Division made
up of 30,000 life taking heart breaking drunken hell raisers. God Bless Em!
I'm sure some day I will smoke a turd in purgatory for the things me and
my
pals did in that town through the miracles of alcohol. This should be the
last place on earth that anyone gives a rip about a cessena flying over.
They regularly invade the place with hovercraft, gunships, artillery,
Harriers, tanks and other fun testosterone building toys that any male
worth his nads dreams of getting his hand on. And the city gets fired up
about a 100 HP lycoming.
Its not about the noise man, its about conformity. We pilots are different,
we stepped out over the lines, we dare to do something that normal people
don't do. People hate that "sh#$%. Just speaking for my fellow pompous
Americans we are force fed a constant diet of how we are to be. It is
dictated out of Hollywood through the media and the average ground worm
buys it lock stock and barrel. I see it every week on the news. A reporter
will give the lowdown on how the robber took the $38 from the register and
then killed the store owner and his wife then fled on foot. Next story is
the Cessena that ran out of gas and pronged itself on the city street with
minor injuries to the pilot and passengers. The tone of the reporter is
much more passionate and expressive while talking about an engine out than
the brutal murder of innocent people. More people die in railway accidents
than in small planes, but only presidential sexcapades are more
sensationalized than a plane crash. The next day, the rail tragedy is long
forgotten.
Used to be a time that people welcomed aviators. One would land in a field
outside of town and the whole town would walk out to meet him and maybe
take a quick ride. After years of unrealistic media bombardment we are
regarded at best with suspicion. People no longer get it, why would anyone
risk their life in a flying bomb? The general publics understanding of our
passion is right out of science fiction. I can see a time when someone
galvanizes the opposition to small aircraft operations in general. Any lie
could be used to vilify the entire general aviation community, the average
PTA soccer mom would not have the knowledge to know they were being handed
a lie. Even lukewarm support of a measure to limit aviation would easily
decimate us based on numbers. Its already happening in California, why
should the community give a rip if they close down the airport? Might be
nice to have a Chucky Cheese there anyway.
Sure wish I could offer a great capstone idea to all this ranting, lord
knows I've been thinking about it a lot. In the back of my mind I prepare
myself for the day when I have to move back to Western Oklahoma to operate
and afford my airplane. All I can come up with, is be damn aware and damn
vocal. Educate the people you work with every time you get the chance. When
they ask "what if the engine quits" don't give a glib answer, take that
opportunity to let them know that a forced landing is something you train
hard for. Even more important, never let any freedom you currently have go
away without writing your congressman and senator. Every time you loose a
freedom, it get that much easier for them to take away the next one. Does
your airport have a local pilots association? If so join, and help. If not,
go to the FBO and start one and make your presence known to your city
government. Does your airport have an open hangar day for the community?
The term "stand your ground" gets used a lot. I can't think of a case more
appropriate than defending your airport. We are often the users of the
last choice open ground within the city. It would make the city a lot more
revenue if it was converted into video stores and insurance offices than
left a big open field where a handful of old airplanes are operated by a
handful of old pilots. Better stand your ground now. Next time you go rent
that spam can, just ask if there is an airport pilots association. If you
think there is nothing you can do about it, very soon there will come a
time where there will be nothing you can do about it.
RANT MODE OFF:
Whew!
Eric Henson
Jarhed & Freedom Fighter
"RV4" (at)matronics.com on 06/28/2001 05:57:06
PM
Please respond to rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Shook" <billshook(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Exhaust Noise
>
> Not a very popular opinion, but I have always wondered just how in the
world
> we get away with the noise we put out with our planes. >
There are some very tough noise restrictions in Europe, especially germany
is very bad. They charge a bit extra for landing fees if you don't have a
noise certificate.
Also Amsterdam (Schiphol Airport) restricts airlines during certain times
of
the day.
LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE !!!!!!
Marcel de Ruiter
RV4/G-RVMJ
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Kunkel <rvator(at)earthlink.net> |
Several years ago, & to some extent even now,
homeowners groups were vocally complaining about
noise from Van Nuys airport. Can't remember all
the details of how it came about, but a new
ordinance was passed. If a homeowner filed a noise
complaint, they had to do so in writing & give
their address, phone #, the date, time, etc. This
information was kept on public record. If the
homeowner ever sold their house they had to
disclose this information to all potential buyers
or they were in serious violation of blah, blah,
blah. Can't figure it out, but the noise
complaints went down significantly. Just a
thought.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> --> RV6-List message posted by: "Jim Oke"
>
> One factor I have not seen mentioned yet is the relative difficulty in
> sealing the forward edge of the tip-up canopy against water ingress both
> on-the-ground and in-flight.
