RV-Archive.digest.vol-nx
December 03, 2002 - December 08, 2002
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
I don't know, a tri gear with slider canopy back looks pretty cool
taxing down in front of all the people at Oshkosh with your arm resting
on the slider rail and silk scarf blowing in the wind. Pretty cool IMHO.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A slider - working on fuel tanks, silk scarf on order :-)
Ollie Washburn wrote:
>
> 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
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.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: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Tedd;
As I recall, the Porsche engine was not "just" a conversion of an existing
engine, but a purpose built aviation engine - but based on a lot of Porsche
auto engineering experience and details. Flying magazine flew the airplane
and I think gave it a positive write-up. Air-cooled or liquid cooled - I
have forgotten.
So reasonable technical success; but, yes, when it came time to go into a
very traditional market with a new product with no overwhelming technical
advantage, no cost advantage, and a huge support problem (most N. American
AMEs haven't seen anything besides a Lyc. or Cont. product in under 300 HP
airplanes for a generation now) it was indeed curtains.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
I was interested in the so-called Blanton Ford V-6 engine a few years ago
and bought his package. One of the key work items was to have the cam
re-ground to alter the torque-horsepower curves to something more useful for
aviation use. So the situation can be addressed. Of course, regrinding cams
is a bigger engineering task than most people can tackle and could be said
to invalidate the automotive durability testing that was done no matter how
rigorous it was.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-6A - at the hangar now
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
It has been my biased opinion for quite a while that used RV prices have
been inflated to a level that is unsustainable. It is a general rule of
thumb in the kit-built community that if you can recover the cost of the
plane when it is sold, you have done *very* well! The RV aircraft have
exceeded that rule due to several reasons:
1) Vans makes a very good aircraft that is conventional in construction
and appearance and is much more likely to be repaired by your local A&P
than many less conventional kit aircraft.
2) Law of Supply and Demand. When you have great demand and small
supply, prices will inflate. Reduce demand or increase supply, and
prices will deflate.
3) A booming economy. The late 1990's encouraged a bunch of folks to buy
toys they would not have considered if their mutual funds weren't going
through the roof.
Now....things, they are a-changin'. The economy is softer (well, more
normal), and there is a greater supply of used RVs due to owners feeling
the effect of the economy or wanting to sell so they can build the newer
kits.
I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
project" rule. Of course there will be exceptions on both sides of the
rule, but the days of getting ridiculous prices for our planes may be
over.
The up side is that we can now insure our planes for smaller hull
values! ;-)
Sam Buchanan (RV-6....not for sale)
======================
>
> And why do you think a RV-8 should fetch that much more than a RV-6?The kits
cost about the same.>
>
> So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos as
> other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and save
> what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
> airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
>
> Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
> interest.
>
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> 3 yrs. of RV grins
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lundquist" <lundquist(at)ieee.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Sorry to keep this going, but I did see the insurance question earlier go
unanswered. Does anybody have any info on a what the difference in
insurance cost would be for a 6 vs a 6A, all other things being equal?
Dave Lundquist
RV-6(A?) wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 88 Msgs - 12/02/02 |
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
SNIP From: "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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. SNIP
I don't recall seeing the following comments before so I'll share my thoughts on
the subject.
The RV nosedraggers that I've handled are a bitch to back up. Try pushing one
into a gravel floored T-hangar by yourself and you'll see what I mean. The towbar
(pushbar?) on the nose wheel is great for pulling the plane out but when
pushing it back into the hangar it is very easy to get a WILD swing of the tail.
No problem unless the tail hits something. This is a big enough problem that
my bubba sized buddy will be putting a concrete floor in his hangar just so
he can put the plane away more easily. I suppose the cure for this is to put
a tow hook on the tail and pull the thing in.
The nosedragger really gets with the program on anything but the flattest surfaces.
It's like a @#$ing bucking bronco on our rolling grass strip. Not for the
faint hearted. Really makes me worry for that prop as I don't want to use an
$80K airplane as a weedeater.
It is also easy to overheat the brakes on the nosedragger when taxiing with a crosswind.
I know.
If your decision is up in the air regarding nosewheel or tailwheel, my .02$ worth
is anyone not flying off pavement or with a gravel floor hangar or a runway
perpendicular to the prevailing winds might enjoy the tailwheel more.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Vince
F-1H Rocket
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
>
>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 ......
