RV-Archive.digest.vol-nw
November 27, 2002 - December 03, 2002
controlled airspace where I do most of my flying.
> 1 2 or 3 axis Autopilot.
If I were going to fly IFR I'd definitely get a wing leveler, at least. But
since I'm not, I won't have any of that stuff.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <martin.hone(at)tradergroup.com.au> |
Hi Paul,
With rusty tools, why not use a Scotch pad and Alumiprep, then spray lightly with
Corrosion X or CRF-50 inhibitor ?
Other tools can be cleaned up with kerosene/dieseline/avtur/Jet A1
Works for me,
Martin in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system / Piper pitot probe question |
czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> Guys, is anyone successfully using a Piper pitot/static mast on an RV-8/A with
good results for the static system? I have this setup and am not flying yet
but have heard a few builders say they had to switch to the static ports on the
aft fuse to get correct readings. I'm thinking it would be easier to do it
now instead of waiting until I'm painted and flying to add the static ports....
>
> And on a related note, are you folks having good success with the flush static
ports sold by Cleveland Tools or do I need the less-sexy but functional-and-cheap
protruding pop rivet sold by Vans to get accurate readings?
>
> Thanks as always for the endless wisdom...
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass and lovin' that good ol' itchy feelin'...
>
Hi Mark,
If experience with a -4 interests you, check the archives for my name, Kevin
Horton, & 'altimeter' .
On a -4, the rivet heads made a big difference in accuracy.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | wiring handheld radio into intercom |
Bob Nuckolls wrote an excellent article how how-to build your own connection
for integrating your hand-held into the antenna stream.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
Mike Nellis
RV-6 Fuselage N699BM
1947 Stinson 108-2 NC9666K
http://bmnellis.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Besing
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:03 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: wiring handheld radio into intercomm
>
>
> Not sure about your installation there, sounds a little
> confusing. But, the
> way a "normal" PTT works is you simply tie one of the pins of the the
> barrel jack on the mic audio plug to the barrel ground on the
> jack and put a
> switch between. Does that make sense?
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> http://www.kitlog.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Garrett" <rgarrett7(at)attbi.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: wiring handheld radio into intercomm
>
>
> >
> > I would like to wire my handheld radio into the intercomm
> system so that I
> > have a 2nd radio. The intercomm is a Flightcom 403 from Van's and the
> > handheld is a Japan Radio JHP-520. The problem is that there is no
> wiring
> > information with the handheld. I was able to figure out most of the
> wiring
> > for the handheld by reverse engineering the headset adapter.
> The problem
> > comes with the push-to-talk. The headset adapter for the handheld
> assumes,
> > reasonably enough, that you have a detachable PTT switch. In this
> > arrangement, PTT switch connects or disconnects the mike from the radio.
> In
> > other words, if you just plugged the mike into the handheld without the
> PTT
> > switch, the radio would try to transmit all the time. This
> doesn't really
> > work for an intercomm situation because you want to be able to talk over
> the
> > intercomm through the mike all the time, but you only want to
> trigger the
> > handheld when you push the PTT switch. I probably haven't
> explained that
> > very well.
> >
> > Anyway, what I am looking for is how to wire the mike that goes into the
> > handheld so that there is a PTT line as well as the mike audio input. I
> > seem to have the audio input working, but the radio stays in
> transmit mode
> > all the time. How do I trigger the transmit using a PTT line?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Randy Garrett
> > RV-6A -- 41 hours TT
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel bronze thrust washer source |
In a message dated 11/26/2002 10:54:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rickf(at)velocitus.net writes:
> Does anyone know where to get a bronze thrust washer. The RV 3 plans call
> for a 1/2 inch ID thrust washer on top of the tail wheel yoke where it
> mounts to the tail spring. Van's doesn't have them and doesn't know where
> to get them?
It depends on the OD and thickness that you need. McMaster-Carr has a .500"
ID, 1.125" OD, .062" thk Silicon Bronze Flat Washer P/N 93490A032 listed for
around $50 per 100.
Man, you could buy just one package, mark them up 10 times and make a small
fortune reselling them to all of the owners of those anachronistic tailwheel
RV aircraft ;
).
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Comeaux" <mcomeaux(at)cmc.net> |
| Subject: | elt 450 location |
Considering locating my elt-450 back on the shelf
that the horizontal stabilizer is attached can anyone see any problem with
that?
Mike Comeaux
mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elt 450 location |
Hi Mike,
It might depend on how you equip your excellent choice of Van's aircraft.
In general it might be wise to avoid unnecessary weight toward the tail. An
O-320-XXX engine, light starter and a choice of a lighter prop (non constant
speed) could lead to an airframe that will not like to carry much baggage.
Tail heavy is a drag :)!
Great flights, greased landings
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Comeaux" <mcomeaux(at)cmc.net>
Subject: RV-List: elt 450 location
>
> Considering locating my elt-450 back on the shelf
> that the horizontal stabilizer is attached can anyone see any problem with
> that?
>
> Mike Comeaux
> mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
> RV6A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Naca vent in place of cowl snout |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net>
Subject: RV-List: Naca vent in place of cowl snout
>
> I would like to eliminate the engine air snout on the bottom of the cowl.
The engine I have ordered from aerosport power will have fuel injection with
the air intake mounted in the horizontal position. Is there any reason a
NACA vent lined up with the F.I. on the lower front of the cowl would not
adequately supply air for the engine. What size, 2 inch or larger? Maybe a
course screen to keep out bugs, etc. I plan to change oil at 25 hour
intervals and operate only from paved runways so I don't consider an air
filter as all that necessary.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV3 fuselage
> Boise, ID
>
Hi Richard,
I'm not so sure that the NACA duct will perform as expected situated on a
curved surface, subjected to prop turbulance and that far forward on the
airframe.
Hopeffully someone on the list can quote chapter and verse or point to a
difinitive study or some referance material that will be of use.
All I have to offer what I have been told some time ago. That is, the NACA
duct works best if it has a fairly flat non turbulant or low turbulance
laminar flow area preceeding and surrounding it. Efforts should be made to
position it well ahead of any protrusions (wings, struts, other scoops or
structure etc.). The NACA ducts performance will be adversly effected if the
surface it is on is at a hight angle to the airflow that it is traveling
through.
I will happily appriciate being dissavowed of any of this information should
it be in error.
For now,
Jim in Kelowna
==================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | elt 450 location |
Hi Mike,
Even though the ELT doesn't weigh much, multiply it by that LOOOOOONG arm
and it adds up. A couple of pouns back there can translate into quite a few
pounds of subtracted weight in the baggage compartment. Many people mount
the antennas back there, and put the ELT closer to the CG somewhere. Most
popular seems to be (in no particular order) behind the baggage bulkhead, on
top of the battery box, in the baggage compartment, and I have mine
installed directly behind the PAX seat, ahead of the flap torque tube with
the antenna directly behind the baggage bulkhead. Very little interruption
to the CG this way.
Just my 2 cents - no gospel!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis.
TIME FINALLY FLOWN OFF!!!!!!!! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Comeaux
Subject: RV-List: elt 450 location
Considering locating my elt-450 back on the shelf
that the horizontal stabilizer is attached can anyone see any problem with
that?
Mike Comeaux
mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system / Piper pitot probe question |
>
>
>czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
>>
>> Guys, is anyone successfully using a Piper pitot/static mast on an
>>RV-8/A with good results for the static system? I have this setup
>>and am not flying yet but have heard a few builders say they had to
>>switch to the static ports on the aft fuse to get correct readings.
>>I'm thinking it would be easier to do it now instead of waiting
>>until I'm painted and flying to add the static ports....
>>
>> And on a related note, are you folks having good success with the
>>flush static ports sold by Cleveland Tools or do I need the
>>less-sexy but functional-and-cheap protruding pop rivet sold by
>>Vans to get accurate readings?
>>
>> Thanks as always for the endless wisdom...
>>
>> --Mark Navratil
>> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>> RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass and lovin' that good ol' itchy feelin'...
>>
>
>Hi Mark,
>
>If experience with a -4 interests you, check the archives for my name, Kevin
>Horton, & 'altimeter' .
>
>On a -4, the rivet heads made a big difference in accuracy.
>
>Charlie
>
There are several different part number Piper pitot tubes - each has
a different angle on the bottom surface to optimize the static system
error for different model Pipers. So if someone tells you that they
get good or bad performance from their Piper pitot tube that
information is only useful if you know what part number pitot tube
they are running.
I was doing some flight testing with Diamond Aircraft as they were
developing the DA-20-C1 prototype. They had to move the pitot tube
from where it was on the DA-20-A due to a structural change in the
wing, so that screwed up the static system error. They tried all the
different Piper pitot tube models on the DA-20-C1 - the IAS at the
same TAS varied by about 15 knot depending on which part number Piper
pitot they used. They eventually ended up with a custom tube with a
different angle on the bottom.
As far as flush static ports go, some people have had static system
error because of them. Some people seem to get acceptable accuracy,
and I think many people don't know whether their static system is
accurate or not, so they are happy. The static system errors will
vary a bit from aircraft to aircraft, depending on the exact skin
contours ahead of the static ports, and the exact placement of the
ports. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying them - if
you get acceptable airspeed errors that is great. If not you can do
what Charlie and at least one Swedish RV-6 builder did - added
simulated rivet bumps on top of the flush mounted ports.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "davefried" <davefried(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Static system / Piper pitot probe question |
Mark,
I just switched to this type of pitot hoping to find a reasonably accurate
indicated airspeed. Time and weather are slowing my efforts to calibrate it
but the first attempt seemed pretty close. I wont state how close as I was
busy trying to avoid snow showers at the time and would prefer to try again
on a better day.
It stalls at 40 kias flaps down and 46 kias flaps up.
My neighbors use a variety of pitot/static probes, some have the static
disconnected in the wing, mounted on the fuselage and loose in the cabin
(sensitive to cabin vent position). The flush static ports are not the same
as the protruding pop rivets. The curvature of the rivet will change the
local pressure coefficient and effect the indication. All will provide
airspeed data.
Accuracy is not required as the planes are flown relative to a few flight
test established numbers, but I'm curious. More to come.
David Fried
DF-6 C-GZDF
>
> Guys, is anyone successfully using a Piper pitot/static mast on an RV-8/A
with good results for the static system? I have this setup and am not
flying yet but have heard a few builders say they had to switch to the
static ports on the aft fuse to get correct readings. I'm thinking it would
be easier to do it now instead of waiting until I'm painted and flying to
add the static ports....
>
> And on a related note, are you folks having good success with the flush
static ports sold by Cleveland Tools or do I need the less-sexy but
functional-and-cheap protruding pop rivet sold by Vans to get accurate
readings?
>
> Thanks as always for the endless wisdom...
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass and lovin' that good ol' itchy feelin'...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <davevon(at)tir.com> |
| Subject: | Re: elt 450 location |
> Tail heavy is a drag :)!
Actually, tail heavy is less drag and less stability.
Airplanes of what I guess you could call normal configuration, non-canards,
use the down force/lift from the stab and a forward cg to create stability.
The more nose heavy the more down force and more stability (the limiting
factors would be how powerful the elevator is and how much lift the wing can
produce). In order to have equilibrium in level flight the wing has to
produce more lift to support the down force of the stab. So now the wing is
producing more drag because it's producing more lift (induced drag) and the
stab is creating more drag because of the negative lift it's producing. The
least amount of drag would occur if the cg was located on the neutral point
of the airplane, taking into account the fuse, prop, gear, stab, downwash,
etc. Without fly-by-wire it would be virtually impossible to fly the
airplane.
With the RV-6's I've flown, the rear cg stability issue seems to be the most
marginal in the full flap slow flight mode. Within most the normal cg range
the airplane tends to stay nose up. This would be a problem if the airplane
were to be certified. With an aft cg the nose may want to continue to go up
exhibiting negative stability, not good....
Which brings up an interesting point. The fastest way to accelerate into a
dive is with a 0 g push, as long as the engine doesn't quit. Good to know
next time you're in a dogfight (or if the engine quits in a climb) :-)
Dave
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KAKlewin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
Howdy,
Well the search in the archives has left me with a few more questions about
mounting a FF Transducer for an O-360-A1A (aerosport) with an RMI
Micromonitor.....(most archives touched on Fuel Scan/Vision 1000/Fuel
Injection systems)......
1. I am assuming my FF Transducer should be in line between Mech Fuel Pump
and Carb?
2. Should it be mounted to the Firewall...and if so...I assume a 90 or 45
deg fitting is inappropriate due to creation of turbulence?
3. How much straight line flow is appropriate before it hits the FF
Transducer?
4. If you guys are mounting on the Firewall...where seems to be the best
place (I dont have an engine hung yet, so Im not sure where all the lines
will run).
5. Final Unrelated questions...for all the transducers (Fuel/Oil/FF/etc)
that use shielded wire...what am I supposed to do with the shield on the
transducer end??
Thanks...
Kurt Klewin, RV6A OKC, OK
Finishing.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | elt 450 location |
That's where mine is, but I'm trying to counter-balance the O-360 and Hartzell
and firewall battery. Both my Pointer ELT and it's antennea fit nicely back
there.
-LB
RV-8 panel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Comeaux
> To: RV-List
> Subject: RV-List: elt 450 location
>
>
>
> Considering locating my elt-450 back on the shelf
> that the horizontal stabilizer is attached can anyone see any problem with
> that?
>
> Mike Comeaux
> mcomeaux(at)cmc.net
> RV6A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
Kurt,
I don't know which fuel flow transducer you are using but the flowscan seems
to be a popular one. If you are using the flowscan, you can find
installation information at www.blackwatchmarine.com, when you enter the
main page, select flowmeters on the left hand side. On the next page select
fuel. Then select "Aircraft Quality" fuel flow sensor in the middle of the
page. The datasheet and application notes discuss transducer mounting.
Vince Welch
>From: KAKlewin(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer....
>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:32:34 EST
>
>
>Howdy,
>
> Well the search in the archives has left me with a few more questions
>about
>mounting a FF Transducer for an O-360-A1A (aerosport) with an RMI
>Micromonitor.....(most archives touched on Fuel Scan/Vision 1000/Fuel
>Injection systems)......
>
> 1. I am assuming my FF Transducer should be in line between Mech Fuel
>Pump
>and Carb?
>
> 2. Should it be mounted to the Firewall...and if so...I assume a 90 or
>45
>deg fitting is inappropriate due to creation of turbulence?
>
> 3. How much straight line flow is appropriate before it hits the FF
>Transducer?
>
> 4. If you guys are mounting on the Firewall...where seems to be the
>best
>place (I dont have an engine hung yet, so Im not sure where all the lines
>will run).
>
> 5. Final Unrelated questions...for all the transducers
>(Fuel/Oil/FF/etc)
>that use shielded wire...what am I supposed to do with the shield on the
>transducer end??
>
> Thanks...
>
> Kurt Klewin, RV6A OKC, OK
> Finishing.....
>
>
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
Due to the "requirement" of having the FFT between two "straight" runs of
pipe, I installed mine to the side of the fuselage, next to the rudder
pedals, between the electric fuel pump and firewall. It sits at an angle as
my fuel pump is near floor level and the fuel line exits about 2/3 up on the
firewall.
Ross Mickey
RV6A
----- Original Message -----
From: <KAKlewin(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer....
>
> Howdy,
>
> Well the search in the archives has left me with a few more questions
about
> mounting a FF Transducer for an O-360-A1A (aerosport) with an RMI
> Micromonitor.....(most archives touched on Fuel Scan/Vision 1000/Fuel
> Injection systems)......
>
> 1. I am assuming my FF Transducer should be in line between Mech Fuel
Pump
> and Carb?
>
> 2. Should it be mounted to the Firewall...and if so...I assume a 90 or
45
> deg fitting is inappropriate due to creation of turbulence?
>
> 3. How much straight line flow is appropriate before it hits the FF
> Transducer?
>
> 4. If you guys are mounting on the Firewall...where seems to be the
best
> place (I dont have an engine hung yet, so Im not sure where all the lines
> will run).
>
> 5. Final Unrelated questions...for all the transducers
(Fuel/Oil/FF/etc)
> that use shielded wire...what am I supposed to do with the shield on the
> transducer end??
>
> Thanks...
>
> Kurt Klewin, RV6A OKC, OK
> Finishing.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KAKlewin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
I
Thanks for the info...for all interested an attachment below gives the basics
I got from the websiteVince mentioned....look like it should be upstream of
the fuel pump (after filter and elec pump), 6-12 in of straight pipe prior to
it...a min of 12 in from the pump...and mounted with the wires facing up for
proper operation....
Kurt in OKC
Series 200 Flow Transducer Application Notes
1. A screen or filter should be installed upstream of the flow transducer to
screen out debris which could effect rotor movement or settle in V-bearings.
Since turbulence upstream of the transducer can effect it's performance,
provide a reasonable unobstructed "straight section" length, such as 6" to
12", upstream of the sensor, and some straight section length downstream as
well.
2. Install flow transducer with wire leads (or tabs) pointed UP to vent any
entrained air bubbles and to ensure that the rotor is well immersed in
liquid. For maximum accuracy at low flow rates the transducer should be
mounted level (horizontal).
3 Power supply should be 12VDC at 100mA filtered and regulated.
4. Series 200 flow transducers are designed to measure steady state flows.
Indicated accuracies and pulse counts were obtained on a gravity fed flow
stand and are reproducible in systems using rotary or gear pumps.
5. Series 200 flow transducers have zinc housings and are suitable for use
with hydrocarbons and some other organic liquids. They are not suitable for
water or most chemicals.
6. Note that in model 201 flow transducers (all of the above are 201's), the
internal preamplifier has been adjusted to give a square wave output (pulses)
when a fluid is used with the same infrared optical properties as gasoline,
therefore does not normally give a signal when used on air.
7. The transducers are rated for continuous operation at the middle of their
flow range. Continuous operation at full flow will cause excessive pivot
wear, however, they may be temporarily over-ranged by a factor of 2 or 3
without damage.
8. Transducer should be at least 1-ft from fuel pump, and normally on the
suction side of the pump.
n a message dated 11/27/02 11:56:53 AM Central Standard Time,
welchvincent(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< www.blackwatchmarine.com >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Bibb" <richard.bibb(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
I am having a heck of a time figuring out how to mount a similar transducer
in an RV-4 - there just ain't enough room to have a 6-12" straight section
of tubing before and after the transducer.
I'd be interested in hearing how this was addressed by anyone that has
installed in an RV-4.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
Richard:
I have such an installation. I will publish a picture of this install for you
later today and get back to you about the URL to find it.
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
Richard Bibb wrote:
>
> I am having a heck of a time figuring out how to mount a similar transducer
> in an RV-4 - there just ain't enough room to have a 6-12" straight section
> of tubing before and after the transducer.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing how this was addressed by anyone that has
> installed in an RV-4.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Transducer.... |
I have mine mounted next to the battery. I have the following fuel system:
1. Left and Right Tanks into fuel selector.
2. From fuel selector into an Airflow Performance filter.
3. From filter into electric Airflow Performance boost pump.
4. From boost pump straight tube toward battery and into fuel transducer.
5. From transducer straight tube to the firewall.
I have 220+ hours on this in my RV-4 without any problems. The only
disadvantage is that when you clean the filter it is inside the cabin.
Rob Hickman
RV-4 IO-360 220+ Hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Flow Transducer.. |
..
I mounted mine just next to the battery. Yes it is a tight fit!
--
Scott VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Manager
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Bibb [mailto:richard.bibb(at)verizon.net]
Subject: RV-4 Transducer Mounting was: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer....
I am having a heck of a time figuring out how to mount a similar transducer
in an RV-4 - there just ain't enough room to have a 6-12" straight section
of tubing before and after the transducer.
I'd be interested in hearing how this was addressed by anyone that has
installed in an RV-4.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KAKlewin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Transducer Mounting/Answer from Company... |
Talked to the RMI folks and since their system is adjustable he said you dont
really need to get the full 6 -12 in of straight pipe before the
transducer....I understand many systems use this transducer, but the
different eng monitors may or may not have this feature....he says you can
adjust it once it is installed if it isn't totally accurate....he recommended
that it be installed between the gascolator and the mechanical fuel
pump.....think I just mount it to the firewall and run the pipe from the
gascolator to the floscan with some alum tubing with firesleve (not sure if
this is the best plan...but see no reason not to use alum pipe for the first
part of the system)..then when it comes out of the fuel flow transducer on
the firewall I will use the aeroquip flexible hose to the mechanical
pump......that is the plan as of today!! Hell it may all change tomorrow!!!!
Kurt in OKC
________________________________________________________________________________
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
| From: | Jim Truitt <Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov> |
| Subject: | props and prop pitch |
Has anyone with an O-360 tried both Sensenich metal 83" pitch and 85"
pitch props, on the same aircraft, and have definitive performance on
both? I like the higher cruise the 85" should provide (speed GOOD!). But
if the 83" gives noticably better takeoff and climb while sacraficing only a
few MPH on top end, I like that too.
I didn't find anyone in the archives who had flown both in comparison.
Jim Truitt
8A, Canopy
627TT Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wheel bronze thrust washer source |
In a message dated 11/27/2002 9:52:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7(at)b4.ca
writes:
> He did, but he's glossed over the fact that those nosewheel aircraft
> probably have a larger, heavier, more costly thrust washers where the
> nosewheel swivels...
>
> -RB4
> RV7 Empennage
>
> Laird Owens wrote:
> >
> >I think GV just insulted us tailwheel pilots.....but I'm not sure.... ;-)
I'm sure... but seriously folks, our washers, as is our center of mass, are
properly in front of the main gear. Ha ha, I kill me!
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
| Subject: | Static system / Piper pitot probe question |
> Guys, is anyone successfully using a Piper pitot/static mast on an RV-8/A
with good results for the static system?
> --Mark Navratil
Hi Mark
I believe that the angle of the bottom face on the Piper pitot/static mast
varies by a few degrees between the different Piper aircraft models to get
accurate static pressure.
I am using the mast off of a Senica for pitot pressure only and use Vans pop
rivets of fusalage for static.
George McNutt
Langley, B.C. 6-A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV List: Just where are these Americans? |
I got this from my dear mother the other day. I thought it to be very well
expressed, so I share it at the risk of being flamed for being irrelevant.
Recently someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a
reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. In response an
Australian dentist apparently wrote the following description to let everyone
know how to identify an American, so they would know when they had found one.
An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish,
Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African,
Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian or Arab, or
Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot,
Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native
Americans.
An American is Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there
are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that
in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses. An American is
also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer not to the
government, nor to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and God.
An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the
world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of
Independence, which recognizes the right of each person to the pursuit of
happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every
other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was
overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and
supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning
of
September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in
Afghanistan.
Americans welcome the best. The best products, the best books, the best
music, the best food, the best athletes. But they also welcome the least.
The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes the tired and
the poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest
tossed. These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were
working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2002 earning a better
life for their families. I've been told that the World Trade Center victims
were from at least 30 other countries, cultures, and first languages,
including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General
Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in recent
history. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself, because
Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the
embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that
spirit, everywhere, is an American.
We wish RVators everywhere a Happy Thanksgiving and in your grace be sure to
be thankful you're not Ozzie Osbourne's family ;
).
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RC allen Attitude gyro status |
To RV listers,
Thanks to all the RV listers who took the time to reply to my
questions regarding my defective RC allen attitude Gyro. I appreciate it very
much. To answer some of the questions asked, my unit is for an 8 degree
panel, it was plumbed, and the connections at the back of the unit were
checked and were correct.
I therefore removed it and returned it to the manufacturer to be
fixed. It looks like the main reason for its failure was because if was
inactive too long. I will let everyone know how much it will cost me. By the
way my WULTRAD turn coordinator worked for only 2 flights, it was two months
past the warranty, but Wultrad replaced it for a new one, free of charge.
Vans did the same for my defective fuel pressure gauge.
Thanks again
Real Dupuis
Orlando fl.
RV-6A (N335RL) flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:RV List:Just Where ar These Americans |
GV ; NO FLAMES from here . This is relevant on ANY list.
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: static system, strobe power supply |
> I am building an RV7A-QB...I was wondering about how/where to route the
static line from the back to the front...the plans are pretty unclear
forward of the baggage area bulkhead. What are others doing?? The other
forward bulkheads are not predrilled for anything and I am leery of drilling
a hole where I may regret it later...
My static line runs forward at the longeron. Passes above all the bulkheads.
>
> Also, I am installing a 3-light Whelen strobe system and was wondering
about location of the power supply. And are others running the strobe
wiring to the tail strobe inside conduit?
Located it just behind the bagage bulkhead on the belly skin. Both sides
braced upwards to support it's weight off the skin. Pics if interested.
The wire to the tail strobe is already encased in a thick strong conduit. I
just strapped it in a "J" stringer for the run to the tail.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Not flying yet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New Gift Selection Added - List Fund Raiser! [Please Read] |
Dear Listers,
I've just added a great new last minute Gift Selection to this year's List
Fund Raiser line up! I have a very limited number of sets of a wonderful
collection of Aircraft Technical books by Jeppesen entitled "The A&P
Technical Series Book Set". This is a great opportunity to make a generous
Contribution to support the Lists and walk away with a great set of
reference manuals at the same time.
This set of books normally retails for over $117 PLUS shipping, but you can
pick up your set AND make this year's List Contribution for a cool C-note -
that's a $100, by the way! :-) I'm thinking "Great Christmas Gift"...
There's more information on the books and making your Contribution at the
List Contribution web site:
Email List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
We're coming close to the official end of this year's List Fund Raiser and
if you haven't yet made your Contribution, there's still time get your name
on that List of Contributors! The percentage of contributors is kind of
low this year but I'm hoping many of you are just holding out until the
last minute!
I want to thank each and everyone of you that has already made a donation
to support the continued operation and upgrade of these List Services. As
I've mentioned in the past, running these Lists is a labor of love for me
and the hours upon hours of code development, system maintenance, and
upgrades are MY Contribution to support this great resource for Builders
and Flyer's alike. Won't your take a minute and make YOUR Contribution today?
I want to thank you for your support both during the Fund Raiser but also
throughout the year in the form of kind words and moral support. A nice
comment from a List member about how much the lists have helped them is
always a sure way to brighten my day!
Thank you to all!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | stank-1(at)webtv.net (frank stankiewicz) |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/27/02 |
I have used the 83" pitch on my 6A (0360 ), then repitched to 85".
A drop of 50 rpm static resultrd,no big deall. At cruse I get the same
TAS at about 75 rpm less than with the 83. I do most of my flying here
in Florida (sea level ), so take-of and climb performance is still verry
good. At higher altitudes ( 11.500 ) returning from OSH this yesr, I
still showed a bit over 2600 rpm. The change was a good one I am sure.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | props and prop pitch |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Jim, someone did do a comparison with two different Sensenich props on the same
airplane but it skips my mind who it was now....seems like it should be in the
archives but not sure what to search for. Maybe someone who remembers will
speak up.