Wouldn't it be possible to put a drainage tray under the front edge of the
tip-up canopy? After all, you car has a great big hole right above the
heater inlet that rain pours through all the time. But your car
manufacturer thoughtfully put a little tray in there that redirects the
water to the sides and drains it on to the ground.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Buick Power |
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> I was told some time ago that it continued to be developed both in Britain
> and also in Australia where it's cubic inch displacement was said to be
> increased by a noticeable margin.
Jim:
There's a company in the Vancouver area that imports these engines. I think
they are now available up to 5.0 litres or so. But they're not that cheap.
I was quoted around CDN$13,000, if I remember correctly. They have a web
site, but I've lost the URL.
If they are available in Australia, you might be able to import your own
from there for a decent price, given the state of the Australian dollar at
the moment (i.e. even worse that the Canadian dollar!). But I spent some
time in Australia a few years ago, and I'm not aware of any Australian cars
that use that engine. They use Holden (i.e. GM) V6s and V8s of the same
basic design as current North American cars.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
RAH BBQ at Arlington is FULL.
Thanks to all of our friends coming from points around the world to enjoy
King Salmon with us at the Arlington Fly-in. We've reached the capacity of
our hanger and cooks to accommodate any more. Those of you who have
registered, please send in your checks. If you get skunked by weather or
equipment let me know and I'll try and sell your spot to another of the
worthy and return your $$$s.
I'll try and keep my cell on at the fly-in.
206-718-2304
Dave Buton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | S&W Oil Cooler Selection |
List: I am getting ready to purchase my oil cooler and have got it
down to Two Possible S&W Coolers, they are #8432R (1 air and 2 oil passes)
or #10599R (1 air and 1 oil pass).
My RV6-A-QB is running a new 0360-A1A and was wondering if
anyone is using these oil coolers? Wayne at Pacific Oil Cooler Service
thought either one would work but thought #8432R would be Ideal since it was
designed to handle Turbo Engines.
What say the list?
Tom in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Tip-up vs Slider |
I have flown my RV-6 tip-up in light to moderate rain and and have had
very little leakage at the leading edge of the canopy.
However, opening the canopy after the plane has sat on the ramp in the
rain is another matter! LOTS of water will run down the canopy and
behind the panel. I have on my "list of things to do" a shroud for the
radio stack because a couple of times I have seen water running out the
panel around the radio! The -6 is worse in this regard because the
tail-low posture makes water drain back through the panel. In spite of
such abuse, the TKM MKII com, Garmin xsponder, and RMI uMonitor
continued to work fine (this is not recommended treatment of avionics,
of course!).
In spite of the water issue, the tip-up is still my favorite flavor of
canopy, and is what I would use if beginning another project.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 280 hrs)
"The RV Journal" http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal
==================
Jim Sears wrote:
>
>
> > A local friend has been flying his -6 for 10 years now with a tip-up and
> > still has problems. He says he wishes he had gone with a slider for this
> > reason - water seepage problems around the forward canopy edge. (I think
> the
> > first slider kits were coming out when he was building). I think there
> must
> > be workarounds such as poly shrouds which drape over the instruments and
> > wiring, etc.
> >
>
> Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones on this. I've flown my -6A tip up in rain
> and
> get maybe a drop or two where I didn't form a good trough at the outer ends
> of the canopy drain. I chose to not do the ejection system as drawn.
> Instead, I
> put in the mechanism; but, I did not cut the slot all the way to the top of
> the sub panel
> and into the forward top skin. That allowed me to run the drain channels
> with no
> breaks for water to get through. It works for me. I can still pull the
> handle for easier
> canopy removal; but, I don't get the water problems I've heard about. In
> fact, I
> don't have any covers on my radio stack. I actually get more water at the
> aft end
> of the canopy strucure around the rear window. I need to seal that, I
> guess. Just
> like the interior, I'll get around to it when I take the time from flying
> it. :-)
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> RV-6A N198JS
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Complete RV-4 project for sale |
Posting for someone else...
June 25, 2001 - June 30, 2001
RV-Archive.digest.vol-la