But, as you later pointed out, a business flop. This was the case with the
Toyota engine also. The Toyota marketing dept figured out that it would be
hard to sell pilots an airplane with an engine other than Lycoming or
possibly Continental. The Porsche engine was dropped because of the same
basic idea. The auto Porsche is already a low volume very high priced
engine . I can't see how any low production volume engine can ever compete
with LycoNentals. Remember that most pilots think we experimental aircraft
types are risking our lives in unproven airplanes so they are more likely
to resist than we are!
What will it take to overcome pilot buying resistance? I believe that for
any alternative to succeed it has to:
1 - be cheap. At least half the cost of a Lycoming.
2 - be proven in a dramatic way such as by winning at Reno or doing a
round the world flight.
3 - be lighter, smoother, more durable, more reliable and more powerful --
that is, be a better product.
If you could buy an engine for $9,999 that ran as smoothly as a Chevy,
weighed a bit less than a 180hp Lycoming but put out 200 hp and had done an
around the world flight, would you?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net> |
I have a Reiff 'hotpadd" installed six years ago, and used each winter in
Denver. I plug it in whenever the ambient temp is below 40F.
It works great, lasts a long time, easy to install, and very reasonable.
Besides it is sold by a RV guy.
Denis
> From: "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator(at)msn.com>
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:52:35 -0500
> To: "RV-List Matronics"
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
>
> 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
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.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: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Well,
as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list, and it
did. ;{)
I'm not knocking the use of an auto conversion for those of you who have the
design background to do this and not kill anybody.
I think it more important to focus on the use of automotive technology in
aeromotive. There is a long history of this, from flange and hardware
standards, hose and plumbing standards, ignition system standards, etc all
came out of the SAE standards.
To me, I could care less what makes the airplane go forward. I only care
that it keeps doing it, and it is reasonable in cost. The best advance in
technology would be a 10000 hour power reduction unit with three small
$2000/1000 hr centrifugal turbine engines attached that operate at 3500 degs
so they compare to a recip on fuel economy.
Shut one off for cruise, and two off for descent. Throw them away every 1000
hours TTIS.
This would allow someone to gear up for mass producing these units as they
would be excellent for GPUs and for hybrid autos. But we still need to
invent some materials that can handle the heat and vibration and be light.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV prices - WAS: Tailwheel blah, blah |
>
>I suspect we will now see RV prices returning to the ol' "cost of the
>project" rule.
I've often wondered about that rule. I can imagine that a plans built
plane that is the third built might follow such a pattern but how about a
Cub clone? Do all kit builts follow the 'the cost is the value' rule?
I wonder if the RV series, especially the RV-6 and later, aren't beginning
to be recognized as better than certified aircraft. I suspect they are
one reason why I haven't gotten my Debonair sold.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list, and it
> did. ;{)
Though, unfortunately, with no explanation of why any of them matter.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle(at)msn.com> |
I have used the Odyssey680 on my Lycoming O-360 and it works fine. It is 2
years old now (1 year flying) and doesn't have as much reserve as it used
to. I put the Solargizer on it last week to see if I could rejuvinate it
like I have with a few Concorde batterys in the past.
Sam,
what "discount battery outlet" are you referring to? I will try the
Panasonic/ Powersonic if I can get it for anywhere near $20.
Dave Biddle
RV-6A 102hrs
Phoenix, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: re: battery
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: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
kempthornes wrote:
> But, as you later pointed out, a business flop. This was the case with the
> Toyota engine also. The Toyota marketing dept figured out that it would be
> hard to sell pilots an airplane with an engine other than Lycoming or
> possibly Continental. The Porsche engine was dropped because of the same
> basic idea. The auto Porsche is already a low volume very high priced
> engine . I can't see how any low production volume engine can ever compete
> with LycoNentals. Remember that most pilots think we experimental aircraft
> types are risking our lives in unproven airplanes so they are more likely
> to resist than we are!
This brings up a related thought that the latest issue of Aviation
Consumer pointed out in their article on Toyota's airplane.
The same "barrier to entry" existed back when Toyota and Honda tried
entering the North American automotive market. After all, who would buy
a little tin sh*tbox from some Asian manufacturer, when there were
US-designed and built cars that were bigger and conceivably better?(*)
But they somehow broke into the market, and are now equal to, if not
superior to, most North American makes. Even many of the North American
manufacturers are now making domestically-branded-Asian-designed-
domestically-assembled cars (cf. Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe, Ford
Probe/Mitsubishi (something), Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000.).
The speculation in the Aviation Consumer article is that the Asian
manufacturers were willing to take significant losses up front in order
to gain a foothold in the market, and in fact they suggest that that's
exactly what Toyota/Honda/etc. did, hemmorage money for the first few
years until people realized that yes, these little tin cars could indeed
keep up with traffic and burn way less gas.