I have an 87" Sensenich for my 180 hp RV-8A (not flying yet). I got it because
it was a good deal with only a few hours on it. If I were to order a new one
outright I'd probably go with 85" but the 87" may turn out pretty well. Due
to my vested interest in the subject I've followed threads on prop pitch for a
couple years now and had numerous off-list discussions with other RV-8/A pilots
including Brian Denk and Russell Duffy. Brian has an 83" prop and has expressed
that it would be really nice to go up to a higher pitch so he could run
wide open at lower altitudes without overspeed, but in his case the 83" comes
in handy for takeoff performance since he lives in Albuquerque (high elevation).
Rusty Duffy on the other hand lives in Florida and had an 85" prop on his
-8 that he was not happy with because he felt it was underpitched....he had it
repitched to 87" and liked it better that way....but again he lives at sea level
where the takeoff performance is better and the penalty he pays in acceleration
and climb isn't so great.
Bottom line for me was that the 85" seems to be the best all-around choice, maybe
83" is appropriate if you live at 5000' field elevation and 87" may be fine
if you live at sea level. All of them are a *compromise* and if you don't like
to compromise, get a CS prop : ) If I can ever come up with an extra $7K I'll
order a Whirlwind right away...
Hope this helps,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass...wheel pant intersection fairings today...
____________________________________
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
From: Jim Truitt <Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov>
Subject: RV-List: props and prop pitch
Has anyone with an O-360 tried both Sensenich metal 83" pitch and 85"
pitch props, on the same aircraft, and have definitive performance on
both? I like the higher cruise the 85" should provide (speed GOOD!). But
if the 83" gives noticably better takeoff and climb while sacraficing only a
few MPH on top end, I like that too.
I didn't find anyone in the archives who had flown both in comparison.
Jim Truitt
8A, Canopy
627TT Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: props and prop pitch |
>
>Has anyone with an O-360 tried both Sensenich metal 83" pitch and 85"
>pitch props, on the same aircraft, and have definitive performance on
>both? I like the higher cruise the 85" should provide (speed GOOD!). But
>if the 83" gives noticably better takeoff and climb while sacraficing only
>a
>few MPH on top end, I like that too.
>I didn't find anyone in the archives who had flown both in comparison.
>
>Jim Truitt
>8A, Canopy
>627TT Reserved
Jim,
I haven't flown both, but currently have the 83" on my RV8. I would opt for
the 85" for most locations in the country. I live in Albuquerque, with
summertime density altitudes of 8,000' or higher. So, I wanted the airplane
to be configured towards the climb side of the performance envelope. I also
wanted better low speed acceleration for the occasional acro flights.
I have over 300 hrs on the airplane now, and am considering repitching up to
85. I'm not flying acro nearly as much as I thought I would, and I seldom
operate out of airports with short runways. So, the increase in takeoff
roll length with the coarser prop isn't really an issue.
My airplane does 200mph at 2700 rpm at 8,000' with the 83" pitch. Still
pretty darned good, but certainly not the fastest 180 hp RV8 out there. For
cruise flight, I throttle back to 2550 rpm, and still get 180mph or better.
You may want to email Jim Andrews at jandrews(at)austin.rr.com and ask what
kind of numbers he's getting with his 85" pitch RV-8A.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
This is just for the archives
There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom of
dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in RV's
. Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer in
flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
necessary.
I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation where
the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
systems.
With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from the
electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one of
the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
my GPS-NavAid system.
I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such a
remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
shaft or cam shaft failure.
This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or so
the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
battery.
FWIW
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
John, have you designed a system that is totally dependent on the DPST
switch? If the switch fails, does it take your entire wiring
architecture down with it? If so, you have a serious susceptibility to a
single point failure.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with 'Lectric Bob's essential bus system)
=================
John wrote:
>
>
> This is just for the archives
>
> There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the need/wisdom of
> dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in RV's
> . Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only draw
> about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far longer in
> flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not be
> necessary.
>
> I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
> units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short in
> the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
> burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation where
> the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the ignitions
> systems.
>
> With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to drop
> out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from the
> electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to one of
> the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going to
> my GPS-NavAid system.
>
> I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such a
> remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
> shaft or cam shaft failure.
>
> This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or so
> the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> battery.
>
> FWIW
>
> John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | props and prop pitch |
Jim,
I have the 84" pitch in my 8A (an earlier recommendation from Van's).
Takeoff I get 2250 RPM (400' field), at 11,000 feet the engine winds up past
2800 RPM if I let it. Sensenich says don't bother repitching less than 2"
so I'm pondering going to 86". The 85" seems to work well in my buddy's
RV-8 (same engine, same EI and FI mods). Everything is a compromise.
If you don't have high density altitude issues, go with the 85".
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Denk
Subject: Re: RV-List: props and prop pitch
>
>Has anyone with an O-360 tried both Sensenich metal 83" pitch and 85"
>pitch props, on the same aircraft, and have definitive performance on
>both? I like the higher cruise the 85" should provide (speed GOOD!). But
>if the 83" gives noticably better takeoff and climb while sacraficing only
>a
>few MPH on top end, I like that too.
>I didn't find anyone in the archives who had flown both in comparison.
>
>Jim Truitt
>8A, Canopy
>627TT Reserved
Jim,
I haven't flown both, but currently have the 83" on my RV8. I would opt for
the 85" for most locations in the country. I live in Albuquerque, with
summertime density altitudes of 8,000' or higher. So, I wanted the airplane
to be configured towards the climb side of the performance envelope. I also
wanted better low speed acceleration for the occasional acro flights.
I have over 300 hrs on the airplane now, and am considering repitching up to
85. I'm not flying acro nearly as much as I thought I would, and I seldom
operate out of airports with short runways. So, the increase in takeoff
roll length with the coarser prop isn't really an issue.
My airplane does 200mph at 2700 rpm at 8,000' with the 83" pitch. Still
pretty darned good, but certainly not the fastest 180 hp RV8 out there. For
cruise flight, I throttle back to 2550 rpm, and still get 180mph or better.
You may want to email Jim Andrews at jandrews(at)austin.rr.com and ask what
kind of numbers he's getting with his 85" pitch RV-8A.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Laird Owens <owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | Re: props and prop pitch |
Jim,
I did a back to back comparison between the 83" I had on my RV-6, and
an 85" that Garry LeGare had a couple of years ago before I converted
to a Hartzell.
Short story is we didn't have enough time and good air to get truly
definitive data, but:
Ground RPM was 50 less. Difference in takeoff performance wasn't
noticeable, and we didn't get any accurate climb data.
In 75% power tests, the 85" was about 4 mph faster.
I could could use full throttle and not exceed 2700 at 11.5K as
compared to 13K with my 83".
My first recommendation is to go with a Hartzell. (Eat peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches and collect alum cans if you must). If that's
out of the question, go with an 86" (that would be my first choice
for the RV-8) or 85". 83" is just not enough pitch.
Laird RV-6 650hrs
SoCal
>
>Has anyone with an O-360 tried both Sensenich metal 83" pitch and 85"
>pitch props, on the same aircraft, and have definitive performance on
>both? I like the higher cruise the 85" should provide (speed GOOD!). But
>if the 83" gives noticably better takeoff and climb while sacraficing only a
>few MPH on top end, I like that too.
>I didn't find anyone in the archives who had flown both in comparison.
>
>Jim Truitt
>8A, Canopy
>627TT Reserved
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
>
>
> I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is such
a
> remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
> shaft or cam shaft failure.
>
> This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or
so
> the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> battery.
>
FWIW I have had "total, absolute, instant failure" of automotive batteries
twice. Both times they were fairly new batteries. There was not enough
juice to even hear anthing on the car radio. I don't know if it was some
sort of internal short or internal open, but it was a battery problem alone.
Maybe the approved aircraft batteries are more reliable? I don't know.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
Well, Sam, I have worked in electronics in the Navy and as a technician and
an engineer with the FAA for almost 40 years total and have seen literally
thousands of toggle switches....I don't recall EVER having found one that
failed. I think they are more reliable than the engine I depend upon. Also
as a pilot I suppose I represent a "single point failure" possibliity too.
How safe can we be?
John at Salida, CO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
>
> John, have you designed a system that is totally dependent on the DPST
> switch? If the switch fails, does it take your entire wiring
> architecture down with it? If so, you have a serious susceptibility to a
> single point failure.
>
> Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with 'Lectric Bob's essential bus system)
>
> =================
>
> John wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is just for the archives
> >
> > There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the
need/wisdom of
> > dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in
RV's
> > . Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only
draw
> > about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far
longer in
> > flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not
be
> > necessary.
> >
> > I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
> > units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short
in
> > the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise really
> > burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation
where
> > the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the
ignitions
> > systems.
> >
> > With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to
drop
> > out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from
the
> > electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to
one of
> > the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going
to
> > my GPS-NavAid system.
> >
> > I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is
such a
> > remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a crank
> > shaft or cam shaft failure.
> >
> > This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces or
so
> > the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> > battery.
> >
> > FWIW
> >
> > John at Salida, CO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
Larry Pardue wrote:
> FWIW I have had "total, absolute, instant failure" of automotive batteries
> twice. Both times they were fairly new batteries. There was not enough
> juice to even hear anthing on the car radio. I don't know if it was some
> sort of internal short or internal open, but it was a battery problem alone.
Let me add my "me too" to that. I don't see what the big deal about adding a
small backup battery that is dedicated to run the EI for say and hour or two for
you to land. I am thinking maybe even an alkaline or lithium battery that don't
need as much attention as a rechargeable and work better in cold weather. It
seems like it could be a pretty simple system to me. But what do I know I
haven't even started building yet.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw(at)programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
Further to comments from John and Larry re reliability of batteries and
toggle switches, being a retired electrical engineer having worked on
spacecraft for 30 odd years, we never had problems with toggle switches
(none on spacecraft) but we had a few go out on ground support equipment
(GSE). Being curious on failures and their modes, I've found that the few
that were DPA'd (destructive physical analysis) had the rocker-contact
that's activated by the toggle spring, had fractured. And these were well
known brands too.
My own experience on 2 automotive batteries has discovered fractured
bridging straps that connect the battery plates. Never had an internally
shorted battery (it would have probably blown-up), but on a 3rd one, the
entire plate assembly came internally loose from the positive post! This was
a tractor battery. They get their good share of vibration and that's why
vendors only warrant them for 6 months!------- Beware!!
We in Canada had our thanksgiving day Oct.14. Happy thanksgiving to all
our American friends today.
Cheers!!---------Henry Hore, Bainsville, Ontario.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
What better way to enjoy a Thanksgiving Day than to see a new RV take to the air
for the first time. I'm happy to say that I witnessed the first flight of RV-8
N626CT, this afternoon. This RV is owned by Parker Thomas. I will not fill
you in on any of the details because I'm hoping that Parker will do that for
you; but, I wanted you to know that we have one more amongst us, in case Parker
does too much celebrating this evening. :-)
BTW, this is the second first flight out of this field in less than a month. Pat
Patterson's RV-7A flew out of Miles Field about three weeks ago. Miles Field
is a mecca for RVers in our area. I'm sure Parker is glad he found it. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rjcaptjoel(at)aol.com |
Very well said Mike.
We often forget how good life is. Like camping under a tree at OSK, or eating
gumbo, or chili, or waving in that new rebuild.
I'll finish mine someday and park next to you in the trees.
Thanks for being more poetic than me
Joel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
>
>John, have you designed a system that is totally dependent on the DPST
>switch? If the switch fails............
According to my calculations, the a good quality switch is 4,345,712 times
more reliable than the battery only installation. ;-)
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: props and prop pitch |
I installed an 81 pitch Sensenich on my RV6a with a new O360A!A
(180hp). Great climb but easy to go past 2700 rpm in cruise. I wanted
climb and high altitude performance more than top speed. After installing
the new fat wheelpants, I am pitched way too flat. Gold Coast Prop in SLO
offered to repitch for $150. After many delays, it turned out that
templates cost $200 and Sensenich says **MUST** not repitch without them so
I am back flying with the 81 incher.
I came back from OSH this year crossing the Sierra at 17,500 ft. I'd hate
to give up the capability to do that so I am not sure if I should go for 85
inch or maybe 84 inch? Maybe even 83 inch.
Anybody want to trade an 83 for an 81?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Cantrell <kcflyrv(at)pacbell.net> |
Hi Listers
I hope all of you enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving! I really enjoyed the "Thanks"
poem from Michael. It inspired me to jump into the car and and make a quick
trip to the A/P. We pulled our shiny RV out of the hangar into the sunlight.
During the preflight, one of my fuel caps broke as I was pushing the locking cap
down after checking the fuel level. Bummer! No fly'n today....The pin that
holds the lift tab in place broke. I pretty sure I've seen posts on the list some
time ago but I couldn't find anything in the archives. After taking a close
look, I'm not surprised it broke. Can somebody edumacate me?
Ken Cantrell
Lodi Ca.
RV6 120 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall Insulation Adhesive |
Any suggestions for a "New, Improved!" adhesive to attach firewall insulation?
I attached mine using spray on contact cement (ALA Orndorf), with aluminum duct
tape and aluminum foil on the back. All of the chunks of insulation are loose,
and the only thing that is holding most of 'em in is the tight fit.
By the way, I flew up to see Glacier Girl (the P-38 recovered from Greenland) last
weekend. Beautiful restoration, although one of the engines is back at the
engine shop because it was making metal. An interesting sidenote is that one
of the guys who is employed on the P-38 project also worked on the Nigerian
Airforce RV trainer project, and has built a number of other RV's...
Kyle Boatright
RV-6
Cartersville, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Broken fuel cap |
Ken, after a broken pin caused a delay in a flight one day, I put a six
inch long piece of 1/16" stainless welding rod in the flight kit. Now I
can quickly fabricate a new pin in the field with just a pair of vice
grips or other cutting pliers. The stainless makes a nice pin because it
will probably fail before you can put enough pressure on the cap latches
to damage the caps.
I always smear a little fuel on the cap o-ring before putting the caps
back on the tanks; makes the cap much easier to latch.
Sam Buchanan (R-6)
=============================
Ken Cantrell wrote:
>
>
> Hi Listers
>
> I hope all of you enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving! I really enjoyed the "Thanks"
poem from Michael. It inspired me to jump into the car and and make a quick
trip to the A/P. We pulled our shiny RV out of the hangar into the sunlight.
During the preflight, one of my fuel caps broke as I was pushing the locking
cap down after checking the fuel level. Bummer! No fly'n today....The pin that
holds the lift tab in place broke. I pretty sure I've seen posts on the list
some time ago but I couldn't find anything in the archives. After taking a close
look, I'm not surprised it broke. Can somebody edumacate me?
>
> Ken Cantrell
> Lodi Ca.
> RV6 120 hrs
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Broken fuel cap |
The "book" solution is to replace the pin with a short piece from the shank
of the appropriate sized drill bit. As a preventative measure, make sure
your caps are well lubricated (I use fuel lube, and also put a few drops of
fuel on the cap gaskets when I drain my sumps).
In addition, I carry a spare fuel cap in my tool box. I also carry spare
screws (#6 & #8), a spare sparkplug, and the tools to pull the cowl and
wheel pants, and to remove a spark plug.
Kyle Boatright
RV-6
Cartersville, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Cantrell" <kcflyrv(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RV-List: Broken fuel cap
>
> Hi Listers
>
> I hope all of you enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving! I really enjoyed the
"Thanks" poem from Michael. It inspired me to jump into the car and and make
a quick trip to the A/P. We pulled our shiny RV out of the hangar into the
sunlight. During the preflight, one of my fuel caps broke as I was pushing
the locking cap down after checking the fuel level. Bummer! No fly'n
today....The pin that holds the lift tab in place broke. I pretty sure I've
seen posts on the list some time ago but I couldn't find anything in the
archives. After taking a close look, I'm not surprised it broke. Can
somebody edumacate me?
>
> Ken Cantrell
> Lodi Ca.
> RV6 120 hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wittman" <fmico(at)iaxs.net> |
Happy T-day,
I've had this happen several times. The advice that worked for me was
to remove the rolled pin (that broke) and replace with the shank of a
drill bit (1/16" if I recall correctly.) Hope this helps. Good luck.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Cantrell
Subject: RV-List: Broken fuel cap
Hi Listers
I hope all of you enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving! I really enjoyed the
"Thanks" poem from Michael. It inspired me to jump into the car and and
make a quick trip to the A/P. We pulled our shiny RV out of the hangar
into the sunlight. During the preflight, one of my fuel caps broke as I
was pushing the locking cap down after checking the fuel level. Bummer!
No fly'n today....The pin that holds the lift tab in place broke. I
pretty sure I've seen posts on the list some time ago but I couldn't
find anything in the archives. After taking a close look, I'm not
surprised it broke. Can somebody edumacate me?
Ken Cantrell
Lodi Ca.
RV6 120 hrs
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Broken fuel cap |
You can also buy larger diameter roll pins at any hardware store. I replaced
mine while building the tanks after reading about this problem on the list.
Dave Svajda
6A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ!] "What is my Contribution used for?" |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What is my Contribution used for?", and this is a valid
question. Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support
enables. It provides for the expensive, business-class, high-speed
Internet connection used on the List, insuring maximum performance and
minimal contention when accessing List services. It pays for the regular
system hardware and software upgrades enabling the highest performance
possible for services such as the Archive Search Engine and List
Browser. It pays for 14+ years worth of online archive data available for
instant random access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing,
developing, and maintaining the custom applications that power this List
Service such as the List Browse, Search Engine, and Photoshare.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and
your peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from
moderation, censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer
viruses. How many places on the Internet can you make all those statements
about these days? I will venture to say - next to none...
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many desirable aspects
of this most valuable List service. Please support it today with your List
Contribution. Its the best investment you can make in your Sport - BAR NONE!
Email List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Were any of these "total, absolute, instant failures" on RG batteries?
Supposedly RG batteries (like the popular Odyssey that lots of folks are
using) by design should never experience catastrophic failures like
this....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D scratching my fiberglass rash...
---
From: Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
Larry Pardue wrote:
> FWIW I have had "total, absolute, instant failure" of automotive
batteries
> twice. Both times they were fairly new batteries. There was not
enough
> juice to even hear anthing on the car radio. I don't know if it was
some
> sort of internal short or internal open, but it was a battery problem
alone.
Let me add my "me too" to that. I don't see what the big deal about
adding a
small backup battery that is dedicated to run the EI for say and hour or
two for
you to land. I am thinking maybe even an alkaline or lithium battery
that don't
need as much attention as a rechargeable and work better in cold weather.
It
seems like it could be a pretty simple system to me. But what do I know
I
haven't even started building yet.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw(at)programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
--
From: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
<elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Further to comments from John and Larry re reliability of batteries and
toggle switches, being a retired electrical engineer having worked on
spacecraft for 30 odd years, we never had problems with toggle switches
(none on spacecraft) but we had a few go out on ground support equipment
(GSE). Being curious on failures and their modes, I've found that the few
that were DPA'd (destructive physical analysis) had the rocker-contact
that's activated by the toggle spring, had fractured. And these were well
known brands too.
My own experience on 2 automotive batteries has discovered fractured
bridging straps that connect the battery plates. Never had an internally
shorted battery (it would have probably blown-up), but on a 3rd one, the
entire plate assembly came internally loose from the positive post! This
was
a tractor battery. They get their good share of vibration and that's why
vendors only warrant them for 6 months!------- Beware!!
We in Canada had our thanksgiving day Oct.14. Happy thanksgiving to
all
our American friends today.
Cheers!!---------Henry Hore, Bainsville, Ontario.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys, if you use 'Lectric Bob's "All-Electric on a Budget" power
distribution system you don't need to have a single toggle switch as a
single-point failure possibility to accomplish the same objective of
being able to isolate the battery from everything else but keep the
engine running. This system includes a single RG battery with two
alternators (main alternator plus standby on the vac. pad), and the
electronic ignitions are run directly off the battery bus (always hot)
via robust fusible links. So you can turn the Master off any time you
want, and even shut down both alternators and your electronic ignition
will keep running on the completely isolated battery. Each ignition has
a separate wire going to the panel with an "On-Off" toggle switch, so
there's no single-point failure in the system unless the battery lead
breaks off or the battery is somehow completely destroyed to the point
where it can't even put out an amp or two. With RG batteries this should
never happen as they don't have the same failure modes as old lead-acid's
with the big battery post sticking out of them. This stuff has been
discussed extensively on the Aeroelectric List and there's more info with
schematics on www.aeroelectric.com if you want to learn more about it....
I think the benefits of adding a second battery to this system are so
minimal that it isn't worthwhile.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass for ever and ever amen...
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power
John, have you designed a system that is totally dependent on the DPST
switch? If the switch fails, does it take your entire wiring
architecture down with it? If so, you have a serious susceptibility to a
single point failure.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with 'Lectric Bob's essential bus system)
=================
John wrote:
>
>
> This is just for the archives
>
> There has been an on-and-off discussion for a while about the
need/wisdom of
> dual battery systems where two electronic ignition systems are used in
RV's
> . Lightspeed's Klaus expressed the opinion that since the units only
draw
> about one-ampere that the aircraft's battery alone would last far
longer in
> flight than any fuel an RV can carry, so a dual battery system may not
be
> necessary.
>
> I debated with myself for a long time (been flying with dual Lightspeed
> units for a few years now) and I finally concluded that a massive short
in
> the electrical system that 'popped' the main breaker or otherwise
really
> burned out the main 12-volt buss system would might create a situation
where
> the battery could no longer be able to supply ANY current to the
ignitions
> systems.
>
> With that in mind I just installed one DPST switch that allows me to
drop
> out the master relay and divorce both ignitions systems completely from
the
> electrical system, and directly connect the battery (now isolated) to
one of
> the systems (could have done both I guess) and also keep 12-volts going
to
> my GPS-NavAid system.
>
> I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery is
such a
> remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a
crank
> shaft or cam shaft failure.
>
> This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the 2-ounces
or so
> the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a extra
> battery.
>
> FWIW
>
> John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Ignition Systems Redundancy Power |
| From: | cecilth(at)juno.com |
I too have had a total failure of a battery, in worst possible cases and
survived. Maybe 45 years ago at near midnight in Hollywood CA on the
Hollywood freeway in the fast lane in a driving rain. Everything came
off, wipers, headlights, radio. I very quickly rolled down the window,
stuck my head out to see, got to the side of the freeway. Light traffic,
so it could have been worse I guess. Sure woke me up tho.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Cecil Hatfield
writes:
>
>
> >
>
> >
> > I think a total, absolute, instant failure of the plane's battery
> is such
> a
> > remote possibility that it rates up there with the likelyhood of a
> crank
> > shaft or cam shaft failure.
> >
> > This simple addition to the safety of the plane is worth the
> 2-ounces or
> so
> > the switch and a few feet of wire added. Its far lighter than a
> extra
> > battery.
> >
>
> FWIW I have had "total, absolute, instant failure" of automotive
> batteries
> twice. Both times they were fairly new batteries. There was not
> enough
> juice to even hear anthing on the car radio. I don't know if it was
> some
> sort of internal short or internal open, but it was a battery
> problem alone.
>
> Maybe the approved aircraft batteries are more reliable? I don't
> know.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
| From: | Jim Truitt <Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov> |
| Subject: | props and prop pitch |
Thanks to all for responses on prop pitch with an O-360. FYI, I did call
Sensenich and they will repitch a metal prop for $150.00 and they claim a
quick turnaround. I was told you can change pitch up to eight inches (up
or back down, or vice versa) over the life of the prop.
I have been told by a friend that they may repitch for free if you bought
new. Probably depends on who you talk to at the time of your request.
________________________________________________________________________________
> Am I getting this right, AeroComposite is $9500 plus spinner and governer.
>
> Whirl Wind 150 is listed at $8175 with governer and spinner. Goto
> http://www.whirlwindpropellers.com/html/aviation/aviation_150_series.shtml
> and scroll down for pricing.
>
> Browsing Van's online catalog prices the Mt three blade with spinner and
> governer for $9035.
>
> Randy, how are you justifying the higher price of the AeroComposite prop?
I
> am planning the Whirl Wind mostly for the weight savings. They also claim
> they are faster but for me it's the weight savings I really need.
>
> Norman Hunger
> All prices USD?
Norman, yes, all prices are USD. In my estimation the MT does not have the
durability (Van's demo ship showing serious blade erosion after 400 hrs) or
the blade profile for optimum performance. On the blade profile, they can't
since their blades are almost completely wood which requires a thicker cross
section for adequate strength. MT props also really aren't designed for
maximum speed, they are primarily intended as aerobatic applications where
top speed isn't the objective. Whirlwind offers only a 3 blade design, and
even then only in a only in a 69" diameter. Again, this is optimum for climb
but not cruise or top speed due to the increased wetted surface and drag.
Also, they have a new proprietary design hub which may well be a fabulously
durable design, but the McCauley C-220 hub they are using is a certified
design that has been in service for many years. Lastly, while it would
indeed offer a weight reduction, the Whirlwind will not yield a single mph
increase in cruise speed over the Hartzell.
Aero Composites has the best blade profile (thin), optimized pitch profile
(proper twist for our airframes), the best blade construction (durability,
both structurally and cosmetically), a proven hub design (the McCauley
C-220), are made in a 2-blade 72" configuration (best overall design for
RVs), so they appear to be the only option by default. Yes, they are over
priced, but as with many things in life "you pay the price or you go
without".
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 284 hrs
www.rv-8.com
Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 11/29/2002 8:48:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
randy@rv-8.com writes:
> MT props also really aren't designed for
> maximum speed, they are primarily intended as aerobatic applications where
> top speed isn't the objective.
Hi All,
I just spent two weeks at the MT Propeller facility in Germany.
What I saw was a product that is designed for what the customer asks for.
If you want a climb prop, they take your aircraft performance data and design
a climb blade for the prop.
If you want a maximum speed prop, they take your aircraft performance data
and design a maximum speed blade for the prop.
The MT Propeller for my RV-3 with the LOM M332A engine has cruise blades with
the peak efficiency between 2400 and 2500 RPM. So I have a MT Propeller
cruise propeller (which just arrived last Friday).
There is a 2800 RPM maximum limit on the prop. But on a 2700 RPM limited
engine, that wouldn't seem to be a problem.
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Be Careful!!!/RV-4 Crash.... |
> Why someone
> would take off with 100 foot ceilings without an instrument rating is
beyond
> me.
Or an IFR ariplane.... Did I mention that the panther was for sale and I am
looking for an IFR -4????????