So could this not happen in the aviation world? Sure it could. In
fact, the Aviation Consumer article suggests we're just about to see it
all start, and that Toyota is waiting for the Centennial of flight to
make an announcement. The Japanese manufacturers like to make grandiose
introductions like this, and what better time to break into the North
American light aircraft market than on the 100th anniversary of flight
in North America? Would seem to be a great way to take the wind out of
old Orville & Wilbur's sails...
-RB4
(* Disclaimer: I drive a Honda.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service |
I want to let everyone know that both Warren Gretz and Rocky Mountain
Instruments (Ron Mowrer) stand behind what they sell for RV builders.
My RV-6A first flight was august 2001.
I used the Gretz pitot tube and mount and also the uncertified GPS antenna
and cable. The glareshield mounted GPS antenna works great with my Garmin
430 but quit picking up satellites on the way back from Las Cruces. It was
replaced at no cost by Warren.
Removing and replacing the GPS antenna involved pulling the RMI micromonitor
tray. I did not get the tray and connector pins properly aligned or fully
reseated and that caused problems. Ron helped me troubleshoot the problem
and sent me the replacement parts at no cost.
Everything is working trouble free again, like it had for the first 100
hours.
Make sure you follow the RMI instructions on getting the monitor fully
aligned and seated to the connector in the tray. I did with the original
installation but got careless when redoing it. I put instructions with
sharpie inside the tray to remind me next time to do it right.
Dave Biddle
RV-6A 102 hours
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
> (* Disclaimer: I drive a Honda.)
But you don't fly a CAM-100. ;)
Seriously, it's an interesting hypothesis. I have a hard time believing that
the light airplane market is big enough to interest a company the size of Honda
or Toyota, but I'm no marketing expert.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re:baggage area floors, strobes |
I put my ELT and my strobe power pack under the baggage compartment
floors. Concerned about access to either box, I decided to add access
doors through the baggage compartment floors. I got the idea from photos
of Laird Owens' RV. Some photos can be seen at:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/socal230330/429050/guest_icons.phtml I
used a slightly different approach to building the access doors, but the
result is the same.
The ELT is on the left side and is mounted to stiffeners riveted
directly to the external belly skin. It can be unsnapped from its
bracket and easily removed through the access door. The strobe power
pack is on the right side. Removing the power pack is a bit more
complicated as it must be unscrewed from its mounting rails which are
riveted to the belly skin. Each compartment leaves some storage room
for other items like rags, oil cans, etc.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB (res.)
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gretz, Rocky Mountain Instruments - Good Service |
I too, have had great experiences with Rocky Mountain Instruments.
I got both kits from RMI (uEncoder and Monitor). I got the kits because
my son wanted to put them together.
The Monitor, my son got together just fine. The encoder, he had a few
problems with at the end. I sent the unit to RMI. They looked at it and
fixed a few minor details and returned it 3 day UPS orange, for no
charge. No charge!
Not a lot of good people around like them anymore.
Thanks for the exceptional service ,Ron.
Barry Pote RV9a
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
The drawing in question is Van's OP-27A. It comes as part of the engine
baffle kit but I think it can be obtained separately.
Jim Bean
Stephen Johnson wrote:
>
> 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>
> To:
> 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: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
"'rv-list(at)matronics.com'"(at)matronics.com
Charlie, and all
try this, I zipped it, is not much smaller (12Mg) but it may allow you to
download as a file.
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/images/FADEC.zip
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
Hey List:
I'm one of those few who have built a TD/TG convertible. It was a
little extra work, but I feel the biggest cost is the weight penalty, but
the advantages for me far outweigh this. My engine mount does have the gear
sockets for both the TD mains & the TG nose gear. I have the TG main sockets
in the cabin and the TD tailspring socket in the tailcone. The extra holes
are very minor and easily plugged. Calculating 2 W&B is also a minor detail.
My reasons for this have nothing to do with any ego issues ;-). (I'm
secure enough in my masculinity to put the little wheel any damn place I
want it). The reason I did this was my desire/need to put this plane on skis
& floats. For wheel operations I would rather have it as a TG, since I feel
that any hole or obstacle will be equally bad for either a TD or TG, but the
better visibility of the TG will help to avoid these hazards. I have limited
TD experience, but my experience so far shows that a TG will allow for a
slightly shorter TO.
While on floats, I will be using the TD main gear sockets for my
main float attach points while the rear attach points are through the rear
spar attach point. Eustace Bowhay, who is usually on this list (are you out
there Eustace?), pioneered this as he flew his "6" like this for a few
years, but has since sold his floats as he feels his float flying years are
behind him now.