I scud run more than I care to admit because CAF rules do not allow IFR in
(most) CAF airplanes. Scud running at 230 knots in a Mustang, without a
co-pilot, is really exciting! Having said that, ALL of the CAF airplanes I
fly have gyros, and most of them are IFR certified. When I do get in
trouble, I can pull up, call center, and get a clearance. Flying in
extremely low ceiling/vis without an Instrument capable pilot and airplane
is suicide.
Did I mention the panther is for sale????? Really nice RV-4, VFR.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
There is a new scimitar shape blade design available for our 3-blade propeller,
which is optimized for cruise. The blade thickness comes close to a metal
blade and as important as the drag coefficient is also the lift coefficient.
A picture of this propeller installed on a Mooney M20K can be found at
www.mt-propeller.com/imgs/photos/m20k.jpg
Would be interesting how this propeller compares performance-wise with the
Aero Composite propeller.
By the way, this 3-blade MT-Propeller is FAA certified with a TBO of 1800 hrs
or 72 months.
Michael Muehlbauer
MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Randy Lervold [SMTP:randy@rv-8.com]
> Gesendet am: Freitag, 29. November 2002 17:47
> An: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Betreff: Re: RV-List: Prop
>
>
> > Am I getting this right, AeroComposite is $9500 plus spinner and governer.
> >
> > Whirl Wind 150 is listed at $8175 with governer and spinner. Goto
> > http://www.whirlwindpropellers.com/html/aviation/aviation_150_series.shtml
> > and scroll down for pricing.
> >
> > Browsing Van's online catalog prices the Mt three blade with spinner and
> > governer for $9035.
> >
> > Randy, how are you justifying the higher price of the AeroComposite prop?
> I
> > am planning the Whirl Wind mostly for the weight savings. They also claim
> > they are faster but for me it's the weight savings I really need.
> >
> > Norman Hunger
> > All prices USD?
>
>
> Norman, yes, all prices are USD. In my estimation the MT does not have the
> durability (Van's demo ship showing serious blade erosion after 400 hrs) or
> the blade profile for optimum performance. On the blade profile, they can't
> since their blades are almost completely wood which requires a thicker cross
> section for adequate strength. MT props also really aren't designed for
> maximum speed, they are primarily intended as aerobatic applications where
> top speed isn't the objective. Whirlwind offers only a 3 blade design, and
> even then only in a only in a 69" diameter. Again, this is optimum for climb
> but not cruise or top speed due to the increased wetted surface and drag.
> Also, they have a new proprietary design hub which may well be a fabulously
> durable design, but the McCauley C-220 hub they are using is a certified
> design that has been in service for many years. Lastly, while it would
> indeed offer a weight reduction, the Whirlwind will not yield a single mph
> increase in cruise speed over the Hartzell.
>
> Aero Composites has the best blade profile (thin), optimized pitch profile
> (proper twist for our airframes), the best blade construction (durability,
> both structurally and cosmetically), a proven hub design (the McCauley
> C-220), are made in a 2-blade 72" configuration (best overall design for
> RVs), so they appear to be the only option by default. Yes, they are over
> priced, but as with many things in life "you pay the price or you go
> without".
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, 284 hrs
> www.rv-8.com
> Home Wing VAF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
>Would be interesting how this propeller compares performance-wise with the
>Aero Composite propeller.
>By the way, this 3-blade MT-Propeller is FAA certified with a TBO of 1800
hrs
>or 72 months.
>Michael Muehlbauer
>MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
Michael,
I have a RV-4 with an O-360 and Hartzell prop and I flew with Randy to OSH
and back this year. If you send me one of these new MT props I will install
it on my RV-4 and when Randy gets his new Aero Composite propeller we can
compare the two planes before and after.
Thanks,
Rob Hickman
(RV-4 N401RH 230+ Hours)
:) It was worth a try anyway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Parker Thomas" <me(at)parkerthomas.com> |
| Subject: | FW: a little thanksgiving present |
Yesterday afternoon, after 1 year of full-time work and 7 months of 35
hour weeks, the wheels of RV-8 626CT left the ground for the first time.
Test pilot Bill Poynter reported it flew straight and level. To say I'm
excited would be the understatement of the year - I couldn't stop
jumping up and down and hugging everyone.
This is the biggest accomplishment of my whole life, taking mechanical
skills and a level of determination I didn't know I had. What a thrill.
Special thanks to my friend and mentor Pat Patterson who provided time,
encouragement, tools, constant support and his invaluable building
experience. If I hadn't moved out to his field I would still be trying
to figure out what to do about the two cracks I put in my canopy the
first time I touched it. I couldn't have finished without his help.
Thanks also to the best riveters in the world, Rob Purvis and Kevin
Jeras, who joined me for countless late nights in the hangar. Thank you
to my girlfriend Hae-Sin, who divided her visits into Hae-Sin days,
which were spent doing something fun, and Parker days, which were spent
at the hangar (fun for me!). Most of all, thank you to my family, for
supporting such a crazy idea in the first place.
Now the fun begins. Happy Thanksgiving.
Parker
________________________________________________________________________________
> There is a new scimitar shape blade design available for our 3-blade
propeller,
> which is optimized for cruise. The blade thickness comes close to a metal
> blade and as important as the drag coefficient is also the lift
coefficient.
> A picture of this propeller installed on a Mooney M20K can be found at
> www.mt-propeller.com/imgs/photos/m20k.jpg
> Would be interesting how this propeller compares performance-wise with the
> Aero Composite propeller.
> By the way, this 3-blade MT-Propeller is FAA certified with a TBO of 1800
hrs
> or 72 months.
>
> Michael Muehlbauer
> MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
To the untrained eye that new shape looks exactly like the Aero Composites
shape. Of course we'd all be interested in how it compares, and in all
aspects! Now, can you make that in a 2-bladed 72/74"?
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 284 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: O-360 Owners.... |
>
> Im ordering a O-360-A1A2 From Aerosport and am wondering about the
>location of the engine driven pump
Wait!! Wait till the engine, the exhaust system, the control cables and
anything else inflexible are installed then measure and order
hoses. Install the items that are very flexible last. Very last are small
wires to sensors for example. This sequence saves you trying to fit pipes
among hoses and wires etc.
If you order the hoses now and they turn out to be an inch or two too
short, what? Of hoses, I installed the integral firesleeve hoses with
unlimited life. Expensive but cool.
Oh, yeah. SCAT and CAT ducts before wiring too.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Be Careful!!!/RV-4 Crash.... |
>
>I scud run more than I care to admit because CAF rules do not allow IFR in
>(most) CAF airplanes. Scud running at 230 knots in a Mustang, without a
>co-pilot, is really exciting!
Maybe we'll run into you someday!
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Dumb IFR question |
Hi Listers,
I have what will probably amount to a dumb IFR question, but feel compelled to
ask it anyway.
In the current issue of Sport Aviation, the cover article is about the Grand Champion
Thorp T-18. Page 31 has a photo of the panel with the caption: "a simple
IFR instrument panel layout offers utility without complexity". After looking
closely at the photo, I could not find any type of CDI. Is it possible to
fly (limited) IFR without a CDI? It seems the panel in the photo does not have
enough "stuff".
Thanks in advance for the help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb IFR question |
If my memory serves, and often it doesn't, that airplane had a KX125 which
has an LCD CDI on the front of the unit.
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dumb IFR question
>
> Hi Listers,
>
> I have what will probably amount to a dumb IFR question, but feel
compelled to ask it anyway.
>
> In the current issue of Sport Aviation, the cover article is about the
Grand Champion Thorp T-18. Page 31 has a photo of the panel with the
caption: "a simple IFR instrument panel layout offers utility without
complexity". After looking closely at the photo, I could not find any type
of CDI. Is it possible to fly (limited) IFR without a CDI? It seems the
panel in the photo does not have enough "stuff".
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Dumb IFR question |
The rules say you must have a remote CDI if the unit display CDI is not
directly in the pilot's view. This is why I mounted my GX-60 at the top
left corner of my RV-8A panel.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Doug Rozendaal
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dumb IFR question
If my memory serves, and often it doesn't, that airplane had a KX125 which
has an LCD CDI on the front of the unit.
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dumb IFR question
>
> Hi Listers,
>
> I have what will probably amount to a dumb IFR question, but feel
compelled to ask it anyway.
>
> In the current issue of Sport Aviation, the cover article is about the
Grand Champion Thorp T-18. Page 31 has a photo of the panel with the
caption: "a simple IFR instrument panel layout offers utility without
complexity". After looking closely at the photo, I could not find any type
of CDI. Is it possible to fly (limited) IFR without a CDI? It seems the
panel in the photo does not have enough "stuff".
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
> >Would be interesting how this propeller compares performance-wise with
the
> >Aero Composite propeller.
> >By the way, this 3-blade MT-Propeller is FAA certified with a TBO of 1800
> hrs
> >or 72 months.
>
> >Michael Muehlbauer
> >MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
>
> Michael,
> I have a RV-4 with an O-360 and Hartzell prop and I flew with Randy to OSH
> and back this year. If you send me one of these new MT props I will
install
> it on my RV-4 and when Randy gets his new Aero Composite propeller we can
> compare the two planes before and after.
> Thanks,
> Rob Hickman
> (RV-4 N401RH 230+ Hours)
> :) It was worth a try anyway
To all prop manufacturers: actually this sort of thing IS a good idea, all
kidding aside. Rob and I who both have Hartzell's presently and could
collect baseline data both individually, and compared to each other, then
retest with new props both ways again. We each have web sites where the
results could be posted for all to see. Something to think about.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 284 hrs
www.rv-8.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eugene Williams" <Ewill177(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | GPS portable Antenna |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Compressor Pressure Settings |
The settings you have look OK . Your compressor usually will run from 90-120
PSI . You use an adjustable regulator to set the pressure for the job you are
doing . I use the line pressure for drill ,blow gun,etc. A large pneumatic
rivet squeezer will use different pressures for different size rivets . I
have numerous overhead air outlets with quick connect chuck .
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Compressor Pressure Settings |
>
>I have seen various listings for pressure settings with great
>variance, for example(s) 30-55 PSI for 3/32nd rivets, 45-65 for 1/8
>rivets, 35 for priming, 90 for an air drill. Any opinions out there
>as to the best settings? Thanks.
>
It is not possible to quote a particular air pressure that is correct
for a given size rivet. The pressure setting you require will depend
on the brand, size and condition of the rivet gun, the length and
diameter of the air hose, the size of the rivet, how stiff that area
of structure is, etc. You need to experiment on some scrap to see
what works for you. Be prepared to adjust the pressure a bit up or
down depending on how stiff that area of structure is. The rivet gun
must move the structure in order to deform the other end of the
rivet. Riveting in areas that are very stiff structurally will
require higher air pressure.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb IFR Question |
The rules say you must have a remote CDI if the unit display CDI is not
directly in the pilot's view. This is why I mounted my GX-60 at the top
left corner of my RV-8A panel.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
Yes, the rules say that for GPS installations but is silent on that point for VOR,
Loran and ADF installations. It seems the FAA wanted to control the installation
of GPS more so than they did on the other forms of navigation which actually
are more standardized between manufacturers than GPS is.
Dick DeCramer
RV6 N500DD
Baffles/engine
Northfield, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | primers and superfill |
I hate to mention the word primer, but here goes:
Does anyone know if there are any problems using a self etching primer
(SW988, Marhyde etc) directly over Superfill? I am worried about the
acid in the primer attacking the superfill. I am not worried about
compatibility with a future top coat, as I plan to fly unpainted for
some time, and this primer would be sanded off before painting. I just
want to prime the self made fiberglass parts, ie. canopy leading edge,
targa strip, etc.
Jeff Point
RV-6 finish kit
Milwaukee WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
So....Randy When do you get your prop?
Ed Holyoke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:47 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop
>
>
> > Am I getting this right, AeroComposite is $9500 plus spinner and
> governer.
> >
> > Whirl Wind 150 is listed at $8175 with governer and spinner. Goto
> >
>
http://www.whirlwindpropellers.com/html/aviation/aviation_150_series.sht
ml
> > and scroll down for pricing.
> >
> > Browsing Van's online catalog prices the Mt three blade with spinner
and
> > governer for $9035.
> >
> > Randy, how are you justifying the higher price of the AeroComposite
> prop?
> I
> > am planning the Whirl Wind mostly for the weight savings. They also
> claim
> > they are faster but for me it's the weight savings I really need.
> >
> > Norman Hunger
> > All prices USD?
>
>
> Norman, yes, all prices are USD. In my estimation the MT does not have
the
> durability (Van's demo ship showing serious blade erosion after 400
hrs)
> or
> the blade profile for optimum performance. On the blade profile, they
> can't
> since their blades are almost completely wood which requires a thicker
> cross
> section for adequate strength. MT props also really aren't designed
for
> maximum speed, they are primarily intended as aerobatic applications
where
> top speed isn't the objective. Whirlwind offers only a 3 blade design,
and
> even then only in a only in a 69" diameter. Again, this is optimum for
> climb
> but not cruise or top speed due to the increased wetted surface and
drag.
> Also, they have a new proprietary design hub which may well be a
> fabulously
> durable design, but the McCauley C-220 hub they are using is a
certified
> design that has been in service for many years. Lastly, while it would
> indeed offer a weight reduction, the Whirlwind will not yield a single
mph
> increase in cruise speed over the Hartzell.
>
> Aero Composites has the best blade profile (thin), optimized pitch
profile
> (proper twist for our airframes), the best blade construction
(durability,
> both structurally and cosmetically), a proven hub design (the McCauley
> C-220), are made in a 2-blade 72" configuration (best overall design
for
> RVs), so they appear to be the only option by default. Yes, they are
over
> priced, but as with many things in life "you pay the price or you go
> without".
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, 284 hrs
> www.rv-8.com
> Home Wing VAF
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: primers and superfill |
No problems after over a year of SW988 primer over superfill.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: RV-List: primers and superfill
>
> I hate to mention the word primer, but here goes:
>
> Does anyone know if there are any problems using a self etching primer
> (SW988, Marhyde etc) directly over Superfill? I am worried about the
> acid in the primer attacking the superfill. I am not worried about
> compatibility with a future top coat, as I plan to fly unpainted for
> some time, and this primer would be sanded off before painting. I just
> want to prime the self made fiberglass parts, ie. canopy leading edge,
> targa strip, etc.
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6 finish kit
> Milwaukee WI
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb IFR question |
> Is it possible to fly (limited) IFR without a CDI? It seems the panel
> in the photo does not have enough "stuff".
Certainly. You don't even need a radio.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
This is the last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser. Based on previous
year's percentages of Lister's making a Contribution, this year we are
nearly 40% behind the normal... And I thought all those great gifts would
eke the percentage up past the average a little. Oh well. Maybe people
just don't really mind the flashing banner ads for Viagra, and popups for
X10 minicams...
There's still plenty of time to get your name of the List of
Contributors. I'll probably publish the LOC on Monday night after I
process the checks from the Post Office.
I do want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so
far this year. Your support is greatly appreciated and is what makes the
Lists possible.
How to support your Lists this month: http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave" <davevon(at)tir.com> |
\"Eric Greindl\"" <Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>,
"AeroComposites Sales"
I would like to know how much the Aero Composites prop weighs too.
I've asked several times (phone conversations, Oshkosh and e-mail) and all I
get is how much lighter the blades are compared to aluminum blades. Makes
me wonder if the hub is really heavy.
We also hear how the prop has been optimized for our cruise envelope. It
would be interesting to know the pitch distribution along the blade. Not
taking into account slippage, lift from the blade section, washout at the
tip or washout at the hub for fuselage parasitic drag, 2400 rpm and 200 mph
would see a 21.26 degree pitch angle at the tip of 72" prop and 44.20
degrees at the 40% station. An approximant delta of 23 degrees from the tip
to the 40% station.
Then there is the question of what the best diameter would be. An engineer
at Hartzell told me that the largest diameter I could run would result in
the highest cruise speed. I can see that on something like a Cessna, but
not a clean RV.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've seen so far Aero Composites seems to be
the best prop going and I'm seriously considering getting one, but... it's
the little details that are nagging at me. For $9500 I would like a lot
more solid answers.
I would really hate spending $9500 only to have one of the other prop
manufactures realize there really is a market for high performance props for
RV's and come out with a prop truly optimized for us. Whirl Wind could do
it. They do have a two bladed aerobatic prop that could have optimized
blades installed. MT's new blade might do it, if it were in a two blade
configuration.
Everything about an airplane is a compromise. I just get the feeling that a
prop like the Aero Composites is really optimized for something like the
Lancair IV (smaller market with more money) and we are tag-a-longs.
Just my two cents.
Dave
RV-6
The need for speed...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Prop
>
> So....Randy When do you get your prop?
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold
> > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:47 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop
> >
> >
> > > Am I getting this right, AeroComposite is $9500 plus spinner and
> > governer.
> > >
> > > Whirl Wind 150 is listed at $8175 with governer and spinner. Goto
> > >
> >
> http://www.whirlwindpropellers.com/html/aviation/aviation_150_series.sht
> ml
> > > and scroll down for pricing.
> > >
> > > Browsing Van's online catalog prices the Mt three blade with spinner
> and
> > > governer for $9035.
> > >
> > > Randy, how are you justifying the higher price of the AeroComposite
> > prop?
> > I
> > > am planning the Whirl Wind mostly for the weight savings. They also
> > claim
> > > they are faster but for me it's the weight savings I really need.
> > >
> > > Norman Hunger
> > > All prices USD?
> >
> >
> > Norman, yes, all prices are USD. In my estimation the MT does not have
> the
> > durability (Van's demo ship showing serious blade erosion after 400
> hrs)
> > or
> > the blade profile for optimum performance. On the blade profile, they
> > can't
> > since their blades are almost completely wood which requires a thicker
> > cross
> > section for adequate strength. MT props also really aren't designed
> for
> > maximum speed, they are primarily intended as aerobatic applications
> where
> > top speed isn't the objective. Whirlwind offers only a 3 blade design,
> and
> > even then only in a only in a 69" diameter. Again, this is optimum for
> > climb
> > but not cruise or top speed due to the increased wetted surface and
> drag.
> > Also, they have a new proprietary design hub which may well be a
> > fabulously
> > durable design, but the McCauley C-220 hub they are using is a
> certified
> > design that has been in service for many years. Lastly, while it would
> > indeed offer a weight reduction, the Whirlwind will not yield a single
> mph
> > increase in cruise speed over the Hartzell.
> >
> > Aero Composites has the best blade profile (thin), optimized pitch
> profile
> > (proper twist for our airframes), the best blade construction
> (durability,
> > both structurally and cosmetically), a proven hub design (the McCauley
> > C-220), are made in a 2-blade 72" configuration (best overall design
> for
> > RVs), so they appear to be the only option by default. Yes, they are
> over
> > priced, but as with many things in life "you pay the price or you go
> > without".
> >
> > Randy Lervold
> > RV-8, 284 hrs
> > www.rv-8.com
> > Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vince Himsl" <vhimsl(at)turbonet.com> |
| Subject: | Bunny Page Safety Correction |
Hello,
Though I am honored to have an RV list posting of mine grace the Bunny
List, I have discovered that one of my suggestions is not correct and
for safety needs elaboration. Specifically:
On Web Page
http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/bunnys-guide/rv/bunny/wingspar.htm
Item 11, Please change the suggestion #11 on items to buy for
constructing the wing kit to read as follows:
11. The Avery (37 degree) Flaring Tool. Though it seems pricy for the
few fittings on the wing, it will come in to its own when you start
doing the brake and fuel lines on the fuselage. I also bought th e
premade fuel pickup tube(s) from Vans Aircraft. It is important that all
builders insure that their flaring tool is suitable for aircraft
fittings (37 degree).
** When I had made the original post I had thought the cheap flaring
tool I had bought was 37 degrees. It wasn't and I wound up buying the
Avery tool. This means I will have to redo the tank vent lines.
Fortunately they were the only ones I used the 'cheap' flaring tool on.
Additionally, I would alter item 7 to read as follows:
7. Though I initially purchased and tried to use the 'rivet shaver' bit
from Avery, I found that I was not skilled enough to do anything other
than make the rivet job look worse. I also gleaned from the list that
apparently one needs a really high speed tool for it to work properly.
What a pain! What I found to eventually be the most satisfactory for me
was the micro scotch-brite wheel that Dremel sells. With that and a
Dremel tool you have much better control as well as an 'oops' safety
factor.
Vince Himsl
Moscow, ID USA
Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bunny Page Safety Correction |
Hey Vince,
I've made the requested modifications.
Matt
At 08:26 AM 11/30/2002 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>Though I am honored to have an RV list posting of mine grace the Bunny
>List, I have discovered that one of my suggestions is not correct and
>for safety needs elaboration. Specifically:
>
>On Web Page
>http://www.matronics.com/rv-list/bunnys-guide/rv/bunny/wingspar.htm
>Item 11, Please change the suggestion #11 on items to buy for
>constructing the wing kit to read as follows:
>
>11. The Avery (37 degree) Flaring Tool. Though it seems pricy for the
>few fittings on the wing, it will come in to its own when you start
>doing the brake and fuel lines on the fuselage. I also bought th e
>premade fuel pickup tube(s) from Vans Aircraft. It is important that all
>builders insure that their flaring tool is suitable for aircraft
>fittings (37 degree).
>
>** When I had made the original post I had thought the cheap flaring
>tool I had bought was 37 degrees. It wasn't and I wound up buying the
>Avery tool. This means I will have to redo the tank vent lines.
>Fortunately they were the only ones I used the 'cheap' flaring tool on.
>
>
>Additionally, I would alter item 7 to read as follows:
>
>7. Though I initially purchased and tried to use the 'rivet shaver' bit
>from Avery, I found that I was not skilled enough to do anything other
>than make the rivet job look worse. I also gleaned from the list that
>apparently one needs a really high speed tool for it to work properly.
>What a pain! What I found to eventually be the most satisfactory for me
>was the micro scotch-brite wheel that Dremel sells. With that and a
>Dremel tool you have much better control as well as an 'oops' safety
>factor.
>
>
>Vince Himsl
>Moscow, ID USA
>Fuselage
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick07x(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Be Carefull !!!/RV-4 Crash...... |
Fellow fliers,
The preliminary NTSB report cannot convey in dry statistics what the human
costs of this tragedy mean to all of us, and especially to the loved ones
left behind to deal with a sudden, permanent and
traumatic change in living arrangements as survivors of a terrible
accident. According to press releases, the local sheriff is
quoted as saying the aircraft took off from the Homer airport about 8:10 a.m.
"Visibility was terrible up here" and "It was foggy as it could be." It was 46
year old Ray A. Bergeron and his 15-year old son Joey who perished when
their RV-4 crashed nose first into a marshy area about a quarter of
a mile from the airport. Joey was a sophomore at St. Thomas More High
School in Lafayette La. and played on the junior varsity football team. His
father sold a business he operated a few years ago and drove a winch truck for
a
living. Avid outdoorsmen, the father and son were returning home from a
hunting trip. I'm sure I speak for many others when our thoughts and
prayers go out to wife and mother Jeanne and daughter and sister
Dawn. For the rest of us lies a lesson in humility and vigilance that
should always be soberly heeded, never haughtily dismissed as "something
that can't happen to me." Rick
Galati
--- Rick Galati
--- rick07x(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hochberg <infodocta(at)pol.net> |
| Subject: | Working on a non-owner built RV |
This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
Henry H.
------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
Originally From: RV-List Digest Server <rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/27/02
Date: 11/27/2002 11:57pm
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
You got it. Since you don't hold the repairman certificate, treat it like a
certified plane, as far as work is concerned. All your work (beyond
maintenance such as oil changes, tires, etc) needs to be signed off by an
A&P, or the the builder that holds the repairman certificate. For the
annual condition inspection, it needs to be an IA or the original builder.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Hochberg" <infodocta(at)pol.net>
Subject: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>
>
> This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
> When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
> including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
> electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
> Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
>
> Henry H.
>
>
> ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> Originally From: RV-List Digest Server <rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/27/02
> Date: 11/27/2002 11:57pm
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | smart plugs or not? |
Listers,
This is more a matter of curiosity than anything.
I am curious to know if there are any number of people on the list who have any first hand experience or knowledge in regard to http://www.smartplugs.com/ .
I would think a development of this sort that can be brought to present day or
better aviation piston engine performance standards would be heralded as the best
damn thing since the concept of the "mile high club"!
Has anyone out there in the 'almost real world' converted their lawn mower, an
old pickup or some such in an attempt to evaluate this as advertised "igniting
the future" product.
Could it be that there is another alternative to the two magnetos versus one magneto
one electronic ignition, two electronic ignitions, no magnetos controversy
just imagine; LOOK MA! No magnetos no electronic ignition and loops and rolls
as well !!
Of course we will then have to consider the various mandatory rules and regulations
changes and then there will be the concerns of Hartzell and other players
in the aviation industry.
I don't know for sure but this could have the makings of a pretty good string on
the list?!
Speaking of strings; I'm thinking we could create a Best String of the year award
(The BS award) with categories such as , Smartest, Cutest, shortest Longest,
most confusing, Most Annoying, Dumbest, etc.
Jim in Kelowna
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Working on a non-owner built RV |
NO! NO! NO! Anyone, and I mean anyone, can work on, and sign off that
work in the logbook, an experimental aircraft. It can be the new owner
or the local car mechanic, it makes no difference. The only thing the
new owner can't do is to sign off the annual condition inspection. That
condition inspection must be performed and signed off by an A&P or the
person that holds the repairman's certificate for this specific airplane
(the builder of record, if he applied for the repairman's certificate).
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Besing
Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
You got it. Since you don't hold the repairman certificate, treat it
like a
certified plane, as far as work is concerned. All your work (beyond
maintenance such as oil changes, tires, etc) needs to be signed off by
an
A&P, or the the builder that holds the repairman certificate. For the
annual condition inspection, it needs to be an IA or the original
builder.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb IFR question |
>
> I know this is a regulation issue, but why would you fly IFR without a VOR
> anyway?
I flew the CAF P-51C out from under the MSP wedding cake on an IFR flight
plan during the 9-11 Class B Lockdown. It has gyros, but only a VFR GPS for
nav. I was the wingman in a flight of 2 with our B-25. Perfectly legal.
The point is, there are times when it is nice to have an IFR legal airplane
to fly on an IFR flight plan when you have no desire whatsoever to stick
your nose in a cloud. Anyone operating in the DC area or SW of Waco TX is
wise to operate on an IFR clearance when ever possible to avoid a trip into
the TFRs. For that type of flying, a simple VOR backed up with a handheld
or VFR panel mounted Loran or GPS is plenty. If you plan to fly in the
clag, an ILS is really good, cause there are times when the weather is
wrong, the gas gets low and you just gotta land.
BTW, did I mention that I am looking for an IFR -4 and the panther is for
sale? Really Nice RV-4 VFR. ;-)
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
I recently had to educate our local FSDO on this very issue.
You of couse want all work done to aircraft standards. Having said that,
anyone whether a second owner, a 16 year old son or an A&P can legally work
on an amatuer built aircraft. The work should be entered in the log.
The only signature required is at the yearly condition inspection (aka.
"annual"). Either an A&P or the holder of the original repairman's
certificate are allowed to sign this off. An IA signature is not required.
The EAA can clarify this issue if asked.
Stan Blanton
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
That's news to me. I was specifically told by my DAR that when I sell it,
all work has to be signed off, just like a certified bird. In addtion, the
condition inspection has to be signed off by the original builder or IA.
Das Fed, you care to chime in here?
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>
> NO! NO! NO! Anyone, and I mean anyone, can work on, and sign off that
> work in the logbook, an experimental aircraft. It can be the new owner
> or the local car mechanic, it makes no difference. The only thing the
> new owner can't do is to sign off the annual condition inspection. That
> condition inspection must be performed and signed off by an A&P or the
> person that holds the repairman's certificate for this specific airplane
> (the builder of record, if he applied for the repairman's certificate).
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Besing
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>
>
> You got it. Since you don't hold the repairman certificate, treat it
> like a
> certified plane, as far as work is concerned. All your work (beyond
> maintenance such as oil changes, tires, etc) needs to be signed off by
> an
> A&P, or the the builder that holds the repairman certificate. For the
> annual condition inspection, it needs to be an IA or the original
> builder.
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> http://www.kitlog.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)mcleodusa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
Henry Hochberg wrote:
>
> This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
> When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
> including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
> electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
> Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
>
> Henry H.
Henry, You can do anything you want to that airplane, You can paint it,
change the engine, replace the wings with a different type of airfoil. And do
it all legally. The only thing you can't do physically is an inspection. And
this inspection does not have to be done by an AI. It can be done by any A&P
or the original builder if he got a repairman certificate for it. Another
builder of an identical airplane who has a repaiman certificate cannot
inspect your plane.
If you make a major alteration you must send a letter to FSDO to let them
know about it. Then they will advise you what to do.
Keep two things in mind.
1. Homebuilts are excluded from part 43 except our "Conditional Inspection"
must be of the same scope as an annual as listed in Part 43.
2. Major alterations will still be as set out in part 21.
Read the letter below. This came from EAA . I extracted it from
http://www.ez.org/maintena.htm Even the FAA don't know how to interpret
their own rules. Someday we will need to be lawyers to keep a plane around.
Phil Sisson Litchfield, IL
...............................................................................
Experimental Aircraft Association
February 15, 1996
Chuck Busch
743 Waterloo Ave
El Cajon, CA 92019-2612
Dear Chuck:
I believe I can help clarify the many questions you have.
FAR Part 43.1 (b) specifically excludes experimental aircraft so the FAA
is incorrect in stating you are held to any part or
appendix of Part 43. It states "This part does not apply to any aircraft for
which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been
issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had been
previously issued for that aircraft". I stress the word aircraft so
that is not interpreted to include an engine.
What about major repairs and alterations? First you never have to fill
out a form 337 for an experimental aircraft. Repairs major
or minor can be done by anyone, remember Part 43.1 (b). However,
alterations are different. If you alter the aircraft with a different
propeller or engine, for example, then it is not the aircraft for which you
received an airworthiness certificate. This would also apply
to changing pistons or magnetos. It is a new and untested airplane. If you
change propellers you must notify the FAA (not by a
337) of your change.
Your aircraft's operating limitations should have a statement such as
the following in regard to major changes: "The FAA
Cognizant Flight Standards Office must be notified, and their response
received in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after
incorporating a major change as defined by FAR 21.93
If you do not have such a statement on your operating limitations then
you can claim you do not have to notify the FAA.
However, EAA suggest you do so even if you do not have this limitation.
The FAA inspector will make a determination as to whether he need to
come out and inspect the change and/or assign a new
flight-test period. If the inspector gives you an OK by letter (which is
often done) you should note the date, time, name and change
in your aircraft logbook. If the inspector wants to inspect the aircraft, it
is the same as an FAA certified A&P. So far to EAA's
knowledge this has never happened on an amateur built aircraft. Most
operating limitations contain a statement that says and
annual "condition" inspection must be performed per the scope and detail of
FAR Part 43 Appendix D. It also states that an FAA
certificated A&P or repairman must perform this inspection. Note it says "A&P
or Repairman". It does not require an IA.
Let me clarify this. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft and
sign off the work. However the annual
"condition" inspection must be completed by an A&P or a
repairman.
Sincerely,
Experimental Aircraft Association
Earl Lawrence
Government Programs Specialist
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Working on a non-owner built RV |
The new owner should carefully read his AW Cert. It will give him the
limitations under which he must operate.
WRT major modifications, if the aircraft was certified under the new
rules, after a major modification all one must do is return the aircraft
to Phase I status for an additional 5 hours in the test area. After
completing the additional flight test time a logbook entry stating the
aircraft performs as expected is all that's needed to return to full
Phase II status. Under the old rules the feds would set the retest
flight time based on the scope of the major modification, even up to a
re-inspection.
Read and understand your AW Certificate. If you plan major modifications
and have the old style of AW cert, apply for the new one. It's a simple
paper shuffle.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Sisson,
Litchfield Aerobatic Club
Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
Henry Hochberg wrote:
>
> This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
> When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
> including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
> electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
> Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
>
> Henry H.
Henry, You can do anything you want to that airplane, You can paint it,
change the engine, replace the wings with a different type of airfoil.
And do
it all legally. The only thing you can't do physically is an inspection.
And
this inspection does not have to be done by an AI. It can be done by any
A&P
or the original builder if he got a repairman certificate for it.
Another
builder of an identical airplane who has a repaiman certificate cannot
inspect your plane.
If you make a major alteration you must send a letter to FSDO to let
them
know about it. Then they will advise you what to do.
Keep two things in mind.
1. Homebuilts are excluded from part 43 except our "Conditional
Inspection"
must be of the same scope as an annual as listed in Part 43.
2. Major alterations will still be as set out in part 21.
Read the letter below. This came from EAA . I extracted it from
http://www.ez.org/maintena.htm Even the FAA don't know how to interpret
their own rules. Someday we will need to be lawyers to keep a plane
around.
Phil Sisson Litchfield, IL
........................................................................
.......
Experimental Aircraft Association
February 15, 1996
Chuck Busch
743 Waterloo Ave
El Cajon, CA 92019-2612
Dear Chuck:
I believe I can help clarify the many questions you have.
FAR Part 43.1 (b) specifically excludes experimental aircraft so
the FAA
is incorrect in stating you are held to any part or
appendix of Part 43. It states "This part does not apply to any aircraft
for
which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been
issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had been
previously issued for that aircraft". I stress the word aircraft so
that is not interpreted to include an engine.
What about major repairs and alterations? First you never have to
fill
out a form 337 for an experimental aircraft. Repairs major
or minor can be done by anyone, remember Part 43.1 (b). However,
alterations are different. If you alter the aircraft with a different
propeller or engine, for example, then it is not the aircraft for which
you
received an airworthiness certificate. This would also apply
to changing pistons or magnetos. It is a new and untested airplane. If
you
change propellers you must notify the FAA (not by a
337) of your change.
Your aircraft's operating limitations should have a statement such
as
the following in regard to major changes: "The FAA
Cognizant Flight Standards Office must be notified, and their response
received in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after
incorporating a major change as defined by FAR 21.93
If you do not have such a statement on your operating limitations
then
you can claim you do not have to notify the FAA.
However, EAA suggest you do so even if you do not have this limitation.
The FAA inspector will make a determination as to whether he need
to
come out and inspect the change and/or assign a new
flight-test period. If the inspector gives you an OK by letter (which is
often done) you should note the date, time, name and change
in your aircraft logbook. If the inspector wants to inspect the
aircraft, it
is the same as an FAA certified A&P. So far to EAA's
knowledge this has never happened on an amateur built aircraft. Most
operating limitations contain a statement that says and
annual "condition" inspection must be performed per the scope and detail
of
FAR Part 43 Appendix D. It also states that an FAA
certificated A&P or repairman must perform this inspection. Note it says
"A&P
or Repairman". It does not require an IA.
Let me clarify this. Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft
and
sign off the work. However the annual
"condition" inspection must be completed by an A&P or a
repairman.
Sincerely,
Experimental Aircraft Association
Earl Lawrence
Government Programs Specialist
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dougweil(at)pressenter.com> |
| Subject: | Re: List Report... |
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> This is the last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser. Based on
previous
> year's percentages of Lister's making a Contribution, this year we are
> nearly 40% behind the normal... And I thought all those great gifts would
> eke the percentage up past the average a little. Oh well. Maybe people
> just don't really mind the flashing banner ads for Viagra, and popups for
> X10 minicams...
>
> There's still plenty of time to get your name of the List of
> Contributors. I'll probably publish the LOC on Monday night after I
> process the checks from the Post Office.
>
> I do want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so
> far this year. Your support is greatly appreciated and is what makes the
> Lists possible.
>
> How to support your Lists this month:
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Hey guys.... Let's get with it!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe the poor
percentage. Matt's list is one of the best info sources on the planet.
Compared to what we spend on these great airplanes, this is a true bargain.
Get those contributions pouring in........ NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doug Weiler
pres, MN Wing Van's Air Force
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Smart Plugs or Not |
OK Jim;
You win the seegar ; shortest,longest , best , worst,et al.
The 'Smart Plug " sounds like " Glo-Plugs " for model planes , if so , they
have flown a lot.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Trim tab attachment |
Ref RV7A manual trim cable attachment.
The plans say to rivet the WD415 (steel plate with nut welded to it) to the
E616PP (cover)
with LP4-3. Does this not make the cover NOT removable? How would you get it
off (or even
get it on again) with the trim tab threaded through the nut?
Anybody attached the WD415 with 2 - #8 platenuts to the cover?
Steve
RV7A
Finish Kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: smart plugs or not? |
Jim, sounds as what you want is a Diesel engine! The November-December issue
of the Recreational Flier, (RAA, Canada) has an article on Granfield 2002,
which describes the British "Wilksch" aero 160 HP 4 in-line cylinder diesel
engine. (pg 22)
Cheers!!---------Henry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> The new owner should carefully read his AW Cert. It will give him the
> limitations under which he must operate.
>
> WRT major modifications, if the aircraft was certified under the new
> rules, after a major modification all one must do is return the aircraft
> to Phase I status for an additional 5 hours in the test area. After
> completing the additional flight test time a logbook entry stating the
> aircraft performs as expected is all that's needed to return to full
> Phase II status. Under the old rules the feds would set the retest
> flight time based on the scope of the major modification, even up to a
> re-inspection.
>
> Read and understand your AW Certificate. If you plan major modifications
> and have the old style of AW cert, apply for the new one. It's a simple
> paper shuffle.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
Just a minor tweek here, it is not the AW Cert. It is the Operating Limatations.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net> |
RV-list , RV10 List ,
RV10
| Subject: | Alternative Engine Questions |
Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and Carburetors
but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about "alternative"
engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer engines in
cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with the
ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else. I
personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are in
power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane, Natural
Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back to
the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about in
airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition (which
is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is so
high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw(at)programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions (what's new and good) |
Hi Chris,
How about only 3 moving parts, that fail soft!! You failed to mention the
rotary in your discussion. After 33 years as a propulsion project engineer
at Pratt Whitney (retired now over 10years), I think the rotary is the "poor
mans gas turbine."
Bernie Kerr, 350 hours on RV6A O-320, building a 9A with a rotary
>From: Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: vansairforce , RV-list
>, RV10 List , RV10
>
>Subject: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:02:09 -0600
>
>
>Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
>between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and Carburetors
>but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about "alternative"
>engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
>traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer engines in
>cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with the
>ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else. I
>personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are in
>power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane, Natural
>Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back to
>the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
>efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about in
>airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition (which
>is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is so
>high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
>
>--
>Chris Woodhouse
>3147 SW 127th St.
>Oklahoma City, OK 73170
>405-691-5206 (home)
>chrisw(at)programmer.net
>N35 20.492'
>W97 34.342'
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
"RV10 List" , "RV10"
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Modern auto engines manage their own mixture and timing. Essentially, they
have "one lever power control", which makes operating them much less subject
to operator error. In addition, you can get variable valve timing, variable
intake runner length, and 4 valves per cylinder ( even 5 on some brands) on
a number of cars. Add to that tighter tolerances and better (more modern)
materials, gaskets, and sealants, and you have a much more refined package.
Beyond that, they have automatic fuel enrichment for starting, which avoids
one of the difficulties with aircraft engines. I don't remember the last
time I wondered if my properly maintained auto was going to crank on a cold
morning. With the airplane, it is always a concern.
All that said, I believe Lycomings and Continentals are preferred in
airplanes, despite their rough edges.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
; "RV10 List" ; "RV10"
Subject: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
> Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
> between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and Carburetors
> but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about "alternative"
> engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
> traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer engines in
> cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with the
> ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else. I
> personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are in
> power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane, Natural
> Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back to
> the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
> efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about in
> airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition (which
> is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is so
> high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
>
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206 (home)
> chrisw(at)programmer.net
> N35 20.492'
> W97 34.342'
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Pedersen" <wayne(at)pedersentransport.com> |
| Subject: | engine mount holes |
I just bought a rotating engine stand and want to secure it to the
firewall - then I can rotate my fuse and make it easier to work on
Question: Is there anything I need to be aware of with drilling the
engine mounting holes without the engine mount ? Are the pilot holes
accurate ? Maybe drill them a few sizes smaller for the stand and
then full size to the engine mount later ?
When you get this much work and effort into a project you would sure
hate to screw it up for a couple of bolt holes !
Thanks
Wayne in Southern Alberta
RV7a fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | How to torque a bolt? |
Silly question but I had read somewhere that when you torque a bolt that you either
turn the nut or the bolt for proper torque. Which is it?
Thanks again all and hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
Karie Daniel
Maple Valley, WA.
RV-7A QB (working on the empennage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
Henry:
Anyone can work on an experimental aircraft. The person doing the work must
sign off all work in the log. ONLY the original builder, if Repairman
certificate was issued, or an A&P (IA is NOT necessary) needs to sign for
the once a year "Condition" Inspection.
I consider the flap change over a minor change. Check the Operating
Limitations issued with the aircraft. If the NEW operating limitations were
issued to the aircraft you may be able to do a MAJOR change without FAA
approval but you must confine the aircraft to Phase I operations for the
required hours of test flying then make a logbook record stating the phrase
contained in the operating limitation.
Gary A. Sobek
EAA Tech Counselor
FAA A&P
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,216 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Henry Hochberg <infodocta(at)pol.net>
Subject: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:40:43 -0500 (EST)
This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
Henry H.
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca> |
I just want to say that I tried Boelube on my cowl pins today and it really
does the trick! Using a T-handle device I made up to grip the end of the
pin, I was able to push the pins all the way in with no drill. I haven't
been able to do that since before I riveted my hinges on several years ago.
Curt
RV-6 moving to the airport tomorrow!
>
> Boelube works great, dry and does not pick up dirt. Reapply about once a
> month or until the pins loosen up. I did not need a drill at all with
this
> lubricant. I assume you sharpened the end.
>
> Pat Hatch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to torque a bolt? |
Standard practice is to torque the nut.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: How to torque a bolt?
>
> Silly question but I had read somewhere that when you torque a bolt that
you either turn the nut or the bolt for proper torque. Which is it?
>
> Thanks again all and hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
>
>
> Karie Daniel
> Maple Valley, WA.
> RV-7A QB (working on the empennage)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engine mount holes |
Hi Wayne,
The fuselage is very light. You should not have to drill out the 1/4" at all
(I'm relying on memory about firewall hole size)
If you feel the need drilling them out to the next machine screw size won't
hurt.
I have an engine stand that I custom built. It is about a foot taller than
the low cost engine stands that I see available. The center if the engine
mount pivot is 39 and 1/2" from the floor. I found that I could rotate the
fuse 360 degrees with the roll bar in place. I did all the cabin floors etc.
with the fuse upside down all the while sitting on a short stool. I made a
pivot with adjustable height for the rear so that I could level the fuse
when building called for it. My garage floor has a slope for drainage.
At one point I climbed into the fuse while it was supported this way.
After removal the machine screws did not show signs of undue stress.
As far as the match drilling of the firewall to the engine mount is
concerned;
I put the engine mount onto the firewall to check out the fit. There was
some small differences with regard to the hole centers. I found two holes
that would line up with the mount exactly. In my case they where on opposing
corners. I used a series of drills to drill these holes. First drill one
hole to size, install the bolt then drill the next hole to size using the
engine mount as a drill guide. Then carry on with the rest of the mount
holes. If by chance you find one or more holes are off enough to seem
worrisome use some hobby store brass tubing as a drill centering guide. I
use a lathe to make steel, aluminum etc. guides such as this.
Lots of luck,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Pedersen" <wayne(at)pedersentransport.com>
Subject: RV-List: engine mount holes
>
>
> I just bought a rotating engine stand and want to secure it to the
> firewall - then I can rotate my fuse and make it easier to work on
>
> Question: Is there anything I need to be aware of with drilling the
> engine mounting holes without the engine mount ? Are the pilot holes
> accurate ? Maybe drill them a few sizes smaller for the stand and
> then full size to the engine mount later ?
>
> When you get this much work and effort into a project you would sure
> hate to screw it up for a couple of bolt holes !
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne in Southern Alberta
> RV7a fuse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to torque a bolt? |
Hi Karie,
The nut where and whenever possible.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: How to torque a bolt?
>
> Silly question but I had read somewhere that when you torque a bolt that
you either turn the nut or the bolt for proper torque. Which is it?
>
> Thanks again all and hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
>
>
> Karie Daniel
> Maple Valley, WA.
> RV-7A QB (working on the empennage)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Bench grinder vs Buffer |
I'm needing to get something that's faster than using sand paper and files
and am looking for some feedback on the less expensive Bench Grinder vs the
Buffer. Is there anything that the Buffer will do that the grinder won't?
The only difference I can see is that the grinder has the guards that might
be in the way but I would think I could take those off if needed. And I'm
assuming I can use all the same attachments for the grinder ie: scotch
bright wheel, wire brush wheel, etc.
Thanks,
Will Allen
North Bend, Wa.
RV8 Emp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: How to torque a bolt? |
Karie Daniel wrote:
>
> Silly question but I had read somewhere that when you torque a bolt that you
either turn the nut or the bolt for proper torque. Which is it?
Preferably the nut. Otherwise you theoretically must add the additional torque
necessary to rotate
the bolt in the assembly which may be an unknown value.
--
Bob McC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bench grinder vs Buffer |
How much less expensive is it? I would think the HP would be less, which
could pose a problem if you were grinding some heavy steel, or shaping
alluminum with the grinding wheel. I've seen off brand grinders (I have an
Ohio Forge) for $60. Mine is by no means a top quality unit, but it lasted
for my last airplane, and is still going strong. It wasn't much more than
$60 or so.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Bench grinder vs Buffer
>
>
> I'm needing to get something that's faster than using sand paper and files
> and am looking for some feedback on the less expensive Bench Grinder vs
the
> Buffer. Is there anything that the Buffer will do that the grinder won't?
> The only difference I can see is that the grinder has the guards that
might
> be in the way but I would think I could take those off if needed. And I'm
> assuming I can use all the same attachments for the grinder ie: scotch
> bright wheel, wire brush wheel, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Will Allen
> North Bend, Wa.
> RV8 Emp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine mount holes |
Don't drill them to full size. You will find that the suttle differences in
the mount and the firewall will make for holes that don't line up. I would
use smaller bolts for now, and then widen them out when you put on the
mount. You can see my engine stand installation on my website under "fuse
stand"
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Pedersen" <wayne(at)pedersentransport.com>
Subject: RV-List: engine mount holes
>
>
> I just bought a rotating engine stand and want to secure it to the
> firewall - then I can rotate my fuse and make it easier to work on
>
> Question: Is there anything I need to be aware of with drilling the
> engine mounting holes without the engine mount ? Are the pilot holes
> accurate ? Maybe drill them a few sizes smaller for the stand and
> then full size to the engine mount later ?
>
> When you get this much work and effort into a project you would sure
> hate to screw it up for a couple of bolt holes !
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne in Southern Alberta
> RV7a fuse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to torque a bolt? |
Thanks to all that replied, I appreciate it. Now I'm going back to my
garage....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: How to torque a bolt?
>
> Standard practice is to torque the nut.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: How to torque a bolt?
>
>
> >
> > Silly question but I had read somewhere that when you torque a bolt that
> you either turn the nut or the bolt for proper torque. Which is it?
> >
> > Thanks again all and hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
> >
> >
> > Karie Daniel
> > Maple Valley, WA.
> > RV-7A QB (working on the empennage)
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
Big snip here
> airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition (which
> is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is so
> high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
>
The short answer is, TONS. The big problem is, while our lycosaurus engines
are very primitive, many of the things that we find in our modern car
engines came from aircraft engines. The exception being Electronic Fuel
Injection, and and Electronic ignition.
Overhead cams, multiple valves per cylinder, temperature and altitude
compensated throttle body fuel injection, superchargers and intercoolers
were in the RR Merlin and the GM Allison. Those engines have much in common
with a modern car engine, sans the computer.
We can make engines that make more power, breath better, run smoother, burn
less oil, burn less gas, and last longer. But if we can't get the
technology from WWII aircraft into our airplanes today, how will we ever be
able to get modern automotive technology in an airplane?????? Putting a car
engine in an airplane is a poor answer. Putting some modern technology in a
airplane engine is a better one.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions (what's new and good) |
WALTER KERR wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> How about only 3 moving parts, that fail soft!! You failed to mention the
> rotary in your discussion. After 33 years as a propulsion project engineer
> at Pratt Whitney (retired now over 10years), I think the rotary is the "poor
> mans gas turbine."
>
> Bernie Kerr, 350 hours on RV6A O-320, building a 9A with a rotary
>
>
C'm on Bernie, don't sell it so short. You know the BSFC is a lot better than a
turbine.
Charlie
(searching for a po man's turbine project)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
> My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition (which
>is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is so
>high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
Internal combustion engine technology has changed since the forties in many
more ways than just electronic ignition. However, the primary reason to
try to make low cost, mass produced auto engines work in an airplane is
cost. For the price of a minor overhaul on a Lycoming, you can buy a brand
new auto engine.
What many who get entangled in the grand alternative engine experiment
don't realize is that it will take you a bunch of money and time
to develop a conversion on your own. I was pretty wound up about adapting
the Chevy V6 truck engine for my RV6a till someone who had gone before said
that it would take me more than an extra year, if I worked
intensely. Lacking the money and the time, I gave up and bought a new
Lycoming. There were several V6 adaptations flying but we hear little of
how they are doing down the road. The Mazda rotary fliers seem to be doing
alright. As the owner of three RX-7s (I sold numbers 4 and 5) I can affirm
that these are amazing little engines.
I've overhauled more than 200 engines including Porsches (no aircraft) and
studied thermodynamics in college and I can tell you, there is a lot to
learn to do aircraft conversions. Knowing "suck, squeeze, bang, ptuii"
isn't nearly enough.
However, don't let the stick in the mud, dyed in the wool, Lycosaurus
religious fanatics affect your thinking. Look for those with open minds.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb IFR question |
>
>I know this is a regulation issue, but why would you fly IFR without a VOR
>anyway?
Maybe you live in the wild and unpopulated west and fly between two
airports which have only ADF's? Or, are in uncontrolled airspace?
You are right to say that it is a regulation issue but what in aviation
isn't? There is a list of required equipment in the FARs. Any other
equipment is up to you. IMHO, knowing what you can do and what you need to
do it is required IFR knowledge.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | All New List Digest Format!! |
Dear Listers,
I've just finished up some awesome code that will completely change your
thinking about how email Digests should work and look! Yeah, I'm kind of
proud of it, that is true... :-)
What you'll be getting in the new List Digest message is the
following: The main message will contain the new text-based index I
introduced a few weeks back. But here's where things get
different... Instead of simply including all of the day's posts in line
within the message, there will now be included two enclosures - one with a
HTML encoded version of the Digests, and another with the usual text-only
version of the Digests.
I think you're really going to like the new HTML enclosure of the
Digests. All of the Indexes at the top are now hyperlinked to the actual
posts and there are hyperlinks at the top of each post that will:
o Take you back to the Index
o Take you to the next post
o Take you to the previous post
o Allow you to respond to the LIST regarding the message
o Allow you to respond directly to the POSTER regarding the message
You'll have to check it out to appreciate the full goodness of the new
format! :-)
The text-only version is basically exactly the same data that has been
normally sent in line within the message.
You'll also note that the filenames of the enclosures are such that they
can be conveniently placed in a personal "archive" directory for future
reference.
Hope you enjoy the new Digest format!!!
Oh, and don't forget about the Fund Raiser! :-)
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey Guys,
I am building my electrical distribution around the EXP Bus (before you
start about Bob and his fuses, I already have the unit in hand and intend to
use it). I was reading the most recent issue of Sport Aviation discussing
cockpit layout. One of the items mentioned was being able to reach circuit
breakers to disconnect in the event of runaway trim or flaps. I can
accomplish this by putting switches in the power line (trim and flaps are
actuated by switching the ground). Has anyone had a problem with runaway
trim with the MAC units? Has anyone had uncommanded flap movement? In
other words, do I really need to include the disconnect switches?
Vince Welch
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bench grinder vs Buffer |
A buffer differs from a grinder in that the shaft that extends from either side
of the motor is longer. This little extra difference (1-3") between the motor
and the buffing/grinding wheel makes it much easier to buff large/irregular
parts. This configuration makes the buffer better for buffing (than a grinder).
However, if you are using files and sandpaper, the switch to a grinder with
a buffing wheel be completely satisfactory. Mounting your bench grinder on
a pedastal and/or putting buffing wheels on both sides helps to ensure you can
easily reach all areas of your parts.
Good luck,
Dean Pichon
RV-4 (flying)
Morgantown, WV
----- Original Message -----
From: Will & Lynda Allen
Subject: RV-List: Bench grinder vs Buffer
I'm needing to get something that's faster than using sand paper and files
and am looking for some feedback on the less expensive Bench Grinder vs the
Buffer. Is there anything that the Buffer will do that the grinder won't?
The only difference I can see is that the grinder has the guards that might
be in the way but I would think I could take those off if needed. And I'm
assuming I can use all the same attachments for the grinder ie: scotch
bright wheel, wire brush wheel, etc.
Thanks,
Will Allen
North Bend, Wa.