When flying on skis I will be in TD mode as skis don't allow for
differential braking which is how the TG is steered. There is also not
enough prop clearance to allow for a nose ski. The TD configuration will
allow for a small steerable tail ski. Skis are also a high drag item, so I
will also benefit from having one less large ski. While I currently have no
experience flying a TD on skis, I have been told by a few northern bush
pilots that TD's are actually easier to handle on skis than on wheels.
I figure it will take me several hours to convert from TD to TG, but
for the versatility it provides for my particular mission this has been a
great mod... not to mention that I had great fun building it. If you are
considering this purely because who are confused about which way you want to
swing, then I wouldn't recommend it.
Van's sells a dynafocal mount that has both TD & TG sockets. It is
called a float mount ($1125 usd), as it was designed for use with floats. A
local builder just finished his "6" that has the float mount, but he flies
it as a TD and has not installed the TG mains in his cabin. He previously
had no TD experience and wanted an out in case he couldn't handle it, but is
currently very happy with it, but it is a show plane and likely will never
see any rough strips.
The local MD-RA inspector has done an inspection on my plane and he
was quite satisfied, even impressed with this.
As I'm using a rotary engine, I built my own mount, which can be
seen on my web page, on the engines page.
Hope this helps..
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: Paul Besing [SMTP:azpilot(at)extremezone.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 7:09 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> How would you do this? The engine mounts are very different. Would you
> weld a custom mount that had sockets for the nose gear and the main gear
> for
> the tail dragger?
>
> You would have holes in your cowl when you converted to the nose gear.
> You
> would have a long hole in your scoop and 2 holes in the bottom of the fuse
> when you converted to tailwheel. Also, you would have to have 2 different
> weight and balances done, and carry the proper one with you. I would
> think
> your DAR wouldn't be too keen on giving you operating limitations on two
> different configurations! Seems like ALOT more work than it is worth.
>
> 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
>
>
> >
> > I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
> > attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
Thanks. I haven't bought the baffle kit yet. I guess maybe I wasn't clear
in what I was saying in my answer to your question, but my point was that as
long as the air pressure in the cockpit is about the same level as that
under the cowl, there should be air flow through the oil cooler. Do not
archive.
Steve Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
>
> The drawing in question is Van's OP-27A. It comes as part of the engine
> baffle kit but I think it can be obtained separately.
> Jim Bean
>
> Stephen Johnson wrote:
> >
> > 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>
> > To:
> > 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: | Laird Owens <owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
| Subject: | Re: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
If you want to put the ELT under the floorboards, you might do a door
like I did on my RV-6. There are a couple of pictures and plans at:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/socal230330/429050/guest.phtml
It would solve the problem of having to unscrew a cover to get to it
in case of a crash. I use Hartwell latches to secure it.
Laird RV-6 (650 hrs)
SoCal
>
>> 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: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Dave, the local store is called "The Battery Store", don't know if they
are a national chain or not. I think if you run a Google search on "17ah
battery" you will probably find a source for the batteries. They are
commonly used for burglar alarms, etc.
Best regards,
Sam
===================
Dave Biddle wrote:
>
>
> I have used the Odyssey680 on my Lycoming O-360 and it works fine. It is 2
> years old now (1 year flying) and doesn't have as much reserve as it used
> to. I put the Solargizer on it last week to see if I could rejuvinate it
> like I have with a few Concorde batterys in the past.
>
> Sam,
> what "discount battery outlet" are you referring to? I will try the
> Panasonic/ Powersonic if I can get it for anywhere near $20.
>
> Dave Biddle
> RV-6A 102hrs
> Phoenix, AZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> To: vansairforce(at)yahoogroups.com; rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: re: battery
>
>
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
Jerry Wilken
Albany Oregon
N699WP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
It was not even really successful from an engineering point of view,
as it was too heavy to be a success in the aviation market.
See:
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html
Kevin
>
>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>
>To:
>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: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7, fuse, odds and ends. |
Sorry I didn't respond to this 3 weeks ago when you sent it...but I wasn't
to that point in construction yet. Anyway, my comments are below:
> 1. Instead of four 1" diameter grommets (2 for the fuel line holes
through
> the side skin and 2 for the hole through the cover in front of the main
> spar), you got 2 of the right size and 2 smaller grommets ?
Yep, that's what I've got. My understanding is that the fuel lines are 3/8"
(don't quote me, I haven't plumbed anything yet!) and the vent lines are
1/4".