RV8 Emp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 14 Hours Inspiration Report |
Fellow Builders:
Just an update to hopefully inspire you to keep working hard on your
projects. I now have 14 hours on my 8A. I have spent most of this time
taking care of the minor problems and squawks that are common on most
projects.
I was lucky in that the DAR gave me a 50 miles fly-off area. I think I would
go crazy if I only had 25 miles ... definitely beg for 50. I am flying
almost every day the weather allows. I have not painted or put the wheel
pants/fairings on yet.
The EGT, CHT temps are great. CHT in the 380 range. I had to block off part
of the oil cooler ... temps were too cool. I am still not getting the full
2700 rpm on takeoff. Right now getting 2600. When pulling back to 2500 rpm
I am still showing around 1500-1600 FPM climbout at 110 knots. Pull it back
to 90 - 95 knots and you get 1800 - 2000 FPM. The angle of climb will
frighten you at first ... it is definitely not a Piper !!!!!
Cruise at 4500' is around 140-145 kts at 2350 rpm. Yesterday I saw a ground
speed of 210 mph. I like that !!!
One of the most pleasant surprises is the ease of landing. According to my
training with Mike Seager in the 6A ... I would say the 8A is easier to land.
It is such a thrill to open that hanger to see a plane ready to fly sitting
there. That alone is enough for me to encourage you to keep working hard.
Don't give up. There are many times during the final six months you feel
like selling it as scrap aluminum but just a few hours in the air will make
you glad you didn't.
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
14 hours !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to torque a bolt? |
As some have responded, you torque the nut. But there will be instances
where this cannot be done, such as the bolts that hold the u/c weldments to
the bulkhead and spar on the 6-A. In those cases, add a AN 960 washer under
the bolt head (if its length allows), coat the shank, (NOT THE THREADS) with
a little anti-seize compound and torque the bolt to near the top limit of
ft-lbs as shown in in AC 43-13-XX
Cheers!!-------Henry Hore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick07x(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bench grinder vs Buffer |
Will Lynda,
My bench grinder, like most is not really the best platform for buffing
operations but as a construction tool a grinder will get used much more often.
So if it were an either/or buying choice, I would go with a grinder. Faced with
buffing out my aluminum spinner and not willing to spring for a new buffing
machine, I used my Delta drill press and it worked out just fine. With 12 speeds
to choose from, it was easy to select an optimum speed based upon the diameter
of a given buffing wheel. I simply mounted the buffing wheel on a
long 1/4" threaded bolt well away from the drill press's chuck. With
a 16" throat, it was no problem to manipulate the spinner without any chance of
it bumping up against anything. It took a little getting used
to having the buffing wheel attached and spinning vertically rather than
horizontally but was really no big deal. Rick Galati
--- Rick Galati
--- rick07x(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
In a word - no. Flaps don't get touched unless you are slow anyway. The
elevator and/or aileron trim, even at extreme travel, are controllable with
the stick.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Vincent Welch
Subject: RV-List: Runaway Trim
Hey Guys,
I am building my electrical distribution around the EXP Bus (before you
start about Bob and his fuses, I already have the unit in hand and intend to
use it). I was reading the most recent issue of Sport Aviation discussing
cockpit layout. One of the items mentioned was being able to reach circuit
breakers to disconnect in the event of runaway trim or flaps. I can
accomplish this by putting switches in the power line (trim and flaps are
actuated by switching the ground). Has anyone had a problem with runaway
trim with the MAC units? Has anyone had uncommanded flap movement? In
other words, do I really need to include the disconnect switches?
Vince Welch
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed's Compuserve" <edwardoconnor(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engine mount holes |
Take a look at some pictures on my web site. I used an engine stand and
2x4s. I did not drill out the holes. I cut some threaded rod to length
through the firewall and 2x4s and taps on each end. I fabricated an
adjustable tail stand since you have to do some things to the fuselage with
it level. Site <http://homepage.mac.com/edwardoconnor>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Chris,
Subaru has a boxer engine (horizontally opposed) much like
lync. or cont. It's 2.5 liter (2500 cc) will put out 160 to 220 HP
depending on weather it's turbo'd or has a cam grind etc. It also
happens to be liquid cooled, which means far better engine heat
balancing as well as heat in the cabin. You could probably complete
a project such as this for 7 thousand or so. Thats about where the
prices start for a mid time linc., probably without accessories ($$$).
I keep hearing that such a soob can run at cruise on about 8 gal. /Hr
while the comparable lync would use about 10 to 13. Thats part of
the answer. HTH
Larry Mac Donald
Rochester N.Y.
>
> Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
> between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and
> Carburetors
> but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about
> "alternative"
> engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
> traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer
> engines in
> cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with
> the
> ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else.
> I
> personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are
> in
> power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane,
> Natural
> Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back
> to
> the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
> efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about
> in
> airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition
> (which
> is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is
> so
> high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
>
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206 (home)
> chrisw(at)programmer.net
> N35 20.492'
> W97 34.342'
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: engine mount holes and installing it! |
Living in Canada, I bought all the kits at one time to avoid the annual
price-hikes and the pitfalls of several border crossings. Thus I had the
engine mount available at the time I built-up the firewall. I simply laid it
flat on a table, centered the mount on it, clamped it in place and then
back-drilled the holes through the tubes using a 3/8" B&D Bullet drill.
Worked great! With the fuselage out of the jig and up-right, I used two
2x4"s bolted to the firewall (through the mount holes) to act as front legs.
Before mounting the engine, I turned the fuselage on it side resting it on
two other 2x4"s bolted in place. I then primed the belly and painted it with
the final finish colour. Sure beats crawling under the fuselage to do that
later!
Regarding mounting the engine: Van's instructions on how to install the
bolts through the "Lord" mounts (at least in the manual that came with my
kit in 1995) are a "bunch of garbage"! It says, with the engine suspended,
"----it can be moved into position on the engine mount and the two upper
Lord mounts and the bolts installed (*) and partially tightened. then by
lifting the engine with the hoist, and actually lifting part of the
airframe also, the upper lord mounts are flexed upward enough that the lower
mounts are then brought nearly into position.---"--Nuts!! Think about it! If
you do as suggested, all that will happen is that the engine will pivot
upward on the top mounts and PULL AWAY from the bottom ones!! No way will
you be "--- lifting part of the airframe also---"!!
(*) That's the problem,-getting those first two bolts through! Here is what
I did, working alone: I used two lengths of 1/4" threaded rod to clamp the
top mounts. Being 1/8" smaller dia. than the bolts, they went in easily.
Then I lowered the hoist to allow the weight of the engine to
COMPRESS the front biscuit of the lower mounts. I could peer through from
the rear and align the biscuit with the engine bolt hole and then insert the
bolt and the rear biscuit easily. Once both bolts were in and tight, I
lifted the engine to compress the top front biscuit of the top mounts and
removing the 1/4" rods, inserted the bolts as was done on the
bottom.---Simple and easy.
Sure beats some articles I've seen in other publications that describe how
other people did it with aides pushing and heaving to get the bolts in!
Cheers!!--------Henry Hore
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bench grinder vs Buffer |
The very, VERY, best tool to have in your shop is table-top 1'' belt sander!
I have a Delta 31-050. It uses 30'' dia. belts which are easily available in
several grit sizes. My wife also loves it because I use it to sharpen all
her kitchen knives using the fine grit belt. Practically every piece of
aluminum on my 6-A has had corners and slots cleaned, deburred, rounded,
etc, and after 7 years of use (abuse?) it's still going strong! I don't know
if Delta still make that model. The ones I see advertised also have a disc
sander on the side of the belt drive. Maybe this is a better purchase.
A bench grinder is not good for doing aluminum work. The wheels that come
with them are too coarse for that and will clog-up. I am fortunate enough to
have the original "ShopSmith" (now 50 years old) and I use it for all
drill-press work and have the scotch-bright wheel mounted on one of its
arbors.
Another most useful tool is a Dremel hand grinder-polisher. Funnily enough
the kit does not include the most useful accessory (not here in Canada
anyway) which is a fiber reinforced cut-off wheel.The ones that come with
the kit are not reinforced and shatter at the least excuse. "Craftsman"
(#36959) makes a 1 1/4"dia x 1/32" thk wheel (5 in package) that is great to
cut aluminum sheet and cut holes, for example the Naca vent-holes in the
fuselage side. They wear pretty fast cutting aluminum, you'll find!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Well,
The only real difference between auto vs. aviation engines is their
respective missions. One is designed to accelerate and decelerate a lot, to
not run at full power continously and to deliver reasonable power over its
entire RPM range which can be from 600-6000 RPM commonly, the other is
designed to stay at a constant power/RPM setting, to deliver most of its
power between 2000-2700 RPM, and run at full power until it wears out.
And finally one is designed to spin a nice round symetrical weight, where
the other is designed to spin a god awful set of paddles that are trying to
rip its face off in five different ways, at all times. ;{)
So, trying to use one for the other, either way, is kinda silly, expensive
and can be risky if not done correctly, not that there really is a correct
way to do this. (I know I'm gonna get flammed here)
Its just that it makes no sense to me to redesign something to an
application that no part in it was ever designed for, when there is already
something that is designed for this. (You will not save one dime doing this,
but you might have some fun if you are into that much work.)
I think we will get a lot further by using our efforts at improving the
thing that was designed for this application, rather than redesigning
something that wasn't meant for this application.
Which, by the way, is what the engine manufacturers are doing via the
IOF-360 lyc and the IOF-240 Cont. being produced or modified by TCM
Aerosance. TexLyc is also working on their own version of this, but they
both need to get a clue on costs. The TCM FADEC costs as much as the engine
does. I am in the middle of installing one and its a nice product if it runs
well, but damm, the cost is unbelieveable.
The real issue about these powerplant costs are mass production....
So next time you order an aircraft engine, order twenty of them.... ;{)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net> |
,
RV-list ,
vansairforce
I was thinking it would be nice to be able to record EGT CHT OAT
Altitude, IAS and GPS data on a frequency of a few times a second. I
think this would be a very valuable tool while in the test flight stage
of a new home built plane. Is there a way to do this with say a lap top
and no more than say $2000 for the data acquisition equipment. I know
recording the GPS data wouldn't be that hard with a lap top but what
about all the rest of it?
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw(at)programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
>From: "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:56:58 -0700
>
>
>You got it. Since you don't hold the repairman certificate, treat it like
>a
>certified plane, as far as work is concerned. All your work (beyond
>maintenance such as oil changes, tires, etc) needs to be signed off by an
>A&P, or the the builder that holds the repairman certificate. For the
>annual condition inspection, it needs to be an IA or the original builder.
>
>Paul Besing
>RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
>http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
>Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
>http://www.kitlog.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Henry Hochberg" <infodocta(at)pol.net>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>
>
> >
> >
> > This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
> > When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
> > including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
> > electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
> > Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
> >
> > Henry H.
> >
> >
> > ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> > Originally From: RV-List Digest Server <rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> > Subject: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/27/02
> > Date: 11/27/2002 11:57pm
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
>
Paul,
I'm sorry but I have to jump in here. Anybody can work on an experimental
aircraft and no certificate at all is required. The only time a certificate
is required by regulations is during the annual condition inspection. Then,
only the original builder with a Repairman's Certificate or an licensed A&P,
not an IA, can conduct the inspection.
As to major alterations you have to go by whatever tyhe Operating
Linmitations state. The older ones say that any major change has to be
coordinated with the local FSDO, and the new ones state that the owner can
just make an entry in the maintenance logs, conduct a minimum 5 hour test
flight, sign it off and go on your merry way.
Just remember....ALL maintenance MUST be entered in the maintenance logs.
Seeing as how anybody can do the maintenance, only those entries not entered
could get one in trouble (maybe).
Mike Robertson
DAS FED
RV-8A, 6A, 9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Working on a non-owner built RV |
Thanks, Mike. Yes, I was corrected many times. I was just going off of
what my DAR told me. It seems that there is alot of mis information being
dissimated by the different DAR's out there. They all have their own idea
on what the regs say we must do.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
>
>
> >From: "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
> >Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:56:58 -0700
> >
> >
> >You got it. Since you don't hold the repairman certificate, treat it
like
> >a
> >certified plane, as far as work is concerned. All your work (beyond
> >maintenance such as oil changes, tires, etc) needs to be signed off by an
> >A&P, or the the builder that holds the repairman certificate. For the
> >annual condition inspection, it needs to be an IA or the original
builder.
> >
> >Paul Besing
> >RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> >http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> >Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> >http://www.kitlog.com
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Henry Hochberg" <infodocta(at)pol.net>
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This question may have been addressed before, so excuse me if it has.
> > > When you buy a used RV and then want to do the work on it yourself,
> > > including major work (such as converting mechanical flaps to
> > > electrical), what do the regs say about your not being the builder?
> > > Can you just have an IA supervise?Thanks.
> > >
> > > Henry H.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------ Reply Separator --------------------
> > > Originally From: RV-List Digest Server <rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
> > > Subject: RV-List Digest: 34 Msgs - 11/27/02
> > > Date: 11/27/2002 11:57pm
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> Paul,
>
> I'm sorry but I have to jump in here. Anybody can work on an experimental
> aircraft and no certificate at all is required. The only time a
certificate
> is required by regulations is during the annual condition inspection.
Then,
> only the original builder with a Repairman's Certificate or an licensed
A&P,
> not an IA, can conduct the inspection.
> As to major alterations you have to go by whatever tyhe Operating
> Linmitations state. The older ones say that any major change has to be
> coordinated with the local FSDO, and the new ones state that the owner can
> just make an entry in the maintenance logs, conduct a minimum 5 hour test
> flight, sign it off and go on your merry way.
> Just remember....ALL maintenance MUST be entered in the maintenance logs.
> Seeing as how anybody can do the maintenance, only those entries not
entered
> could get one in trouble (maybe).
>
> Mike Robertson
> DAS FED
> RV-8A, 6A, 9A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> Its just that it makes no sense to me to redesign something to an
> application that no part in it was ever designed for,
Many people say this, or something like it (including Van), but never, ever
mention even one thing that would be done differently on an engine designed for
automotive use as compared to aircraft use. I'm not suggesting that there are
no differences, but I am suggesting that most of the people who say this have
little idea what any of those differences are. Which makes me wonder what
makes them think they're qualified to offer an opinion.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
I've got a buddy who has installed one of the 220 HP Subaru's in his
Velocity. He's achieved 27 hours and 3 engine related emergency landings
since his first flight last February. This is an individual who has gone
the extra step to do things right, and he still doesn't have a satisfactory
drivetrain.
So far, his biggest problem is finding a reliable gearbox.He's on gearbox MK
III now, and is dealing with people who advertise these things in the back
of Sport Aviation.
If you want to fly and not tinker, go with a proven package.
Kyle Boatright
----- Original Message -----
From: <lm4(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
> Chris,
> Subaru has a boxer engine (horizontally opposed) much like
> lync. or cont. It's 2.5 liter (2500 cc) will put out 160 to 220 HP
> depending on weather it's turbo'd or has a cam grind etc. It also
> happens to be liquid cooled, which means far better engine heat
> balancing as well as heat in the cabin. You could probably complete
> a project such as this for 7 thousand or so. Thats about where the
> prices start for a mid time linc., probably without accessories ($$$).
> I keep hearing that such a soob can run at cruise on about 8 gal. /Hr
> while the comparable lync would use about 10 to 13. Thats part of
> the answer. HTH
> Larry Mac Donald
> Rochester N.Y.
>
> >
> > Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
> > between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and
> > Carburetors
> > but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about
> > "alternative"
> > engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
> > traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer
> > engines in
> > cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with
> > the
> > ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else.
> > I
> > personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are
> > in
> > power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane,
> > Natural
> > Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back
> > to
> > the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
> > efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about
> > in
> > airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition
> > (which
> > is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is
> > so
> > high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
> >
> > --
> > Chris Woodhouse
> > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > 405-691-5206 (home)
> > chrisw(at)programmer.net
> > N35 20.492'
> > W97 34.342'
> >
> >
> >
> > _->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)wmca.net> |
| Subject: | rudder pedal assemblies - RV7QB |
I am bummed at my lack of foresight, but felt the need to warn other builders,
especially QB's...
The plans give exact dimensions to trim the (steel) rudder pedal weldments, in
my case 40 1/8" for the right and 40 5/32" for the left. I dutifully trimmed
to those exact dimensions.
When I trial fitted the (trimmed) assembly to the fuselage at the 3" minimum distance
(from the forward side of the firewall stiffener), I find that I have .16"
of rudder pedal weldment end play. I don't know what that magic number should
be, but if the side rudder pedal bearing blocks (the rudder assembly) are
adjusted toward a more aft position, this rudder pedal weldment endplay becomes
more like over 1/2", which really seems like a lot of lateral movement in the
rudder pedals. I know I should have trial fitted the rudder pedal weldments
before I trimmed...but at least my rudder pedals are cut to the length specified
in the plans!
I trimmed a total of .117" from these steel tubes, I think I would have been better
off not trimming at all.
I think I am going to install some 1" nylon washers inside the (nylon) side rudder
pedal bearing blocks to reduce the endplay, any thoughts on this remedy??
Bob Brown
RV7A - fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)wmca.net> |
| Subject: | baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
Thanks for the suggestions on the placement of strobe power supplies and ELT's.
I will be placing mine between the ribs under the baggage floor similar to some
of the examples sent to me offline.
I have installed nutplates at various locations in the baggage area ribs to make
the baggage area floor panels removable...I don't like having places in the
airplane I can't LOOK at. This option will also allow easy installation and future
inspection access for antennas and wiring.
Again, thanks for the options...there's a lot of thoughtful builders out there.
Bob Brown
RV7A - fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Bluemountain's EFIS-one has a built-in data recorder that records "each
fixed sensor and every user configured sensor written every 5 seconds."
Their example includes time, airspeed, true airspeed, altitude, outside air
temperature, density altitude, heading, rpm, manifold pressure, fuel left,
fuel right, volts, fuel pressure, oil pressure, and coolant pressure.
The flash memory in it can hold 12 hours of flight data.
Terry
I was thinking it would be nice to be able to record EGT CHT OAT
Altitude, IAS and GPS data on a frequency of a few times a second. I
think this would be a very valuable tool while in the test flight stage
of a new home built plane. Is there a way to do this with say a lap top
and no more than say $2000 for the data acquisition equipment. I know
recording the GPS data wouldn't be that hard with a lap top but what
about all the rest of it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data recording |
>
>I was thinking it would be nice to be able to record EGT CHT OAT
>Altitude, IAS and GPS data on a frequency of a few times a second. I
>think this would be a very valuable tool while in the test flight stage
>of a new home built plane. Is there a way to do this with say a lap top
>and no more than say $2000 for the data acquisition equipment. I know
>recording the GPS data wouldn't be that hard with a lap top but what
>about all the rest of it?
>
>--
>Chris Woodhouse
>3147 SW 127th St.
>Oklahoma City, OK 73170
>405-691-5206 (home)
>chrisw(at)programmer.net
>N35 20.492'
>W97 34.342'
>
Some of the integrated engine instrument packages are designed to
either record data, or to feed it to a laptop so it can record it. I
know the Grand Rapids EIS systems can output data to a laptop, and I
believe the Rocky Mountain microMonitor has some sort of
functionality like this.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (baffles, induction air, oil cooler)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | manifold pressure reads low on VM-1000 |
Listers,
With the engine off, the VM-1000 reports manifold pressure at 29.2 when it
should be reporting 29.8 +/- (based on field elevation). I talked to the Vision
"man" while at OSH and he said I have a unit that is at the limit of their
tolerance. Looking through the archives, I can find no other references to this
problem. He offered to allow me to try another unit, but before I do that,
I would like to know if this is an issue that I should or should not be concerned
with.
Thanks in advance for any personal experience on this issue.
Tom Barnes -6 in hangar, wings on.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data recording |
Go to this site and click Data Acquisition,
you can collect all kinds of info and it is not that expensive. You need to
be a whiz to get is all wired up and programed, but the equipment is not
that expensive. BTW they have a GREAT set of catalogs that have loads of
good info and ideas in them.
Tailwinds
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Take a visit to:
http://flightperformance.com/default.htm
The system does not do everything you want but many of the things you
mention. I think it is about $2500.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: ExperimentalAvionics(at)yahoogroups.com; RV-list; vansairforce
> Subject: RV-List: Data recording
>
>
> I was thinking it would be nice to be able to record EGT CHT OAT
> Altitude, IAS and GPS data on a frequency of a few times a second. I
> think this would be a very valuable tool while in the test flight stage
> of a new home built plane. Is there a way to do this with say a lap top
> and no more than say $2000 for the data acquisition equipment. I know
> recording the GPS data wouldn't be that hard with a lap top but what
> about all the rest of it?
>
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206 (home)
> chrisw(at)programmer.net
> N35 20.492'
> W97 34.342'
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
> apply a ground to one of the control wires. It would make
> for a bad day if
> something chafed and the flap down wire found a ground in
> cruise flight.
It should take more than this failure to cause uncommanded flap
movement. The standard flap wiring should take a hot wire and ground
wire to the center of a DPDT, three position spring centered switch.
Everything "downstream" of this switch, when it is in the neutral
position, is dead, meaning it is totally disconnected from the airplane.
Two different things would have to spontaneously happen to cause an
uncommanded flap movement. A more probable failure would be the switch
sticking during a commanded movement.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data recording |
DUH! www.omega.com
then click Data Acquisition
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Data recording
>
> Go to this site and click Data Acquisition,
>
> you can collect all kinds of info and it is not that expensive. You need
to
> be a whiz to get is all wired up and programed, but the equipment is not
> that expensive. BTW they have a GREAT set of catalogs that have loads of
> good info and ideas in them.
>
> Tailwinds
> Doug Rozendaal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris" <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
> To: ; "
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | manifold pressure reads low on VM-1000 |
> With the engine off, the VM-1000 reports manifold
> pressure at 29.2 when it should be reporting 29.8 +/- (based
> on field elevation).
You probably already have this figured correctly, but.... How are you
getting the 29.8" in the above example? The ATIS or whatever will only
give a barometer reading which will agree with a MAP gauge at a sea
level airport.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
I have my oil cooler mounted on the baffle behind #3 cylinder, pretty
much as Van's drawing shows. My heat muff is below on a cross tube. It
would be rather convenient to run the heat muff scat tube off of the
back of the oil cooler. I am picturing a 2" flange placed over the
bottom of the back of the cooler.
I am not looking to improve the heating effiency, it's just a
mechanically convenient way to get the scat tube to the heat muff.
The engine is an IO360 which seems to need all the cooling it can get.
On the other hand there is constant air flow through the muff because
the heat valve dumps it overboard when heat is not is use
So what does the group think about the effect this might have on the oil
cooler, IE might it raise the oil temp? Anybody tried this?
Jim Bean
RV-8
Cooling Baffles (3 months)
Starting third year building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Its just that it makes no sense to me ................
Lots of things make no sense to me -- usually because I am ignorant about them.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
>
>I've got a buddy who has installed one of the 220 HP Subaru's in his
>Velocity. He's achieved 27 hours and 3 engine related emergency landings
>since his first flight last February. This is an individual who has gone
>the extra step to do things right, and he still doesn't have a satisfactory
>drivetrain.
Give him some encouragement, Kyle. You are a buddy.
There is a story about an engineering manager, at Baldwin Locomotive Works
I think. After a new locomotive was all designed he gathered his engineers
together and said, "Okay, guys, let's build one and see what doesn't work".
The development of new products involves many corrections along the
way. Guys who do engine conversions right, like your buddy, are bold
adventurers. They have the courage (and funds) the rest of us lack.
Aren't there builders with a few engine related emergency landings who are
flying Lycomings?????
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
220 HP is a LOT of power to be asking of a 152 cu engine, and even 1 HP per
cubic inch is pushing it. The normal aircraft engine is about 1/2 HP per
cubic inch, which I admit is a little conservative but almost 1.5 per cu
inch? Not on my airplane.
Automotive engines are not designed to put out high HP for long periods of
time as are aircraft engines.
Dave
lm4(at)juno.com wrote:
>
> Chris,
> Subaru has a boxer engine (horizontally opposed) much like
> lync. or cont. It's 2.5 liter (2500 cc) will put out 160 to 220 HP
> depending on weather it's turbo'd or has a cam grind etc. It also
> happens to be liquid cooled, which means far better engine heat
> balancing as well as heat in the cabin. You could probably complete
> a project such as this for 7 thousand or so. Thats about where the
> prices start for a mid time linc., probably without accessories ($$$).
> I keep hearing that such a soob can run at cruise on about 8 gal. /Hr
> while the comparable lync would use about 10 to 13. Thats part of
> the answer. HTH
> Larry Mac Donald
> Rochester N.Y.
>
> >
> > Ok I know the basics about how engines work and what the difference
> > between 2 and 4 stroke, gas and diesel, Fuel injection and
> > Carburetors
> > but that is about it. Lately there is a lot of talk about
> > "alternative"
> > engines. One of the things everyone seems to hit on, is that
> > traditional aviation engines are an old design and that newer
> > engines in
> > cars are more "high tech". As I see it most of the high tech with
> > the
> > ECU and sensors is as much for pollution control as anything else.
> > I
> > personally couldn't care less about emissions and if those who are
> > in
> > power really cared, I would be able to fill my car with Propane,
> > Natural
> > Gas, Methanol, and or Hydrogen at the corner gas station, but back
> > to
> > the topic. Also there is a lot in car engines to allow them to run
> > efficiently at low power settings which we don't really care about
> > in
> > airplanes. My question is this. Other than Electronic Ignition
> > (which
> > is easy enough to put on a more traditional aircraft engine) what is
> > so
> > high tech about car engines that has any application in an airplane?
> >
> > --
> > Chris Woodhouse
> > 3147 SW 127th St.
> > Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> > 405-691-5206 (home)
> > chrisw(at)programmer.net
> > N35 20.492'
> > W97 34.342'
> >
> >
> >
> > _->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
I really need to take issue with the "funds" statement. The reason I
chose to install a Mazda 13-B rotary in my RV-3 was lack of funds. Sure
it took more time and there have been adventures along the way, but I've
spent nowhere near what a Lycoming would have cost me. Not to mention
what I've saved by running on the cheapest Mo gas available. The gearbox
issue is well solved with Tracy's gearbox being available. He also sells
a redundant Ignition and Fuel injection controller. There are even
people selling engine mounts if you don't care to make/modify your own.
Soon intake manifold and throttle body will be available too. This is no
longer virgin territory.
Finn
304 hours since August 2000.
kempthornes wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I've got a buddy who has installed one of the 220 HP Subaru's in his
>>Velocity. He's achieved 27 hours and 3 engine related emergency landings
>>since his first flight last February. This is an individual who has gone
>>the extra step to do things right, and he still doesn't have a satisfactory
>>drivetrain.