> 2. When putting the brake pedals together, the lower outboard and the
lower
> inboard bolts on each pedal are AN3-5, and looks like the outboard one
> should be AN3-4 ? (infact the R1 note says the bolt size changed, from -4
to
> -5).
I haven't done the final installation of my brake pedals yet (waiting to
paint/coat them first) but I assume you could use washers as applicable to
fill out any additional gap. Please let me/us know what you turn up if you
get there before I do...
> 3. On the forward half of the F-704 bulkhead, there are 4 holes that are
not
> rivetted. I am NOT referring to the 12 bolts that attach the landing gear
> mount in the case of the RV-7A, or attach the F-704 components to each
> other. I am referring to holes that are right next or one over from the
hole
> that is used for the spacer bolt.
I believe I only had *two* open 3/16" holes on top of the fwd half of F-704
once all was said and done, but I did fill them with AN3-12A / AN365. The
holes at the bottom opposite these 3/16" holes are 1/4"...not sure if that's
what you were referring to.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage)
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | alternative engines |
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative
engines in the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I
found that the mention of anything other than a "certified" engine was cause
for flames, mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion &
protectionism. This most recent discussion has been well balanced with
intelligent discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use
in aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets
not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well
I'm almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or
less) than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work & thought,
but it has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not
flying yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
at some of the FWF packages available from NSI & Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't
know a great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF
package available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI & Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller
is a very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to
the Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative
engines have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on
a discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from
those that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that
are speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of
failures as well as success so that we all learn from our collective
experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
alternative engines
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative engines in the last
2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I found that the mention
of anything other than a certified engine was cause for flames, mostly based
on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion protectionism. This most recent
discussion has been well balanced with intelligent discussion from both sides
of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use in aviation,
I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently (myself included).
No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of date, but does
the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a conversion of a
successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The future engine will
be something so radical that it's acceptance into this marketplace will be it's
greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly changing, so lets hope it gets
a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets not forget
that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well I'm almost
finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or less) than the cost
of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work thought, but it has also been
the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not flying yet and I fully
expect a few problems and frustrations before all is finished, but I welcome
them as challenges.
For those that claim it will take a year longer, I say take a look at some of
the FWF packages available from NSI Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't know a great
deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF package available,
far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the Eggenfeller can be lifted
straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller is a very significant
savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to the Eggenfeller,
so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative engines have all been
eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on a discussion
group for the engine they are considering, to get info from those that are
actually using a particular engine, rather than those that are speculating. For
myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of failures as well
as success so that we all learn from our collective experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:AD search - how |
Jerry,
Don't bother. With the sensenich prop, you are not eligible for the TCD
time period anyway. Since you'll end up with the 40hr test period with the
experimental prop, there is NO legal reason to do an AD search. While it is
a good idea, it is NOT required on your engine at this point. It's
technically no longer a "certified" engine/prop combination and does not
need current AD's. The FAA cannot legally mandate that all AD's be current
if you're not applying for the certified time period. If there is an AD
outstanding on the engine, the FAA cannot force you to comply with it unless
you're trying to keep it "certfied". Truth be told, you can
cast/carve/layup your own "homemade" prop, and assemble an engine from any
parts you wish, both certified and not...al-a Lightspeed ignition, Nippon
Alternator, etc.
Just an FYI!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch, Minneapolis.
RV6, Flying 60hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of WPAerial(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
Jerry Wilken
Albany Oregon
N699WP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Uh, oh.....here we go again......
Jerry, your airframe and engine, being under the experimental
certificate, are not subject to ADs. You may wish to be aware of them
for your own piece of mind, but you can legally install and fly any ol'
kind of engine, in any condition, you wish in your experimental
aircraft.
What kind of ADs would the inspector require if you had a Subaru, Mazda,
or Chevy engine?????
Another case of a DAR not knowing the regs...........sad........
Sam Buchanan
=====================================
WPAerial(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Jerry,
Try this site:
http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFram
e?OpenFrameSet
Select AD BY MAKE on left side of screen. Choose Textron Lycoming and then
find your engine and then Sensenich for prop info.
Sometimes this site doesn't cooperate but keep at it.
Jerry Calvert
Edmond Ok
RV6 N296JC(res)
----- Original Message -----
From: <WPAerial(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and
prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure
how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he
wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Helms" <jhelms(at)i1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
Reposted from VansAirforce Yahoo group in response to a claim that several
insurance companies were writing coverage for Suburu's....
My initial response was "None of the companies (I work with all of them
except AVEMCO) will do Suburu engine powered RVs." It had been a while
since I had polled each and every company about this specific issue. So I
decided to do it again, and I must admit that I was wrong. Here were my
findings:
I just verified that with the underwriters of the new EAA "program"
(Global/AAU) and US Specialty Insurance company (which has always been into
writing homebuilt coverages) and neither will do Suburu engines. I know
AIG, USAIG, Phoenix won't do it (I've asked them again as recently as last
week). That leaves W. Brown (which doesn't really even do airplanes smaller
than a Baron, and their prices are too high anyway) and Aerospace Insurance
Managers (AIM).
I got a very interesting answer from AIM. Let me preface their answer by
saying that they write for 2 different companies (one A rated and one B+
rated.) You may get either one depending on the state you live in. Almost
all the other companies left in Aviation are A+ rated or better.
AIM said generally no, but if we had trouble placing coverage (which we
would since no one else will do it but AVEMCO the direct writer) they would
consider it. They added that they would consider it as long as nothing was
too "weird" about the risk. I would take that to mean a pilot over the age
of 65, in a state they don't like, based on a less than 2000' grass strip,
or something like that. This is a much more positive answer than I've ever
received about these engines. It is a step in a positive direction for
those of you dead set (sorry) about using them.
As I said before, I am glad AVEMCO will do them. Please remember, though,
the differences in AVEMCO's policy vs. any other. They limit the liability
payout to everyone not just passengers inside your plane (they do per person
sub-limits instead of the per passenger which all other companies do.) And
they further sublimit your family members (which no other companies do) to
25% of the sub-limit.
There may be isolated instances where these engines are being covered by the
other companies, but that does not mean they will or intend to write
coverage for these engines. Those are mistakes. I have my fair share of
mistakes that I have written and are currently on the books, as I mentioned
before.
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Pleasure and Business Branch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: RV-List: alternative engines
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative
engines in the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I
found that the mention of anything other than a "certified" engine was cause
for flames, mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion &
protectionism. This most recent discussion has been well balanced with
intelligent discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use
in aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets
not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well
I'm almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or
less) than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work & thought,
but it has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not
flying yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
at some of the FWF packages available from NSI & Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't
know a great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF
package available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI & Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller
is a very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to
the Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative
engines have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on
a discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from
those that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that
are speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of
failures as well as success so that we all learn from our collective
experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
alternative engines
Hey List;
I've noticed a dramatic shift in attitudes toward alternative engines in
the last 2 years on this list. When I first began my project, I found that
the mention of anything other than a certified engine was cause for flames,
mostly based on weak arguments rooted in tradition, emotion protectionism.
This most recent discussion has been well balanced with intelligent
discussion from both sides of the issue.
While I don't believe that all auto engines can be adapted for use in
aviation, I do applaud those that are willing to experiment intelligently
(myself included). No one can deny that certified engines are decades out of
date, but does the future of aviation need an upgrade to those designs or a
conversion of a successful auto engine? Ultimately, I believe neither. The
future engine will be something so radical that it's acceptance into this
marketplace will be it's greatest challenge, but attitudes are slowly
changing, so lets hope it gets a chance ( and that I can afford it!)
When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming, lets not
forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
Often I hear claims that any conversion won't save you a dime. Well I'm
almost finished my rotary installation and I've only spent half (or less)
than the cost of a mid-time Lyc. It has been allot of work thought, but it
has also been the best, most rewarding part of the project. I'm not flying
yet and I fully expect a few problems and frustrations before all is
finished, but I welcome them as challenges.
For those that claim it will take a year longer, I say take a look at some
of the FWF packages available from NSI Eggenfeller Subaru. I don't know a
great deal about them, but they appear to be the most complete FWF package
available, far better than even Van's package. I've heard that the
Eggenfeller can be lifted straight from the crate onto the firewall.
The NSI Powersport packages are quite pricey, but the Eggenfeller is a
very significant savings over a comparable Lyc.
Some (all?) insurance companies have even given their approval to the
Eggenfeller, so many of the reasons to stay away from alternative engines
have all been eliminated.
Anyone considering an alternative engine would do well to enlist on a
discussion group for the engine they are considering, to get info from those
that are actually using a particular engine, rather than those that are
speculating. For myself the FlyRotary list (formerly PlugsUp) has been
invaluable.
Intelligent, open discussion like this encourages sharing of failures as
well as success so that we all learn from our collective experiences.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
> It was not even really successful from an engineering point of view,
> as it was too heavy to be a success in the aviation market.