>>
>>
>
>Give him some encouragement, Kyle. You are a buddy.
>
>There is a story about an engineering manager, at Baldwin Locomotive Works
>I think. After a new locomotive was all designed he gathered his engineers
>together and said, "Okay, guys, let's build one and see what doesn't work".
>
>The development of new products involves many corrections along the
>way. Guys who do engine conversions right, like your buddy, are bold
>adventurers. They have the courage (and funds) the rest of us lack.
>
>Aren't there builders with a few engine related emergency landings who are
>flying Lycomings?????
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK flying!
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Data recording |
If you use the EIS 4000 for your engine monitoring you can do this...
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chrisw3(at)cox.net>
; "vansairforce"
Subject: RV-List: Data recording
>
> I was thinking it would be nice to be able to record EGT CHT OAT
> Altitude, IAS and GPS data on a frequency of a few times a second. I
> think this would be a very valuable tool while in the test flight stage
> of a new home built plane. Is there a way to do this with say a lap top
> and no more than say $2000 for the data acquisition equipment. I know
> recording the GPS data wouldn't be that hard with a lap top but what
> about all the rest of it?
>
> --
> Chris Woodhouse
> 3147 SW 127th St.
> Oklahoma City, OK 73170
> 405-691-5206 (home)
> chrisw(at)programmer.net
> N35 20.492'
> W97 34.342'
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
"Rv-List"
| Subject: | RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
Hi All,
I just arrived home from my Thanksgiving flight to Sturgis-SD from
Minneapolis. Instead of a lengthy trip report, I've just got one (OK, 2)
interesting items to report on.
I left for Sturgis Last Wed (11/27) from Minneapolis at 10:00 am. Weather
forecast for Sturgis was partly cloudy with light winds NW@10-15. I headed
out under the overcast in Minnesota, found a hole and climbed on top.
Perfect sailing until Pierre-SD. I was cruising at 9500', and started to
get banged around pretty good, so I slowed down from my 180mph to about 160.
It didn't help much. At this point the weather was hazy, but no cloud layer
so I headed on towards the Black Hills I now could see in the distance. As
the turbulence got worse, I decided to see if I could find a better
altitude, all to no avail. I was really getting the crap beat out of me, so
the next step was to start trying to find out what the winds were like in
Sturgis.
I dialed up Rapid City tower and just caught a message from a NWA DC-9 as
follows:
"RAP Tower, NWAxxx is going around, we had some pretty bad wind shear on
final...could you give us an current wind condition report when we turn base
again".
RAP Tower replied, and reported current winds a few minutes later.
"NWAxxx, winds variable 270-330o @35Gusting-42".
My heart skipped a beat and my jaw hit my lap! 35-42, could that be
right???!?!?! I mean the forecast had said 10-15! I decided to have a
short conversation with ATC in RAP to confirm my worst susupicions. They
confirmed that winds were terribly gusty and gave me the same report as the
NWA folks. I asked if they knew what Sturgis, Spearfish or any of the other
Northern Hills were, and they said it's pretty much blowing bad everywhere.
I decided to plow on (slowly) to Sturgis. Got to the airport flying
sideways, and entered the pattern the best I could. The windsock was
straight out stiff, and about 30o off the runway (29). I decided I had to
try so I lined up, no flaps, and flew right down to the runway. It wasn't
pretty, I've never moved a stick and rudder so violently from stop to stop
in my life, but only one small bounce and I was down. Here's the funny
thing. My heart was pounding so heard I just stopped as quickly as I could
and sat there for a couple of seconds. When I looked outside, I was
sitting smack on top of the numbers. I had to wipe the sweat off my palms,
and started the 4600' taxi to the ramp. Needless to say, I could raise the
tail just sitting still, and the turn off the runway was difficult but
doable at crawling speed. I parked on the ramp and couldn't get out of the
plane, because the plane wouldn't stay put (no parking-brake), so the line
guy put some bricks under the tires to hold the plane still. The G-Meter had
+4/-2 on it, and I hadn't done ANY aerobatics - just turbulence.
Now, you may think I'm completely crazy, but I filled up with gas and
decided to fly over to my dads place (2 minute flight) which was ultimately
my final destination. My takeoff roll was only a couple of plane lengths!
My dad's runway is the same direction as Sturgis, and actually a bit longer
so I headed out. It took 2 tries to put it on the ground there and once
again stop-to-stop on the stick/rudder, but all ended up OK with me
COMPLETELY WORE OUT. Speaking of my dads place, he just finished the
"modification" on the runway, which has resulted in 5,000'x75' of perfectly
smooth grass/gravel. It's minutes from Mt.Rushmore and Devils Tower, and
right against Bear Butte. We're planning on having a BBQ this summer so
keep your eyes open for a good chance for an unofficial fly-in! The runway
is so smooth, that during a calm day, even a greenhorn like me could
consistently stick some beautiful wheel landings.
Overall I'm now even more impressed with these planes than before. I came
home today in 2:15 (225-235mph over the ground,) and it was smooth as glass
at 10.5K', FYI the trip is 520 miles. I won't voluntarily EVER fly in 35mph
winds, but at least I know the plane will do it if it has to.
One more thing in this rambling note. While filling up with gas yesterday
in Sturgis (I was giving rides like mad), I taxied up to the pump and
behold-ANOTHER RV! It was a gorgeous RV4. Right away the guy walked up and
started talking to me. He new who I was, but I didn't know him. It was
Larry Vetterman, just out goofing around. After I filled up Larry wanted to
go over and buzz my dads place again (he hadn't seen the new runway). We
got to do some really good formation practice. Just an FYI---His plane is
every bit as good looking as his exhausts, the only difference to most, is
that he has Vortex Generators. More to come on that later.
Well, sorry for the lengthy note. I'm usually one to keep 'em short. This
was my first long flight in my newly minted RV6, so I had to brag! For
those still building, KEEP IT UP. It's Soooooooo worth it!
Happy Flying & Building,
Stein Bruch
RV6(My crosswind angel)60hrs, Minneapolis
Flying like mad!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
Cannot but agree that auto and aviation engines are generally designed for
somewhat different missions. There are exceptions; consider the engine on a
glider towplane compared to that of a long haul 18 wheeler truck and the
load cycle that each is exposed to, for instance.
However, I think the point could be made that the aviation engine world can
perhaps learn a few things from the auto world. (I agree that maybe Lyc. and
Cont. are trying and it's just aviation's rules and culture that's holding
them back).
I'm thinking of stuff like the carefully controlled combustion process that
let's some of the smaller compacts wring a lot of power from a small size &
weight package while dealing with all sorts of pollution control rules.
Think also of the durability of the average auto engine in the face of
often abusive handling (cold starts, no warm up, over-reving, etc.) and
often casual, minimal, or even nonexistent maintenance. At $20k a pop there
is an incentive to look after one's O-320 plus there are few convenient
stopping places if it quits at 2,000 ft over a great big forest, but what
would the failure rate of an O-320 be if it was treated the same as the
stereotypical soccer mom's van?
The reason to consider using automotive technology today is to take
advantage of the great cost savings implicit in the mass production of the
automotive world. There is no free lunch and a good reduction drive will
cost some money, but the cost advantage both in initial purchase and later
overhaul costs of an auto engine are considerable. There is, of course, a
cost versus time tradeoff to make that will be different for different
folks.
Some missions, such as glider tow plane operators who are fed up with
replacing Lyc. cylinders that have been shock cooled too often, can see an
operational advantage in water cooling, etc. as well.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A (with a Lyc. - no time to deal with an auto conversion this time
around)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: Engines
>
> Well,
>
> The only real difference between auto vs. aviation engines is their
> respective missions. One is designed to accelerate and decelerate a lot,
to
> not run at full power continously and to deliver reasonable power over its
> entire RPM range which can be from 600-6000 RPM commonly, the other is
> designed to stay at a constant power/RPM setting, to deliver most of its
> power between 2000-2700 RPM, and run at full power until it wears out.
>
> And finally one is designed to spin a nice round symetrical weight, where
> the other is designed to spin a god awful set of paddles that are trying
to
> rip its face off in five different ways, at all times. ;{)
>
> So, trying to use one for the other, either way, is kinda silly, expensive
> and can be risky if not done correctly, not that there really is a correct
> way to do this. (I know I'm gonna get flammed here)
>
> Its just that it makes no sense to me to redesign something to an
> application that no part in it was ever designed for, when there is
already
> something that is designed for this. (You will not save one dime doing
this,
> but you might have some fun if you are into that much work.)
>
> I think we will get a lot further by using our efforts at improving the
> thing that was designed for this application, rather than redesigning
> something that wasn't meant for this application.
>
> Which, by the way, is what the engine manufacturers are doing via the
> IOF-360 lyc and the IOF-240 Cont. being produced or modified by TCM
> Aerosance. TexLyc is also working on their own version of this, but they
> both need to get a clue on costs. The TCM FADEC costs as much as the
engine
> does. I am in the middle of installing one and its a nice product if it
runs
> well, but damm, the cost is unbelieveable.
>
> The real issue about these powerplant costs are mass production....
>
> So next time you order an aircraft engine, order twenty of them.... ;{)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry" <jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Paint and filling tips |
I am building an 8A and I have seen some nice paint jobs; and some not so nice.
My question is about filling the tips on the ennpenage. What is a good filler
to blend the fiberglass tips into the aluminum? A lot of planes have very obvious
cracks in the paint after shrinkage. How do I avoid these? Some planes have
very smooth transitions with no sign of these cracks. I can only guess that
the preparation and quality of the filler is the reason for the best results.
Any recomendations will be appreciated!
Thanks,
Jerry Doyal
jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reinback <reinback(at)yahoo.com> |
Dave ,
Im in the same boat, Ive asked Aerocomposites
several times same questions you have specifically
weight of the entire propeller and also spinner kit
details (is it just raw materials or a finished
spinner?) and other detailed questions and have
gotten had no response.
And I asked for costumers I could speak to, preferably
with RVs again no response. Ive asked this
information of other propeller companies and I did get
answers and customer referrals.
I also wanted to ask Aerocomposites why the Lancair
Legacy (that they use to quote performance numbers for
their 3 blade prop) put the 3 blade Hartzell propeller
back on to fly in the Reno race rather than going with
the Aerocomposites prop. If the Aerocomposites prop
really had the claimed performance increase, wouldnt
they have kept it on for the race?
Makes a guy wonder ?
Roger
RV-7
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint and filling tips |
There are lots of autobody fillers out there to suit different applications.
I used some stuff called "Evercoat" in a purple tin that cured very quickly
and sanded nicely however it is a bit brittle for some locations where some
flex is needed. Epoxy with microballons works not badly in these locations.
A visit to your local auto body supply place should fix you up with
something suitable.
Jim Oke
YWG
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry" <jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Paint and filling tips
>
> I am building an 8A and I have seen some nice paint jobs; and some not so
nice. My question is about filling the tips on the ennpenage. What is a good
filler to blend the fiberglass tips into the aluminum? A lot of planes have
very obvious cracks in the paint after shrinkage. How do I avoid these? Some
planes have very smooth transitions with no sign of these cracks. I can only
guess that the preparation and quality of the filler is the reason for the
best results. Any recomendations will be appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry Doyal
>
> jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reinback <reinback(at)yahoo.com> |
Randy
Im interested in the AC prop. You mention several
times the AC prop has the best performance. Please
help me because I have not seen or heard of a AC prop
on an RV as of yet. The only performance numbers I
have seen is the 3 blade AC on the Lancair with a
Continental 550.
Another question I have is you mention AC is using
the McCauly 220 hub. The last time a spoke with them
they said they where making there own hub and not
using the McCauly hub?
I am still pondering about 2 vs 3blade props. I had a
good buddy some 20yrs ago who had several Cessna 185s
some with 2 blade and some with 3 blade props. I asked
him what performance difference there was. He said the
larger diameter 2-blade prop climbed slightly better
but the 3-blade was slightly faster than the 2-blade
prop. He also said it took someone with a lot of time
in the airplane the really notice any of these
differences at all. The only thing I can say for
myself after riding in my friends 185s is that the
three bladed prop was incredibly smooth and quiet
compared to the 2-bladed 185 , it was like a
completely different airplane with the 3 blade prop.
Roger
RV-7
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
> Automotive engines are not designed to put out high HP for long periods of
> time as are aircraft engines.
You should have a look at the endurance tests the auto industry does and
compare them to aircraft certification tests. The auto industry tests are much
more rigorous.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New, NEW List Digest Format... |
Dear Listers,
Okay, so I woke up this morning to an email box full of hate-mail about the
new List Digest format. I thought it was cool, but I guess not... Still,
it seemed like too much code to just throw out, so I've modified things a
little and I'm hoping everyone will be happy with the new, NEW
arrangement. Here's how it works now:
o The HTML and TXT enclosures aren't sent in the Digest any longer.
o URL Links to the HTML and TEXT versions of the day's Digests
will be found at the top of the digest email.
o The new Digest Index will be found at the top of the digest email
following the URL Links.
o The full digest text will then be found in the email as before.
o All of the previous Digests will now be available on line. The
URL for the main digest page is:
http://www.matronics.com/digest
From here, you can drill into the specific List Digest of interest.
o Both the HTML and TXT versions of the Digests can be found here.
o The List Message Trailer will contain a Link directly to the given
o Right now there's only one Digest shown, but each day there will
be another. They will be sorted with the newest at the top.
Left-hand column is the HTML version, right-hand column the TXT
version.
A couple people also complained that some messages in the HTML version were
just one long line that went off to the right forever and they hated
that. Come to think of it, this is also an issue in the Search Engine,
List Browser, and Archive Browser. Some email programs don't included hard
Returns at regular intervals and that's what causes this. I wrote a
program tonight that will automatically chop these long lines into 78
characters or less and wrap the rest of the line. After tonight's Archive
transfer, all of the Searching and Browsing tools shouldn't have the
problem any longer either. Woo hoo!
So, back to the new Digest format. What people are going to see in the
new, NEW Digest is a bit of verbiage at the top of the email describing the
URL links to the HTML and TXT on-line versions, followed by the Links,
followed by the day's Index, followed by the day's messages just as
before. Lines longer than 78 characters will also be automatically wrapped
onto the next line.
Hopefully this will be a more pleasing arrangement for everyone. Sorry to
get everybody so stirred up over the format change!
The List of Contributors is coming out tomorrow night... Still time to
make that Contribution! http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BrownTool(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/2/2002 12:43:59 AM Central Standard Time,
nhunger(at)sprint.ca writes:
> Can anyone tell me how many thou's a #16 drill is?
>
> #11?
>
>
#16 - .1770
#11 - .1910
Michael Brown
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint and filling tips |
To avoid cracks you need to overlay the seam with a very thin layer of
fiberglass cloth, then fill and smooth.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry" <jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Paint and filling tips
>
> I am building an 8A and I have seen some nice paint jobs; and some not so
nice. My question is about filling the tips on the ennpenage. What is a good
filler to blend the fiberglass tips into the aluminum? A lot of planes have
very obvious cracks in the paint after shrinkage. How do I avoid these? Some
planes have very smooth transitions with no sign of these cracks. I can only
guess that the preparation and quality of the filler is the reason for the
best results. Any recomendations will be appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry Doyal
>
> jdoyal(at)sport.rr.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GRGSCHMIDT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
Dear Stein,
Sounds like you had an exciting trip but hopefully your altitudes were
reversed as listed in your posting. I almost ran into a westbound Malibu at
9500' while I was flying eastbound and if it were not for the RYAN TCAD on
board it would have been much closer than comfort would allow. Your story is
great confirmation and justification to install a parking brake to hold that
aircraft in one place until deplaning on a winding day.
Thanks for the encouraging story,
Greg Schmidt
RV6S Finishing rigging and interior
DVT Phoenix AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info as
I would like.
Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
with a preheater but can't find it there now.
Thanks !!
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Gentlemen,
I have been following this post for several days now. I hesitated to get
involved, but I just can't hold back. I am one of those willing to
experiment with auto engines. I have been a hot rodder since I was 11
years old (about a hundred years ago!).
I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6, but it will have a Bowtie aluminum
block and heads. I am using Belted Air Power's (good people, by the way)
drive unit. So you now know my point of view.
That said, I was very impressed and heartened at OSHKOSH this summer,
when NASA (yes, the outer space people) gave a lecture making a case for
the auto engine in general aviation. They think it is ready now.
They want 'out of the crate' auto engines to be certified. They want to
bring down the cost of flying so more will fly. They like the latest all
aluminum Corvette motor. They wrote an article for CONTACT magazine
that pretty much covered the same ground as their talk at OSH. Get a
back copy.
I'll keep you posted on my endeavors.
Barry Pote RV9a working on that canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Hi Hal,
Your story below is certainly how we did things in the 60's at P&W. I worked
on the SR71 engine when I went there in 59 and we had 17 engines running on
test stands at one time. Of course our computational capabilities were
pretty limited. We had a room full of Frieden mechanical calculators (non
square root type, they were not available when we started). We had a punch
card fed IBM 304 that filled two large rooms and I spent too many nights
there trying to get it to close an iteration on one engine match point. We
were certainly in the build'em and bust'em development in that time period.
When I retired in 92, we had computation fluid dynamics simulations that
literally told us what was happening at every point thru out the engine flow
path. We could not afford to stay in business if we were still in the build
them and bust them stage. We maybe ran 4 engines simultanously on the F-22
program.
Now agreed that my 9A rotary powered vehicle has not had any CFD
calculations , but it has had a host of individuals such as Finn Lassen,
Tracy Crook, Ed Anderson, Ed Graham, Everett Hatch, and many others that
have stepped out and sucessfully flown with rotary powered aircraft. It is
from their efforts that I hope to build and fly a 9A at much lower cost and
be in the air approximately 1 year from the time I ordered the kit.
You can see the progress todate on Tracy's web site at
www.rotaryaviation.com
Bernie Kerr, 350 hours on 6A with O-320 and building 9A rotary
>
>There is a story about an engineering manager, at Baldwin Locomotive Works
>I think. After a new locomotive was all designed he gathered his engineers
>together and said, "Okay, guys, let's build one and see what doesn't work".
>
>The development of new products involves many corrections along the
>way. Guys who do engine conversions right, like your buddy, are bold
>adventurers. They have the courage (and funds) the rest of us lack.
>
>Aren't there builders with a few engine related emergency landings who are
>flying Lycomings?????
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK flying!
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen,
I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it is
safe.
This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
in-flight unknown Experimental product.
Best Regards
Martin Albrecht
Engineering
MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
Jim,
Which drawing are you referring to? I'm going to be running a IO-360 as
well, so I'm trying to pick up all of the information I can. The oil cooler
requires a pressure differential between the front and back so the cooling
air will flow through it. I think the idea of using the oil cooler air
might be useful, as long as the air is diverted from the cabin to the under
cowl area when cabin heat isn't required. There is probably no harm in
trying this as long as you have an engine monitor that checks cylinder head
temps on all of the cylinders. Let us know how it works for you.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121 gear boxes (ugh!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean(at)att.net>
Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
>
> I have my oil cooler mounted on the baffle behind #3 cylinder, pretty
> much as Van's drawing shows. My heat muff is below on a cross tube. It
> would be rather convenient to run the heat muff scat tube off of the
> back of the oil cooler. I am picturing a 2" flange placed over the
> bottom of the back of the cooler.
>
> I am not looking to improve the heating effiency, it's just a
> mechanically convenient way to get the scat tube to the heat muff.
>
> The engine is an IO360 which seems to need all the cooling it can get.
> On the other hand there is constant air flow through the muff because
> the heat valve dumps it overboard when heat is not is use
> So what does the group think about the effect this might have on the oil
> cooler, IE might it raise the oil temp? Anybody tried this?
> Jim Bean
> RV-8
> Cooling Baffles (3 months)
> Starting third year building
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
> give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info as
> I would like.
>
> Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
> with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
> Thanks !!
========================
Still there:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/cold.html
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com |
helo=earthlink.net)
From: Miller Robert <rmiller3(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
>
Well... I guess this means no further propeller development is necessary by any
company, (MT included). We already have "the optimum performance you can get out
of a propeller."
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
>
No in-flight experience???
MT propellers may be very nice ...( they seem quite overpriced to me).
But a more objective discussion would be desirable, especially on the part of an
engineer at MT.
Then we would all learn ... this, instead, is a series of overstatements; an
advertisement really.
Robert
Eric Greindl wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
> question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
>
> First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
> shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
> nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
> stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
> portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
> be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
> lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
> thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
> propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
> airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
> Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
> reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
> accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
> without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
> certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
> Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
>
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it
is
> safe.
>
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Albrecht
> Engineering
> MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Tedd,
Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto mechanic, I
was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine in my aircraft project.
However, as I learned more about aircraft engine regimes, I've come to
realize that most (I won't say all) auto engines would make lousy aircraft engines.
Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end? These
auto engines are tested when connected to an automotive transmission or bare.
You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
Bear in mind the recent attempt by Toyota to certify their Lexus V-8 engine and
Orenda's experience. Both companies ended up changing the majority of the original
parts to obtain reasonable durability. Toyota still plans on building a
light plane. They did obtain certification for their (highly modified) Lexus
V-8. However, they have dropped the idea of using that engine. They are going
to purchase engines from Lycoming.
Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
learn from their experience rather than repeating it. Each of us can choose
his own path.
Charlie Kuss
>
>> Automotive engines are not designed to put out high HP for long periods of
>> time as are aircraft engines.
>
>You should have a look at the endurance tests the auto industry does and
>compare them to aircraft certification tests. The auto industry tests are much
>more rigorous.
>
>Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
1. Avionics Ground
2. Transmit audio
3. Receive audio
4. Transmit Keyline
The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
diagram.
Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks. The
SL40 also
shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
be wired to these
as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
the 4 wires above
and you're done)?
Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
deciphering
these wiring diagrams.
Steve
RV7A
panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
Steve, if you get this combination to work together, please send me a copy
of your wiring diagram. I tried, a friend who has a rather complex panel
that he did in his 6 tried, and another friend who was a radio tech tried.
We never did suceed and I currently am running a portable intercom, but
would really like to get the flightcom working.
Bernie Kerr, 6A 350 hours, building 9A rotary.
>From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "RV-7 YAHOO" ,
>Subject: RV-List: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:43:42 -0600
>
>
>I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
>
>The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
>1. Avionics Ground
>2. Transmit audio
>3. Receive audio
>4. Transmit Keyline
>
>The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
>diagram.
>
>Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks.
>The
>SL40 also
>shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
>be wired to these
>as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
>the 4 wires above
>and you're done)?
>
>Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
>deciphering
>these wiring diagrams.
>
>Steve
>RV7A
>panel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Charlie:
> Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end?
A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The Chrysler
V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost exclusively
wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in mind
that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated such
that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire Chyrsler
test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the aircraft
industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so the
Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto industry
test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's atypical.
You can read more about it at
http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
> You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
> Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
> engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
> learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the same
time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that it's
tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda just
didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources. Ditto
Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft use?"
Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to ask
about the first question.)
> Each of us can choose
> his own path.
Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful knowledge on
the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Roger,
I share your skepticism about AeroComposites' performance claims...when I saw them
at OSH they were talking it up really big about the huge improvements seen
on the Lancair. It sounded great at the time, but later on I was mulling it
over and did some rough rule-of-thumb calculations and figured if their test data
was accurate, somebody had to be lying....either Hartzell's prop was far less
efficient than advertised or else AeroComposites was over 100% efficient,
which would be a considerable achievement to say the least : ) Maybe they can
invent a perpetual motion engine next to go with their prop and then we can all
forget about avgas and fly for free (well, after the substantial initial investment
of course)...
Anyway, I don't doubt they have a great product and it may well be the best thing
out there performance-wise, but it certainly isn't proven in terms of quantifying
the performance increase you'll see over a Hartzell, MT, or Whirlwind.
For the price I expect Whirlwind gets us way more, and in fact, the Whirlwind
may even outperform the AeroComposites...three-blades can be faster at high-speed
and the lighter weight might make up for any advantage the AeroComposites'
two-blade prop will see in climb performance. I'm glad Randy Lervold and others
are willing to test it for us so we can get some objective and unbiased hard
data in the near future.
Meanwhile I throw a penny in the piggy bank every day so that by the year 2065
or so, I can afford any of the above...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D still sanding fiberglass...
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Reinback <reinback(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Prop
Dave ,
Im in the same boat, Ive asked Aerocomposites
several times same questions you have specifically
weight of the entire propeller and also spinner kit
details (is it just raw materials or a finished
spinner?) and other detailed questions and have
gotten had no response.
And I asked for costumers I could speak to, preferably
with RVs again no response. Ive asked this
information of other propeller companies and I did get
answers and customer referrals.
I also wanted to ask Aerocomposites why the Lancair
Legacy (that they use to quote performance numbers for
their 3 blade prop) put the 3 blade Hartzell propeller
back on to fly in the Reno race rather than going with
the Aerocomposites prop. If the Aerocomposites prop
really had the claimed performance increase, wouldnt
they have kept it on for the race?
Makes a guy wonder ?
Roger
RV-7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dougweil(at)pressenter.com> |
> Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you
please
> give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info
as
> I would like.
>
> Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
> with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
I don't have any experience with these brands of pre heaters, but I have
used Easy-Heat engine heaters on three of my airplanes and they have been
100% trouble free. I bundle up the cowling of the RV-4 with a couple of
moving blankets and have measured the free air temps inside the cowl above
the cylinders at around 50 degrees F when the free air temp in my unheated
hangar is 20 degrees F.
Doug Weiler
Hudson, WI... 14 degrees F OAT as we speak!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
>
> Tedd,
> Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto
mechanic, I
> was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine
Snip
I am gonna throw gas on the fire then take off to Vegas for the airshow
convention.
Charlie makes some great points in his post and I agree heartedly. Still we
don't want to do is discourage those who wish to be "experimenters" and
"test pilots" They play an important role in "experimental" aviation. But
those people need to go into this with their eyes wide open, Accepting that
they are test pilots and they are experimenting.
Choosing an auto engine to save a buck and then trying to fly it as an X/C
cruiser is false economy. I don't care which conversion you use, they are
not as reliable as a Lycoming and prudent pilots fly them accordingly. I
have hauled my buddies soneri w/VW too many times.
If you want a X/C transportation airplane that can fly IFR or VFR, the
Lycoming is the answer. If you look at the cost over 2000 hours, assuming
even minimum wage for labor, I defy anyone to prove the total expenses of
an auto engine is cheaper per horsepower.
Can automotive ( or WWII) technology make the Lycoming better? You bet,
electronic ignition, EFI, tuned intake, tuned exhaust, all can and should be
proven by "experimenters" and "test pilots" to push that technology into the
certified market.