> Kevin
Kevin et al:
I really enjoy these discussions on engines and propellers because they
indicate both the frustrations and aspirations of the writers. Sometimes I
can't resist shooting off my mouth a bit, so what follows is mostly opinion.
You have touched on a point that is not often made and when it is discussed,
is often misrepresented; weight, with a capital "W".
I suggest that there is only one reason to use an auto engine in an
airplane: "You Want To". It is a sufficient reason. All else is dross. The
"want to" can be abetted by such things as the challenge, the low initial
cost, the satisfaction of solving the problems associated with such a
project, the desire for something different, the aggravation of using
antique engines using tractor technology, etc, etc. but beyond that, there
is little reason to do such a thing.
Weight: With the exception of some of the rotary engines, every auto
conversion I know of is substantially heavier than its Lyc counterpart.
This is important. Not only does it compromise the design load factor for
the aircraft but it must reduce performance. It has been said that each 3
pounds added weight is about the equivalent of 1 horsepower. Since it is
seldom that an airplane is designed around a liquid cooled engine, the extra
weight is where you really don't want it, thus changing the stability and
control characteristics. A recent article about a Cassutt with a MR2 engine
suggests that at 760 pounds it is about 160 pounds over normal. Yet Bill
Cassutt's original weighed less that 500 pounds and more recent ones are not
uncommonly below 600. An RV-8 with a Chev LS-l and composite prop
apparently weighs 1275 pounds. A 4.3 liter Chev with Warp Drive prop was
about 50 pounds heavier than with a 200 hp Lyc and McCauley metal prop.
Performance with the 2 setups was "about the same". The all aluminum V10
Viper engine appears to weigh 620 pounds. All aluminum liquid cooled
engines are not very light. Especially as installed.
Complexity: The Lycoming and Continental engines as mechanisms are rather
simple. Some would say simpleminded. An auto engine is apt to be more
complex and when coupled with all the stuff needed to make them work in an
airplane becomes much more complex. It may have been Bill Stout who said
"Simplicate and add more lightness". With auto engines, not much chance.
With complexity comes opportunity for failure. Orenda still has reliability
problems even having spent many millions on development.
Compatibility: Matching a propeller to a car engine is perhaps not so
difficult in the lower power ranges but as power goes up, the constant speed
question becomes more prominent. Hydraulic CS props are not supported. I
know, I know, electrics are available but they are slow and only marginally
suitable for maneuvering flight. Still suitable for some.
Efficiency: Can be ok, but it doesn't come easy. A friend who has a
Mustang II with a Buick aluminum V8, in addition to weighing 200 pounds more
that a companion aircraft with 150 Lyc, burns half again as much fuel and
doesn't fly nearly as well. My 160hp RV-4 can literally fly circles around
it. Cooling drag is not as easy to defeat as one might think.
This little writing is not meant to be a condemnation of the subject idea.
If one wants to build this way, more power to you, to coin a phrase. Any
data you develop and are willing to share will be accepted and appreciated.
I hope to increase awareness of what is involved in such a project and Mick
Myal would really appreciate a writeup for his "Contact" magazine.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Just a clarification:
The Sensenich 70 series fixed metal prop for the O-320 is indeed
certified with the FAA's blessing; the prop for the O-360 is not.
The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however. There
is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with all
ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop". However,
since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just a
quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours. Install a wood prop on a
box-stock, brand new out-of-the-crate Lycoming from Lycoming themselves,
and you are rewarded with a 40 hour flyoff.
Go figure.......
Sam Buchanan
============================
Stein Bruch wrote:
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Don't bother. With the sensenich prop, you are not eligible for the TCD
> time period anyway. Since you'll end up with the 40hr test period with the
> experimental prop, there is NO legal reason to do an AD search. While it is
> a good idea, it is NOT required on your engine at this point. It's
> technically no longer a "certified" engine/prop combination and does not
> need current AD's. The FAA cannot legally mandate that all AD's be current
> if you're not applying for the certified time period. If there is an AD
> outstanding on the engine, the FAA cannot force you to comply with it unless
> you're trying to keep it "certfied". Truth be told, you can
> cast/carve/layup your own "homemade" prop, and assemble an engine from any
> parts you wish, both certified and not...al-a Lightspeed ignition, Nippon
> Alternator, etc.
>
> Just an FYI!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein Bruch, Minneapolis.
> RV6, Flying 60hrs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of WPAerial(at)aol.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>
>
> FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and prop.
> what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure how
> to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he wants.