Decide which you want to be, THEN decide which engine you want.
Cya all Friday. Standing by with the Asbestos Underwear!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
"It is great to be back!" Can we pleeeasssse start a T/W vs Trike thread
;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 Tail Question |
A friend liked my RV-6A so much he is building an RV-7A. He has almost
finished the tail and is expecting the rest of his quickbuild kit this week.
His problem: On the elevator 'tip' section, the "wrap-around" metal piece,
E-713, seems 'too long' - that is, it interferes with the horizontal
stablilizer skin, such that the elevator would be unmovable...the horiz.
stab. skin has a precut 'notch' that seems as if it will have to be cut out
another inch for the elevator to clear it.
Has anyone else had this problem? If so, did you merely cut out the horiz.
stab. skin enough for the elevator to rotate properly? It seemed the only
reasonable solution to me.
Thanks in advance.. I will relay any held to my friend who is not on the
matronics site
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Miller Robert <rmiller3(at)earthlink.net> |
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
>
Well... I guess this means no further propeller development is necessary by any
company, (MT included). We already have "the optimum performance you can get out
of a propeller."
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
>
No in-flight experience???
MT propellers may be very nice ...( they seem quite overpriced to me).
But a more objective discussion would be desirable, especially on the part of an
engineer at MT.
Then we would all learn ... this, instead, is a series of overstatements; an
advertisement really.
Robert
Eric Greindl wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
> question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
>
> First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
> shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
> nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
> stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
> portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
> be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
> lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
> thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
> propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
> airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
> Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
> reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
> accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
> without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
> certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
> Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
>
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it
is
> safe.
>
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Albrecht
> Engineering
> MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Pichon" <deanpichon(at)msn.com> |
Your question is quite timely. Several weeks ago, I ordered and installed a
Symtec (P/N 213240) sump heater in my -4. I have an IO-360 and followed the
recommendation in the Aircraft Spruce catalog to purchase the 220 watt
version - which has a smaller foot print than the 300 watt version.
I tried to buy the unit from Aircraft Spruce, but they were out of stock, so
I ended up purchasing it from Kennon Aircraft Products. I installed the unit
per manufacturer's instructions and had about 2 weeks of trouble-free
operation.
The unit apparently burned out. Upon measuring the resistance across the
plug, I found I had an "open circuit". I called Symtec and found the
company very helpful. They explained that these units do occaisionally
fail, but only rarely.
Unfortunately, I now have to return the unit to Kennon and have them request
Symtec to send me another. The first unit was drop-shipped to me from
Symtec. I have asked that the replacement heater be sent before I return
the failed unit so I can remove and replace at the same time - to minimize
down time (and removing the cowl).
One issue I did not appreciate before installing the unit was the need to
saftey wire it in the event the adhesive failed. Without the saftey wire,
the heater would dangle by the power cord and could foul a control linkage.
>From: Lenleg(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:10:35 EST
>
>
>Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
>give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info
>as
>I would like.
>
>Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
>with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
>Thanks !!
>
>Len Leggette RV-8A
>N901LL (res)
>Greensboro, N.C.
>16 hours !!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
Eric Greindl wrote:
<Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
Sounds like the marketing department speaking. A two-bladed design is
more aerodynamically efficient than a three-bladed design (although,
yes, it may not be as smooth-running). Are you working on a two-bladed
propellor? Someone else asked this as well and I haven't seen an answer.
> The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95.
It's not clear to me that this is a benefit. If it's designed to be
efficient up to Mach 0.95, but efficiency drops off below Mach 0.80,
then it's not going to be very effective on an RV, where the propellor
tip will move at only about 540mph (assuming 67" prop and 2700rpm), or
about Mach 0.7 (assuming SoS is about 770mph at sea level).
Do you have any graphs of propellor efficiency versus RPM? A propellor
that's efficient "up to Mach 0.95" would require an engine to turn "up
to" about 3600rpm. (Hey, maybe the Automotive conversion guys'll be
interested... 8-).
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance
airplanes like
> Vans,
Is anyone on the list using an MT propellor on their RV?
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their
product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown
that it is
> safe.
Is anyone on the list using another brand of Composite Propellor on
their RV?
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
Always good advice.
-RB4
RV7 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
Anyone tried the "Hot Strip"????
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn P. Wilkinson" <gpw(at)accucomm.net> |
-Has anyone tried paint stripper for fiberglass? Results, Problems?
-Has anyone used Randolph water-based polyurethane paint? Results, Problems?
-Is there any reason why wooden props should not be painted?
Glenn
654RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
OK Doug,
I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to go.
I don't
have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are lots
of pros and con
either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
Sincerely,
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary" <rv9er(at)3rivers.net> |
Jim.....regarding Smart Plugs.......
I had a set of smart plugs ordered for my 0-320 RV-9A. I attended 3 forums over
the past years at Arlington about the product, and visited with several people
involved in their development.
They work fine, but have 2 drawbacks that caused me to go a different route at
this point:
1. They won't tolerate lead in the fuel. It will deteriorate them just like the
catalytic converter in your car. Until we get our unleaded avgas, or have widespread
availability of mogas at airports, this won't work for me.
2. They are not 100% independent of the electrical system in an air-cooled aircraft
application. The heaters need to be on at very low power settings, or they
cool off and begin to misfire.
That said, they have been in use in several applications for years, and have great
efficiency, negligible emmissions, and are absolutely simple, reliable, and
extrememly light. Failure modes are hard to imagine. The will run on almost
any hydrocarbon fuel.
The engineer who invented them has been running them in his Mazda since the mid-1970's.
They put some significant time on a Comanche using Smart Plugs, and
flew a J-3 Cub on floats a number of hours. Their current major project is to
convert many thousands of portable generators to Smart Plugs for the military,
so they can run them on Jet fuel instead of gasoline. Their Continental 0-200
demo engine mounted on a test stand can be drained of car gas, and filled
with diesel, jet fuel kerosene, etc, and restarted.
They are self-timing, and the only variable for matching a plug to your engine
is the compression ratio. Compression, or combustion chamber pressure, is not
a factor. Only compression RATIO.
Last I heard they were $100 a piece, with wiring harness included.
Gary
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene" <gene(at)nvaircraft.com> |
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow and
it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank initially pressured
to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop"
short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to get to the
problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations and have stood the tank
in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this area with water and no
leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with water
with the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Oh God... not THIS thread again!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Hawkins <lhawkins(at)giant.com> |
I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the water.
You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard to
find.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene [mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com]
Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow
and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank
initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
water, "snoop" short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not
know how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations
and have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this
area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap
and filled this with water with the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the water. You
have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard to find.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene [<A HREF"mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com">mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com]
Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
-- RV-List message posted by: Gene gene(at)nvaircraft.com
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow and
it lowers the manometer level about 4 in 24 hours with the tank initially pressured
to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy water, snoop short
of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to get to the problem.
I have looked at all the suspect locations and have stood the tank in the
end with the sending unit up and flooded this area with water and no leaks.
I have also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with water with
the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV4" <VansRV4GRVMJ(at)btinternet.com> |
> -Has anyone tried paint stripper for fiberglass? Results, Problems?
fiberglass is not paint stripper resistant. Mask off with poly and speed
tape.
Marcel de Ruiter
RV4/G-RVMJ
Acft painter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
If most of your experience is in tri-gear, then why would you consider a
tail dragger? Your answer may be as simple as that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Mark:
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to
go.
The "best way to go" is to find out what you want and build that. If you're at
all interested in a tailwheel I strongly recommend that you get some tailwheel
time--in an RV, if you can! When I started I thought I wanted a tailwheel, but
hadn't flown one, ever. So I started getting some tailwheel time. After about
70 hours of tailwheel, including about 20 in RVs, I'm totally sold on the
tailwheel. But you might find the exact opposite. The only way you'll know is
to do some tailwheel flying.
What do I like about the tailwheel? Tailwheels make me work at my landings
more, and I enjoy that. I enjoy deciding if I'll do a wheel landing or a
three-pointer. I find each landing more rewarding because it took some effort
to make it nice. I like the way the airplane responds to aerodynamic contols
during the landing roll--even during taxiing! I like that I have to fly the
airplane through the whole take-off run, not just wait for it to gather speed.
I enjoy being able to pirouette around one wheel when parking or turning into
wind. Flying a tailwheel airplane also makes me feel connected to the
tradition of flying in a way that a nosewheel airplane doesn't. That's totally
subjective and irrational (or, at least, non-rational), but true nevertheless,
for me.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Have you read the archives?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | panamared2(at)brier.net |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Get what you really want. The RVs are the easiest taildraggers I have ever
flown, much easier than an Champ or Citabria! That said, ground handling
will be easier in a trigear, i.e. doing a 180 degree turn in side your
hanger, no way I could do that with my tailwheel. Visibility with the RV6
is not a problem, keep slider open and you have more than enough.
Your airplane, your decision. Don't be fooled or influenced by what others
think is best. IMHO the pros and cons come down to, what do you
like? Would you rather fly a Cub with a
BTW, I had no tailwheel time, and didn't have a pilots license when I started.
Bob
>I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
>recently read this
>article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
>to go. I don't
>have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
>are lots of pros and con
>either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
>http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | panamared2(at)brier.net |
I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of the
paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place on
the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
Bob
>I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
>the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
Temperature change of air inside tank will affect the gauge. Maybe it is
not leaking.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Hawkins" <lhawkins(at)giant.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
> I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the
water.
> You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard
to
> find.
> Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene [mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com]
> To: rv-list
> Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very
slow
> and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank
> initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
> water, "snoop" short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not
> know how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect
locations
> and have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded
this
> area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler
cap
> and filled this with water with the same results.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
>
> Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the
water. You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very
hard to find.
>
>
> Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Gene [<A
HREF"mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com">mailto:gene(at)nvaircraft.com]
>
>
> To: rv-list
>
> Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Gene gene(at)nvaircraft.com
>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very
slow and it lowers the manometer level about 4 in 24 hours with the tank
initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
water, snoop short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know
how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations and
have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this
area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap
and filled this with water with the same results.
>
>
> Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
>
>
> Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Sorry to beat a dead horse, and yes I have read the archives. I just thought
someone may have
some new insight before I sign on the dotted line.
Thanks,
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock(at)theriver.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
> Have you read the archives?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> >
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark Fowler
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> >
> >
> > OK Doug,
> >
> > I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ?
I
> recently read this
> > article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best
way
> to go. I don't
> > have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
> are lots of pros and con
> > either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
> >
> > http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brake resevoir/feeder line routing |
How important is it to have the lines coming from the brake
resevoir routed such that they are always below the resevoir?
Do they have to be below the whole resevoir or can they just
be below say halfway up the resevoir?
I am almost ready to rivet my top forward skin on but want
to make sure I don't need to reroute my brake resevoir lines.
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick07x(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Mark,
Whatever choice you ultimately make is a compromise in one area or another.
While researching your decision, ask your insurance carrier for quotes based
upon each configuration. Also, you may want to ask Van's
what they think which configuration tends to sell the fastest on the resale
market.
--- Rick Galati
--- rick07x(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | smart plugs or not? |
HI Jim;
I have a set of SmartPlugs on order for my 13B. I went to Arlington
this year with the specific purpose of investigating these plugs. After a
long discussion with Mark Cherry (the inventor) I feel that they have a
great concept. As with any new product they are experiencing development
issues, but I'm betting my money (300 cdn) that they will overcome these.
They are currently only producing these for the Rotax engines, as survey's
indicated that this market was most receptive to an experimental ignition
system. Fortunately for me, they are all rotary buffs (Mark has a 13B in his
'67 mustang). After discussing my project with him, he agreed to hand build
me a set for the same price. Unfortunately they are experiencing some issues
with the longevity being less than expected and are working hard to address
this, so mine are on hold for a while. They have offered to refund my money
if I don't want to wait, but I have opted to wait it out, since it is not
really holding me up. I also realize that I snuck into their production list
with a special order that requires hand building, so I'm allowing more
leeway than I would if I had expected a product right away.
IIRC you're using a Lyc. aren't you? At Arlington he had a set of
plugs on display for a Cont. but they were hand made as well. It may be a
few years before he begins building them for Lycs, but I expect they will be
coming.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell(at)telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: smart plugs or not?
>
>
> Listers,
>
> This is more a matter of curiosity than anything.
>
> I am curious to know if there are any number of people on the list who
> have any first hand experience or knowledge in regard to
> http://www.smartplugs.com/ .
>
> I would think a development of this sort that can be brought to present
> day or better aviation piston engine performance standards would be
> heralded as the best damn thing since the concept of the "mile high club"!
>
> Has anyone out there in the 'almost real world' converted their lawn
> mower, an old pickup or some such in an attempt to evaluate this as
> advertised "igniting the future" product.
>
> Could it be that there is another alternative to the two magnetos versus
> one magneto one electronic ignition, two electronic ignitions, no magnetos
> controversy just imagine; LOOK MA! No magnetos no electronic ignition and
> loops and rolls as well !!
>
> Of course we will then have to consider the various mandatory rules and
> regulations changes and then there will be the concerns of Hartzell and
> other players in the aviation industry.
>
> I don't know for sure but this could have the makings of a pretty good
> string on the list?!
>
> Speaking of strings; I'm thinking we could create a Best String of the
> year award (The BS award) with categories such as , Smartest, Cutest,
> shortest Longest, most confusing, Most Annoying, Dumbest, etc.
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Buffing Wheel Info |
I purchased a Buffer/grinder from harbor freight. It starts out as a
buffer, but includes a tool rest and guard for one of the wheels. It was
around $70 for a 3/4 HP machine. A SUPER deal. They also sell the same
unit as a straight buffer without the guard and rest for about $60. Right
now I have 3M scotch brite wheel on one side and a buffing wheel with medium
compound on the other side. When I intend to buff a number of parts, It
takes me about 5 minutes to remove the rest and guard and remount a buffing
wheel. I use 3 to 4 steps after wet sanding with 600 then 1200 grit. Black
bar, brown bar, blue bar (same as jewelers rouge) then white. (if steel. I
stop at blue with aluminum)
Go to Caswellplating.com
They have a pdf of a buffing 101 type book.
Great info, and where I bought everything but the actual buffer. By the
way, they charge something like $150 for a 3/4 HP buffer that appears
identical to the harbor freight item.
Buffer is here $59
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40668
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40668>
Smaller 1/3 HP buffer is here:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40664
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40664>
Combo Buffer Grinder is here: (not worth the extra $$ for one guard and one
tool rest)
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=45901
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=45901>
Hope this helps.
Don Mei
RV-4 N92CT
3B9 - Chester, CT
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
________________________________________________________________________________
> Randy
> Im interested in the AC prop. You mention several
> times the AC prop has the best performance. Please
> help me because I have not seen or heard of a AC prop
> on an RV as of yet.
As far as RVs go it's all theoretical at this point... no hard data. Stay
tuned though, Dick Martin should have some real data soon. He's very focused
on speed and I'm sure he'll do a good job documenting the difference (if
any).
> Another question I have is you mention AC is using
> the McCauly 220 hub. The last time a spoke with them
> they said they where making there own hub and not
> using the McCauly hub?
Indeed they are transitioning to their own hub which is an "improved clone"
of the McCauley design. I went with the McCauley just for the comfort
factor. Supposedly their new design will have several improvements and will
be available Q1 '03.
> I am still pondering about 2 vs 3blade props. I had a
> good buddy some 20yrs ago who had several Cessna 185s
> some with 2 blade and some with 3 blade props. I asked
> him what performance difference there was. He said the
> larger diameter 2-blade prop climbed slightly better
> but the 3-blade was slightly faster than the 2-blade
> prop. He also said it took someone with a lot of time
> in the airplane the really notice any of these
> differences at all. The only thing I can say for
> myself after riding in my friends 185s is that the
> three bladed prop was incredibly smooth and quiet
> compared to the 2-bladed 185 , it was like a
> completely different airplane with the 3 blade prop.
And a Cessna 185 is a completely different application. Still, if you want a
3-blad for the smoothness then both MT and Whirlwind have great options for
you.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 284 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
I hope Van's has changed the design since the 6A on the 7A (can't comment on
the 8A or 9A) because there is considerably more work on the 6A compared to
the tail draggers. On my 6A with the fuselage still in the jig upside-down,
I had to install both wings in order to drill the u/c weldments through the
holes in the spars and the (F604) main bulkhead! You have to make spar
substitute spacers to fit the weldments and the legs during the on-going
construction work and you can't fit the legs until the wings are installed
at the 'planes final destination and its a real sweat to get the 36 bolts
per side to finally complete the installation. Many a time I cursed the
complexity of all this as compared to the tail dragger where the legs simply
plug into the engine mount and wished I had built the tail-dragger instead!
Cheers!!----------Henry Hore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)Islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | RV6 Rear Spar Bolt |
I read recently of an RV which flew for awhile without the wing rear spar
bolt installed. I can't find it in the archives, so maybe I read it
elsewhere. (Maybe I dreamt it!) Can anyone point me to it?
Many thanks.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 80% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find.
> It is very slow and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in
> 24 hours with the tank initially pressured to 1 psi. I have
> used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop" short of
> completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to
> get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect
> locations and have stood the tank in the end with the sending
> unit up and flooded this area with water and no leaks. I have
> also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with
> water with the same results. Does anyone have a suggestion
> for finding this leak ??
>
If you found nothing with soapy water, you probably don't have a leak.
Air has very low viscosity and will produce a bubble in a soapy water
film or under water with even a tiny leak at 1psi. You've checked the
manometer setup itself?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
> Temperature change of air inside tank will affect the gauge. Maybe it is
> not leaking.
with constant volume: water column changes 1.31" per degree C or 0.73" per
degree F.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys,
This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my upper
main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure out the best
way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do the job, my problem
is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom front skin. Because
of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get to the other side
of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about getting some rivnuts to
solve the problem. Is this what others have done or is there a better solution?
Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even the slightest hint in this
area...
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
Something to consider is a method for keeping your battery warm. I don't
know the numbers, but a battery that is at 70F has much more energy than one
that is at 35F. I've got a heating pad (like you might put on your forearm
after pulling about a thousand cleco's) that I wrap over the battery box if
I plan on a cold start. Leaving it on overnight gives me a toasty battery.
If I combine this with a 75-100W trouble light placed inside the cowl, it
makes for easy cold starts, even with a Prestolite starter and a wood prop.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: <panamared2(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
> I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of
the
> paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place on
> the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
>
> Bob
>
>
> >I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to
answer
> >the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/02/2002 10:58:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7(at)b4.ca
writes:
> Is anyone on the list using an MT propellor on their RV?
>
I have a new MT Propeller for my RV-3, but I don't have it installed yet. It
is designed for cruise, with the optimum efficiency between 2400 and 2500
RPM.
It was very interesting visiting with Eric Greindl and Martin Albrecht when I
was at MT-Propeller for two weeks.
(BTW, Eric is on vacation for two weeks, so, last week and this week, his
e-mail address is apparently being covered by Martin Albrecht and Michael
Muehlbauer.)
I would guess that the aerobatic blades on an MT-Propeller would be designed
for optimum climb.
MT-Propeller normally provides blades designed to what the customer requests.
I spent two weeks in Germany last month learning as much as I could about MT
propellers, the company and the people at the company.
I believe someone on the list was looking for a propeller company like this.
In fact, I believe they were concerned that a company like this may already
exist, and had been overlooked.
Sometimes they are only there if the right questions are asked. When I have
my RV-3 flying with my MT propeller, maybe I'll have some answers.
And maybe I'll be willing to share. As long as it doesn't look like its
going to turn into an Ivoprop thread. :-)
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/02/2002 10:58:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7(at)b4.ca
writes:
> Sounds like the marketing department speaking. A two-bladed design is
> more aerodynamically efficient than a three-bladed design (although,
> yes, it may not be as smooth-running). Are you working on a two-bladed
> propellor? Someone else asked this as well and I haven't seen an answer.
>
Hi All,
I had just received the following reply from MT Propeller on the question of
whether a two blade propeller was "the fastest".
The maximum efficiency for a 2-blade is 91.5, for a 3-blade 91.0 and for the
4-blade 90.3%.
So the difference is only 1.2% from a 2 to a 4 blade prop.
In other words: If a 2-blade is off design, and a 3-blade or 4-blade is
optimized for this particular installation, it will always outperform the
2-blade.
More specifically, the theoretically maximum efficiency of my three blade
MT-Propeller could be 0.5% less efficient than an optimized design two bladed
propeller.
Should I worry about the possibility of losing 0.5% of efficiency, when I
remove my fixed pitch two blade prop which has a totally unknown efficiency?
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A engine (A JAA certified alternate aircraft engine)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Hine" <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
Hi Mark
I had this problem with my four. One screw had to go in the little rounded
.16 skin on the sides of the forward fuselage. I orginally did them with
rivnuts, but this lasted about 10 minutes or one tightening of the screw and
the rivnut was turning. If the skin you want to put them in is thicker you
might have better luck. What I ended up doing, was drill a hole large
enough to get a plate nut inside (with a long screw threaded in for a
handle) This left just enough skin to get a pop rivit through each side of
the plate nut to hold it in place. No problems since. The fairing covers
the whole thing when in place. You may not be able or want to do this as I
believe the skin you are talking about is structural and it requires a
fairly large hole.
Joe Hine
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
czechsix(at)juno.com
Subject: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings?
Guys,
This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
the slightest hint in this area...
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rv8forduane(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Mark:
Don't let the wiley veterens rattle you. I have the same decision to make.
I've got about 12 hours in Trigear, no PPL, and can't decide. I'm wanting to
build an aircraft for the joy of the project.
I haven't ordered, but I'm thinking I like the RV8. I would complete my
training in a taildragger. I think the biggest concern is the impact of
crosswinds and other unique conditions that impact handling. BOTTOM LINE: A
tail dragger looks like fun!!!
Duane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer(at)yahoo.com> |
Alex,
I would say there is no leak. A change in barometric
pressure can cause 4 inches pretty easily.
Ross Schlotthauer
RV7 Fuse
--- Alex Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I
> cannot find.
> > It is very slow and it lowers the manometer level
> about 4" in
> > 24 hours with the tank initially pressured to 1
> psi. I have
> > used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop"
> short of
> > completely submerging the tank in water I do not
> know how to
> > get to the problem. I have looked at all the
> suspect
> > locations and have stood the tank in the end with
> the sending
> > unit up and flooded this area with water and no
> leaks. I have
> > also built a dam around the filler cap and filled
> this with
> > water with the same results. Does anyone have a
> suggestion
> > for finding this leak ??
> >
>
> If you found nothing with soapy water, you probably
> don't have a leak.
> Air has very low viscosity and will produce a bubble
> in a soapy water
> film or under water with even a tiny leak at 1psi.
> You've checked the
> manometer setup itself?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
| Subject: | Major changes and the Feds |
"Mike Robertson" wrote:-
Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
........As to major alterations you have to go by whatever tyhe Operating
Linmitations state. The older ones say that any major change has to be
coordinated with the local FSDO, and the new ones state that the owner can
just make an entry in the maintenance logs, conduct a minimum 5 hour test
flight, sign it off and go on your merry way................
Mike. Would this also include changing to a different engine installation. I'm
considering a switch to a rotary a few months after I get my plane flying and
have time left to work on a firewall forward installation in the evenings.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
RV9A fuselage. N919RV resvd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Gyro suction bypass valve |
Several have asked where I got the valves I used to switch the suction
on my gyros off for aerobatics. Go to http://www.mcmaster.com, and
search for P/N 4757K58, then hit catalog page. See also
http://www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson/misc.htm for a diagram of how I
installed them in my plane.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more engines |
Dear Wheeler North,
Forgive me but your post was well thought out, so I removed the 'dna'
tag at the end.
As I said in an earlier post, I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6 in my
RV9a. The last thing you talked about is what gives me most cause for
pause: "FADEC". Fadec, of course is an attempt to bring Lycoming into
the electronic age. But,and this is a big BUT, in seminars at Oshkosh,
the propeller guys where shaking their heads. They have concerns about
harmonics induced by Fadec. That is what concerns me with my Chevy
project; harmonics.
With the Bowtie block and aluminum heads and aluminum radiator, I may
come in about the same or lighter than a 160 Lycoming.
I am using a forged (Hank the Crank of Indy fame) oddfire crank. This
lets me use Eagle Chevy V8 rods.
9 to 1 compression dished pistons gives me good flame travel and I can
use Mogas or 100LL.
Dual MSD units, Dual coils and auto transfer mechanism (used in racing
for years) gives pretty good redundancy. And I can loose 2 plugs to
fouling and still have 4 firing. People that have done this, tell me it
is about as smooth (if you can say that) as a Lycoming at that point. I
am using ARP bolts and studs.
I think my set up will have most of the strong points that you attribute
to Aircraft engines. Not all of course.
And then there are those harmonics....................
Barry Pote RV9a
> Tedd, and all
>
> the digest isn't long enough for me to list all the differences, but every
> part is different including the gasoline and oil.
>
> A few aeromotive common differences are:
>
> Crankshaft, different metal, hollow, heavier for equal hp, massive nose
> section even on geared engines, may have harmonic dampers,
>
> Con rods, lighter per BMEP, different metal, surface tensioned,
>
> Camshaft, equal up/down slope, timed and lofted for max outout in small rpm
> range
>
> Case, different metal, very soft and flexible compared to auto aluminum
>
> Cylinders, aircooled, different metals, very large bore, more displacement
> for hp, commonly cut choked,
>
> Pistons, big bore, large skirts, cam ground and fit loose due to wide
> operating heat range,
>
> Valves, stellite faces, sodium filled, tend to be larger due to large bore,
>
> Ignition, self contained, redundant setup, no timing advance/retard (not
> really needed)
>
> All hardware grade 5 or grade 8, or NAS close tolerance
>
> this could go on for awhile...
>
> With respect to testing, actually I have worked on and studied projects
> doing failure testing on both types of engines. I believe this was where I
> really learned that they are very different, such that you can't compare the
> two different types of testing and call that a valid comparison of rigor. It
> all goes back to the mission, and the automotive mission is far harder to
> simulate so it will always "look" more rigorous.
>
> I agree that automotive engines are more throughly designed than aeromotive
> ones, but that doesn't mean its very realistic to convert one into the
> other. Its like trying to make a cat bark like a dog just because they are
> both domestic animals that can be specialty bred. You might be able to train
> a few cats to do this, but that won't change the fact that dogs will always
> be better able to drool than cats.
>
> With respect to design, the two significant areas that aeromotive could/are
> really steal/ing from automotive is in cooling management systems (liquid)
> and engine fuel/spark control(FADEC). But this must always retain redundant
> function, while being fiscally sound. With respect to manufacturing,
> aeromotive could probably learn lots from automotive, and this is where our
> costs would eventually be reduced, which, by the way, is exactly what Van
> has done to Beech, Piper and Cessna, thank you very much.
>
> http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/images/FADEC.ppt is a powerpoint
> presentation we are working on for our annual IA renewal seminar that has
> some good pics of the TCM Aerosance FADEC being installed on a Lyc 0-360. At
> the current time, though, this baby cost as much as the engine did. (its
> 12megs so it will take some toe tapping time and is strictly meant to be
> introductory). Their big costs have been quality and inherant system
> redundancy. Weight wise I think its going to be close to an even wash.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
Steve,
This is the same set up I have in my RV6. I also included the 'music'
output (CD player) per page 10 of the Flightcom 403 diagram. It's not that
difficult. Just 'follow the diagram' one wire at a time. Using a terminal
stud (or other) to make your connections will make it MUCH simpler and easier
to label/troubleshoot down the road. Example: run pin #17 wire from the 403
(page 10) to your terminal labeled 'transmit audio'. Then run pin #8 wire
(mic 1of page 10 in the SL40 installation manual) to the SAME terminal. Then
run a connecting wire from the terminal to each mic jack (the 'other side' of
the mic will go to the TxKey later). Then continue......1 wire at a time.
Hint: if you view the black 'dots' on page 10 of the Flightcom schematic as
'terminals' it may make it easier for you. My set up was done by following
the diagrams you have in front of you and works as advertised with no hiccups
at all. Again, use terminals to connect each wire to and did I mention to do
it..............one wire at a time :
). Feel free to give me a yell if I can
help.........I dug out my schematics and have them right in front of me.
Rick Gray RV6 w/111.1 hours (Ohio) at the Buffalo Farm - headed out for some
acro practice in the morning. please archive
> I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
>
> The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
> 1. Avionics Ground
> 2. Transmit audio
> 3. Receive audio
> 4. Transmit Keyline
>
> The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
> diagram.
>
> Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks.
> The
> SL40 also
> shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
> be wired to these
> as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
> the 4 wires above
> and you're done)?
>
> Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
> deciphering
> these wiring diagrams.
>
> Steve
> RV7A
> panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
In a message dated 12/2/2002 12:23:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com writes:
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
> recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
> to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are
> lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Its about time this subject come up for review. This is a no-brainer. There
are only 2 types of pilots in this world...
#1 There are the taildragger pilots
#2 And there are the ones that whished they were taildragger pilots.
Planes all fly the same in the air
Tim Barnes
Meangreen RV4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene" <gene(at)nvaircraft.com> |
Rob, I would tend to think you are correct, however I had both tanks hooked
up to manometers at the same time and one tank never move while the other
would drop off. I switched manometers just to eliminate the possibly of a
hole in the tygon tubing on the "bad tank" and got the same results.
Gene N557RV (res.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
>
> Guys,
>
> This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
the slightest hint in this area...
>
I used rivnuts in this application on my 6. I only did it because those
screws do not need to be tight and I epoxied the rivnuts in addition to
normal installation, because I was worried they might rotate.
I install the screws very loosely and they have had no tendency to come out.
There has been no problem with the rivnuts.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
> The only thing,You are not going to put the elt, itself
> under the bagage floors no?
>
> Just a thought, what one does, if need to reach
> for it, in case of accident?
I did that. Split the floorboard on the right side and screw/nut-plated that
section of floorboard only, and put the ELT under there (see
http://www.edt.com/homewing/rhproject/bungee.jpg) Gets it out of the way and
bolted to a rib which is per the ELT manuf. specs. HOWEVER, as you suggest
it would be difficult to access after an accident (I'm picturing crawling
into an upside down fuselage, battered and bruised, trying to remove 12 or
so phillips-head screws in self-locking nutplates -- not likely.) Of course
theres the remote activator but still you might need access in some
circumstances. Doing it over I'd probably either just stick it in the
baggage compartment somewere and not worry so much about the clutter of it,
or put it where I did but have an access hatch with camlocks or some other
type of quick-release fasteners.
One thing that I did, and recommend if its not in plain sight, is make a
plackard that says "ELT BEHIND PANEL".
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
Portland, OR
www.vanshomewing.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Henry
The 8A and 7A both utilize the 8 wing. This wing uses the more traditional 3 piece
wing spar. the center section of the spar is part of the fuselage. Installing
the wings is not necessary to set up the gear. All the agony you suffered
is now gone. Installing the main gear weldments is much easier. The 8 main gear
boxes are a lot more work than the 8A main gear. (Heavier too)
Charlie Kuss
PS Don't you hate being told these things by folks with the newer kits? The local
9A guys tell me that their kits come completed. The fuel tanks come with gas
in them! :-)
>
>I hope Van's has changed the design since the 6A on the 7A (can't comment on
>the 8A or 9A) because there is considerably more work on the 6A compared to
>the tail draggers. On my 6A with the fuselage still in the jig upside-down,
>I had to install both wings in order to drill the u/c weldments through the
>holes in the spars and the (F604) main bulkhead! You have to make spar
>substitute spacers to fit the weldments and the legs during the on-going
>construction work and you can't fit the legs until the wings are installed
>at the 'planes final destination and its a real sweat to get the 36 bolts
>per side to finally complete the installation. Many a time I cursed the
>complexity of all this as compared to the tail dragger where the legs simply
>plug into the engine mount and wished I had built the tail-dragger instead!
> Cheers!!----------Henry Hore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
Those who reside in the GWN or the northern tier of states will be familiar
with a handy device called a "battery blanket" available from most any auto
parts store, Cdn tire, Wal Mart, etc. It is just a ruggedized electric
blanket in a convenient size to wrap around your car battery. Plug it in
along with your block heater and it keeps the battery warm enough to provide
lots of cranking amps when you need to get your car going on those
frosty -30 F mornings. Works fine on a car - no reason it shouldn't do the
same in an airplane.
Note - anyone who can immediately identify what a "block heater" probably
doesn't need a battery blanket. :-)
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB (where it is a cool -23 C as I write = - 10 F or so)
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
> Something to consider is a method for keeping your battery warm. I don't
> know the numbers, but a battery that is at 70F has much more energy than
one
> that is at 35F. I've got a heating pad (like you might put on your
forearm
> after pulling about a thousand cleco's) that I wrap over the battery box
if
> I plan on a cold start. Leaving it on overnight gives me a toasty
battery.
>
> If I combine this with a 75-100W trouble light placed inside the cowl, it
> makes for easy cold starts, even with a Prestolite starter and a wood
prop.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <panamared2(at)brier.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
>
> >
> > I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of
> the
> > paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place
on
> > the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to
> answer
> > >the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Tedd;
Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in a
Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a business
case to produce it.
Jim Oke
CYWG
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
> Charlie:
>
> > Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end?
>
> A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The
Chrysler
> V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost
exclusively
> wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in
mind
> that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated
such
> that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire
Chyrsler
> test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the
aircraft
> industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so
the
> Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto
industry
> test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's
atypical.
> You can read more about it at
>
> http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
>
> > You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
>
> Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
>
> > Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined
that aircraft
> > engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I
will
> > learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
>
> You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the
same
> time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
> achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that
it's
> tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda
just
> didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources.
Ditto
> Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
>
> I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
> business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
> addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft
use?"
> Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to
ask
> about the first question.)
>
> > Each of us can choose
> > his own path.
>
> Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful
knowledge on
> the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more engines |
Barry,
How much weight will you save using the aluminium block and heads? I ask because
most Ford and Chevy V-6 projects come out about 100 pounds over weight. I think
that your use of the light weight parts is a great idea. However, can you
really save 100 pounds there? What PSRU will you use?
Charlie Kuss
Not knocking it, just asking
>
>Dear Wheeler North,
>Forgive me but your post was well thought out, so I removed the 'dna'
>tag at the end.
>
>As I said in an earlier post, I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6 in my
>RV9a. The last thing you talked about is what gives me most cause for
>pause: "FADEC". Fadec, of course is an attempt to bring Lycoming into
>the electronic age. But,and this is a big BUT, in seminars at Oshkosh,
>the propeller guys where shaking their heads. They have concerns about
>harmonics induced by Fadec. That is what concerns me with my Chevy
>project; harmonics.
>
>With the Bowtie block and aluminum heads and aluminum radiator, I may
>come in about the same or lighter than a 160 Lycoming.
>
>I am using a forged (Hank the Crank of Indy fame) oddfire crank. This
>lets me use Eagle Chevy V8 rods.
>9 to 1 compression dished pistons gives me good flame travel and I can
>use Mogas or 100LL.
>Dual MSD units, Dual coils and auto transfer mechanism (used in racing
>for years) gives pretty good redundancy. And I can loose 2 plugs to
>fouling and still have 4 firing. People that have done this, tell me it
>is about as smooth (if you can say that) as a Lycoming at that point. I
>am using ARP bolts and studs.
>I think my set up will have most of the strong points that you attribute
>to Aircraft engines. Not all of course.
>
>And then there are those harmonics....................
>
>Barry Pote RV9a
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
Mark
If you decide to use a rivnut, make sure you use the "keyed" variety. These have
a male "notch" on the barrel of the rivnut. The corresponding hole must also
be notched. I have the installation and notching tools for #6 screws. I found
them used on EBay. Since the belly skin is quite thin ( 020" I think ) , even
a keyed rivnut will probably come loose.
Joe's idea should work. You can avoid adding holes by removing the main landing
gear weldment (Wd-821). You can slip the nutplate in through the gear leg hole.
Use 3/32" blind rivets as Joe suggests.
How about fabricating "external" nutplates out of aluminium blocks? Remember doing
this on the F-869 gussets? The plans tell you to make aluminium nutplates
to hold the tie down rings on. You could do something similar. Cut several blocks
of 6061. Drill and tap for #6 or #8 screws. Drill two additional #40 holes
for 3/32" blind rivets to retain the blocks to the belly skin. Mount them externally
on the skin. They won't show. They'll be under the fairing.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Hi Mark
>
>I had this problem with my four. One screw had to go in the little rounded
>.16 skin on the sides of the forward fuselage. I orginally did them with
>rivnuts, but this lasted about 10 minutes or one tightening of the screw and
>the rivnut was turning. If the skin you want to put them in is thicker you
>might have better luck. What I ended up doing, was drill a hole large
>enough to get a plate nut inside (with a long screw threaded in for a
>handle) This left just enough skin to get a pop rivit through each side of
>the plate nut to hold it in place. No problems since. The fairing covers
>the whole thing when in place. You may not be able or want to do this as I
>believe the skin you are talking about is structural and it requires a
>fairly large hole.
>
>Joe Hine
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>czechsix(at)juno.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings?
>
>
>Guys,
>
>This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
>upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
>out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
>the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
>front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
>to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
>getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
>is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
>the slightest hint in this area...
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Jim:
> Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
> engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
> successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in a
> Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
>
> That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
> faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a business
> case to produce it.
There was a Porsche-powered Mooney some years ago. I don't know a lot about
it, but it certainly wasn't a business success. As I understand it, the
Porsche engine didn't offer as much performance for the dollar as a Lycoming.
It seems odd to me that anyone thought the idea would work. The Porsche engine
was quite small, not much bigger than the Subaru engines that are becoming
popular with some RV builders. The European auto industry always seems to
underestimate the value of more displacement, probably the legacy of their
absurd laws that regulate and tax cars on the basis of engine size. It seems
pretty obvious to me that an engine half the size is going to have a hard time
competing unless it has some other, very significant advantage. Evidently, the
Porsche didn't.
If I were to do an auto conversion (I'm not, I have a Lycoming), I'd be
inclined to build the largest displacement V6 Chevy that I reasonably could,
and limit the RPM to about 3500 or so. Such an engine would have about the
same cylinder pressures and piston speeds as a Lycoming, and lower valvetrain
loads, so it would probably run quite a long time. The trade-off would be more
weight for less money.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Tedd,
That's a very good test on the V-100 engine. Thanks for the web link. I would
agree that this test is probably typical of most automotive companies today.
Regarding rated power being above rated torque. This statement means nothing.
The Lycoming's rated power is just above it's peak torque. This is a GOOD thing.
When the cruise RPM of an engine is in it's peak torque area, it obtains it's
best fuel economy.
The implication that somehow the Chrysler engine is superior just because it's
peak power is produced far beyond it's peak torque means nothing as far as the
engine design being "superior". With any engine (assuming cylinder breathing
is adequate), more RPM, means more power and more stress. Since the V-10 is designed
to turn higher RPMs, it needs to be tested in that RPM band to prove the
strength of it's components.
I am unaware of the max HP and max torque RPM of the V-10. For argument's sake,
I'll assume 5800 RPM for max HP and 3000 RPM for max torque. Do you notice that
there is an almost 3000 RPM spread between max power and max torque (best
fuel economy)? This tells me that if you intend to use an engine like this in
an airplane, you must choose between great horsepower (high RPM and poor fuel
economy) or better fuel economy (lower RPM) and less than rated power.
The Chevy and Ford V-6 aircraft conversions only run at 4200 RPM, while the automotive
versions reach peak power at 4800 - 5400 RPM. The Mazda 13B conversion
engines run at 6000 RPM rather than the 7000 - 9000 RPM used in stock and automotive
racing applications. Why is this? Several reasons:
1) Reduce the maximum RPM to increase the life of the engine operating at a high
continuous power setting
2) Get the "cruise" RPM closer to the max torque range (2500 - 3000 RPM) for better
fuel economy.
3) To keep the propeller tip speeds sub sonic. Propeller efficiency drops off &
noise increases as the speed of sound is approached.
The fact that the Lycoming's rated power is only slightly above it's max torque
RPM range means that it will give good fuel mileage at high power (75%) ratings.
This is what you want in an aircraft engine. Auto engines have their max
torque at the RPMs they normally turn in high gear at highway speeds. (2000 -
3000 RPM)
They are designed that way because they are intended to be run in automobiles.
It does not mean that this can't be changed. Changing the camshaft profile,
valve and port (intake and exhaust) sizes will accomplish this. Auto engine output
(rear) main bearing are sized to meet the loads imposed by a clutch/torque
converter and transmission. An aircraft engine must have a much larger output
(front) main bearing size to support the loads of the propeller. Most V-8 output
main bearings are about 1.5 - 1.75" wide and 2.25- 2.50" diameter. A Lycoming
flat 4 or 6 cylinder has an output main bearing which is about 5" long (going
from memory here) and 2.375" in diameter.
Since the auto engine conversion will be transmitting power through a PSRU, I
am unsure as to what size output main bearing it will need. to understand better
the loads a propeller puts on the crankshaft and case halves (or engine block
in the auto engine's case) Go to:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/sport_av92/sport_av92.html
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact2/contact2.html
After reading these articles, you may have some doubts as to the ability of the
stock automotive crankshaft to function long and well in the aviation environment.
Again, nothing that can't be overcome. Replace the crankshaft or modify
it as needed. The Lexus V-8 is an all aluminium engine. Most American V-6 engines
used for aviation purposes are not. The fix? Replace the stock block and heads
with aluminium parts.
Do you see where we are headed? Slowly but surely, we are replacing (upgrading)
major portions of the engine. This will NOT be cheap! This is exactly what
Toyota & Orenda found out (the hard way).
Toyota did in deed make a "business" decision as you phrase it. The decision was
one of economics. It was cheaper (and safer to their reputation) to buy a proven
engine from Lycoming than to produce their own "certified" Lexus V-8 engine.
Toyota continued the certification process long after their engineers knew
that the project would not be economically viable. Why? Because to quit without
finishing (ie obtaining the certification) would be tantamount to admitting
that one of the greatest Japanese auto makers could not achieve what a small,
old fashioned American company (Lycoming) has been doing for decades.
Regarding Formula 1 versus Indy car racing, Honda put it's money where it would
get the best "world wide" exposure for each Yen spent. As much as we Americans
hate to admit it, no one outside the US gives a hoot about Indy racing (or
NASCAR). Honda wanted to let the WORLD (not the USA) know it was the greatest
automotive engineering company in the world. They did it quite well.
The only things "ancient" about Lycomings and Continentials, are their fuel and
ignition systems. Electronic ignition systems and FADAC will finally bring these
engines into the new millennium.
Earlier, I mentioned PSRUs. Even if you develop a great engine, you need an equally
durable PSRU. There are several promising units being sold now. However,
NONE of them have say 1000 units which have demonstrated their ability to go
1000 hours before overhaul. This is not to say it won't happen, just to say it
hasn't yet. Those brave souls investing their money in these units, are true
pioneers. (and braver men than I)
Charlie Kuss
PS When I started my project, I intended to use an auto engine. As I learned more
and more, I've become much more conservative. Of all the conversions out there,
I think that the Mazda 13B has the brightest future. I want to fly in the
next few years, so I'm not willing to wait to much longer.
>A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The Chrysler
>V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost exclusively
>wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in mind
>that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated such
>that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire Chyrsler
>test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the aircraft
>industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so the
>Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto industry
>test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's atypical.
>You can read more about it at
>
> http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
>
>> You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
>
>Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
>
>> Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
>> engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
>> learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
>
>You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the same
>time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
>achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that it's
>tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda just
>didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources. Ditto
>Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
>
>I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
>business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
>addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft use?"
>Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to ask
>about the first question.)
>
>> Each of us can choose
>> his own path.
>
>Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful knowledge on
>the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Thanks Doug,
My concern is that folks who are "handy or shade tree mechanics" get it in their
head that they have the skills to take on a project of this scope. Purchasing
a FWF package is one thing. Going Tracy Crooks and Ed Anderson's route without
the proper skill and knowledge is another. I'm not saying you can't do it.
Just don't try if you aren't willing to spend the time and effort to educate
yourself for the task at hand.
I'm a professional mechanic. I've worked as an aerospace machine assembler. I
started out wanting to build an auto engine conversion. Yet the more I studied
it, the less appealing it became. I know I'm capable of doing it. I simply think
that the additional investment of time isn't worth it FOR ME!
There are several very "hard headed" members of my local EAA chapter doing auto
engine conversions. They are downright scary! They aren't mechanics. They certainly
are not engineers. They aren't particularly mechanically inclined. They
sure don't take constructive critisizm very well. Trying to suggest that some
of their workmanship is less than airworthy is viewed as a personal attack.
Their whole reason for avoiding an aircraft engine is to "save money". I really
fear for the lives of these folks if they finish their aircraft. I have seen
more than one experimental ship where my first thought was, " What DAR signed
THIS off?"
We should all strive to do the best work we are capable of. If you feel you are
qualified, go for it. If you aren't sure, STUDY! LEARN! Remember, ignorance
is temporary, (cured by education) stupidity is permanent!
Charlie
>
>
>>
>> Tedd,
>> Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto
>mechanic, I
>> was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine
>
>Snip
>
>I am gonna throw gas on the fire then take off to Vegas for the airshow
>convention.
>
>Charlie makes some great points in his post and I agree heartedly. Still we
>don't want to do is discourage those who wish to be "experimenters" and
>"test pilots" They play an important role in "experimental" aviation. But
>those people need to go into this with their eyes wide open, Accepting that
>they are test pilots and they are experimenting.
>
>Choosing an auto engine to save a buck and then trying to fly it as an X/C
>cruiser is false economy. I don't care which conversion you use, they are
>not as reliable as a Lycoming and prudent pilots fly them accordingly. I
>have hauled my buddies soneri w/VW too many times.
>
>If you want a X/C transportation airplane that can fly IFR or VFR, the
>Lycoming is the answer. If you look at the cost over 2000 hours, assuming
>even minimum wage for labor, I defy anyone to prove the total expenses of
>an auto engine is cheaper per horsepower.
>
>Can automotive ( or WWII) technology make the Lycoming better? You bet,
>electronic ignition, EFI, tuned intake, tuned exhaust, all can and should be
>proven by "experimenters" and "test pilots" to push that technology into the
>certified market.
>
>Decide which you want to be, THEN decide which engine you want.
>
> Cya all Friday. Standing by with the Asbestos Underwear!
>
>Tailwinds,
>Doug Rozendaal
>"It is great to be back!" Can we pleeeasssse start a T/W vs Trike thread
>;-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
I've been reading this thread and just remembered an alternative that some
of you may want to look at. Jabiru has designed an eight cylinder engine
that is rated at 180hp. It was designed to replace the Lycoming engine in
such airplanes as the RV series. In fact, the folks have even designed a
firewall forward package for our RVs. The last time I read their website,
they were testing the engine on a RV. That's been over a year ago. I don't
know what the status is on the new engine; but, I do know that those who
have the smaller Jabiru engines are happy with them. Since these aircraft
engines sell for a far smaller price than a Lyc, it may be interesting to
look at one of them. Can you imagine how smooth an eight cylinder will be,
when compared to a Lyc? I once had a O300 six cylinder Continental in a
Skyhawk. It was much smoother than my O320.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative Engine Questions |
> I've been reading this thread and just remembered an alternative that some
> of you may want to look at. Jabiru has designed an eight cylinder engine
> that is rated at 180hp. It was designed to replace the Lycoming engine in
> such airplanes as the RV series. In fact, the folks have even designed a
> firewall forward package for our RVs. The last time I read their website,
> they were testing the engine on a RV. That's been over a year ago. I
don't
> know what the status is on the new engine; but, I do know that those who
> have the smaller Jabiru engines are happy with them. Since these aircraft
> engines sell for a far smaller price than a Lyc, it may be interesting to
> look at one of them. Can you imagine how smooth an eight cylinder will
be,
> when compared to a Lyc? I once had a O300 six cylinder Continental in a
> Skyhawk. It was much smoother than my O320.
>
Just to be sure, I went to the web site to take another look. It seems
they've changed their strategy a little. They're sizing the engine up for
the Supermarine Spitfire kit, for now. They've installed one on the
Spitfire and are testing it. When they're satisfied that it will run well
on the Spit, they're going to install one on a RV-6. One should contact
them to more details. They plan to have the engine available by the end of
this year. Since it was supposed to have been available some time ago, I
guess the folks have had a few teething problems with it. I'm glad to see
they aren't putting it on the market until it's ready. This is really a
pretty little engine that deserves your taking a look at it. Here's the
address to make it easy for you. :-)
http://www.jabiru.net.au/
BTW, it's rated at 200 hp at 3000rpm and 180hp at 2700rpm, now. Not bad.
Since it has a 7.83:1 compression ratio, it should run on autogas! Now,
that makes it a good candidate for my next RV. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more engines |
Charlie,
Chevy Bowtie aluminum block for the 4.3, part# 14011069, is 75 pounds.
The stock cast iron is 160, I believe. And the aluminum heads save
another 25 to 30. There's your hundred pounds.
Jess Meyers at Belted Air Power has a tried and true belt drive unit. He
is good people, too.
http://www.beltedair.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator(at)msn.com> |
Living in Fl. now i don't need a pre-heater,but i lived in Pittsburgh before and
we had a Cardinal which i pre-heated with a ceramic type space heater set to
direct air up cowling outlet.Works great and can be put on a timer. Ollie
RV6A Central Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lenleg(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
Anyone tried the "Hot Strip"????
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
If you want to look macho get a taildragger,but if you like to fly get a trigear.You
can't tell the difference in the air.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
OK Doug,
I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to go.
I don't
have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are lots
of pros and con
either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
Sincerely,
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Here are details of the little battery I retrofitted to my RV-6:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/battery.htm
The battery spins the O-320 just as well a "big" battery. One of our
local flyers cranks the IO-360 in his RV-8 with a little battery as
well.
And...I can get the little battery locally for $18.00!! No reason not to
keep a fresh battery installed since it doesn't cost much more than an
oil filter; might even change it out at each condition inspection.
Sam
========================
Cary Rhodes wrote:
>
> At the risk of starting a battery war.
>
> But here goes
>
> Does anybody have a good or bad experience with the Odessey model 680
> turning a Lycoming 360??
>
> It looks like the real application for the battery is a big Harley
> motorcycle.
>
> It just looks to me to be too small for a 4 cyl, paint bucket sized
> piston Lycoming.
>
> cary
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Brake resevoir/feeder line routing |
Doug,
I'd be sure that the brake lines are well below the reservoir. It's a
gravity feed system and if the lines are above the level in the reservoir it
may not work very well. Actually, the cylinder will suck but you're still
setting yourself up for potential problems.
Dave -6 So Cal
dmedema(at)att.net wrote:
>
> How important is it to have the lines coming from the brake
> resevoir routed such that they are always below the resevoir?
> Do they have to be below the whole resevoir or can they just
> be below say halfway up the resevoir?
>
> I am almost ready to rivet my top forward skin on but want
> to make sure I don't need to reroute my brake resevoir lines.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug Medema
> RV-6A N276DM (reserved)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
>
>And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The
>kits cost about the same.>
>
I don't. It's just that the market, up to now, has shown the -8 to fetch a
higher amount. To a pilot who has no interest in a tandem airplane, the -8
isn't "worth" anything to him. To a pilot who loves tandem seating, the -8
may be worth paying a premium. All RV's are simply outstanding, but the
newer models seem to have the "gee whiz" factor going for them as new kid on
the block. Over time, I'm sure there will be a bottoming out on each model,
and values will stabilize purely by sheer numbers in operation and how many
are on the market at any given time.
It's all black magic. Could make for a nifty term paper for an economics
student.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
> The implication that somehow the Chrysler engine is superior just because it's
peak power is produced far beyond it's peak torque means nothing as far as
the engine design being "superior".
Sorry for the confusion, that wasn't the point at all. The point was that
there's no need to run the engine that far above peak torque, yet it can
survive for many hundreds of hours under those conditions. Therefore it's
reasonable to assume that it will last even longer when cruising near peak
torque, which is how a sensible person would run it in an airplane.
I'm only trying to make one simple point here: durability of the long block is
not the problem with auto conversions. That's it. I'm fully aware of all the
other valid concerns (weight, PSRUs, peripherals, etc.). Work out the numbers
for yourself and you'll see my point.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
> If you want to look macho get a taildragger,but if you like to fly get a trigear.You
can't tell the difference in the air.
So if I want to fly AND have the benefit of looking macho I should build a
tailwheel? Thanks for sorting out the logic for me, I was struggling with
that.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
> Since it has a 7.83:1 compression ratio, it should run on autogas!
I asked them specifically about auto gas a year or two ago. They said they
were not developing it for auto gas. That doesn't mean you can't use it, of
course, but I would have felt better about it if they'd said, "Absolutely!"
They're also not planning inverted oil or any convenient way to have inverted
fuel.
Nevertheless, I think it's going to be a good alternative to a Lycoming. I've
spoken to quite a few builders who've used the smaller Jabirus, and they all
rave about them.
November 27, 2002 - December 03, 2002
RV-Archive.digest.vol-nw