> I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
>
> Jerry Wilken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
Hi, ELT (where?) Listers! I am amused by all the under-the-floor-board
suggestions! I hope that everybody that mounts things below them remember to
put drainage holes so the equipment doesn't get wet socks in the event of a
bad rainstorm when you leave your pride-and-joy parked somewhere over night!
I don't know if the -7 has baggage side-panels like the -6, -6A have but
if it does, look up my posting of 11/14 re strobe P.S. and ELT in which I
described the location of my ACK ELT on the top of the rear starboard panel.
The ELT, control unit and the antenna are all installed inside in that area
and all accessible by the pilot reaching over the back of the passenger
seat. I have read plenty of SAR mission reports looking for overdue pilots
and not finding them due to absent ELT signals, only to find later that the
antenna had broken off in the crash. Hence my decision to mount it inside
the rear window!-No drag!
Cheers!!-------Henry Hore, 6-A, C-GELS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
| Subject: | Taildragger Vs.Ti Gear |
For me the decision would be based on the kind of runways or landing areas being
used. If I were going into any rough strips are grass fields that may have soft
spots I would stick with a taildragger.
The problem with the small tri-gear aircraft is the size of the nose wheel. If
it drops into a hole or a soft spot the nose goes down shifting the c of g forward
putting more weight on the nose gear and further aggravating the situation.
The first to go is the prop and in a severe situation will collapse the nose
gear.
A taildragger landing in the same conditions would not be a problem. Over the years
I have seen several tri-geared aircraft severely damaged in this way. Not
long ago I witnessed an incident on our airport, one row of hangars had no paving
in front. It was after a heavy rain and this chap pulled his C182 out of
the hangar and started to taxi away, got about twenty feet the nose wheel went
through a soft spot and he curled the tips of his prop.
In another incident I watched a Twin Bonanza taxi into a sandy area, the nose wheel
started to sink and instead of stopping added more power and collapsed the
nose wheel resulting in a double engine change.
This on a strip in the arctic that we were landing DC 3's on every day.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay,B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | for sale O 320 E3D |
Helping a friend sell his engine. Log book, 1600 TT, OSMO, all accessories
except Alt.$12,500 Also new Sensenich prop never installed,prop extension,
backing plate, spinner, prop bolts. $1,650. Better hurry.
Terry E. Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Jim,
The Jabiru flat 8 fascinated me when it was first reported. I believe that the
factory placed the first one in a scale Spitfire replica. There has been little
or no info as to how the flight testing is going. One curious design feature
of this engine is that the crankshaft is made from billet steel on a CNC machine.
Traditionally, high powered engines use forged steel crankshafts.
Has anyone heard any "progress" reports on Jabiru's progress with this engine?
Charlie Kuss
>
>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: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
Wow, sounds like quite a trip! So inquiring minds want to know - did you do
three point or wheel landings in that crosswind?
Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Actually Jim,
Getting a handle on the mysterious black art of cam grinding is easier than
most people think. Most cam grinding shops can utilize one or another set of
masters to modify a cam to suit an intended use. For some more dollars they
can make up new masters for a new application. They can put a 340 Dodge
grind on a Chevy cam if you like. As it happens this choice can work out
very well for the engine tuning capable types. There are a plethora of
grinds for Chevy ford Chrysler and all others. Shaddbolt Cams in Vancouver
BC. was almost a second home for a few years, way back there a while. I had
them regrind a nice custom ground cam for my Mazda pickup a few months ago.
Within reason, if you can describe an intended use any cam can be custom
ground to suit. While at Shaddbolt I conferred with Barry about this very
subject and can also say that grinding cams for Lycomings is really no
different than any other types.
It's only Rocket science if that's what you are building. :)!
Good flights, Greased landings,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Oke" <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
> I was interested in the so-called Blanton Ford V-6 engine a few years ago
> and bought his package. One of the key work items was to have the cam
> re-ground to alter the torque-horsepower curves to something more useful
for
> aviation use. So the situation can be addressed. Of course, regrinding
cams
> is a bigger engineering task than most people can tackle and could be said
> to invalidate the automotive durability testing that was done no matter
how
> rigorous it was.
>
> Jim Oke
> Wpg., MB
> RV-6A - at the hangar now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <sears(at)searnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
> The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however. There
> is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
> not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with all
> ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
> desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
> has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
> plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
> that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
>
Sam is probably right on this issue; but, it did give me peace of mind to
know that my engine was rebuilt with all ADs, SBs, etc. taken care of. My
engine was rebuilt to new conditions plus the addition of the Ney nozzle
STC. All crankcase parts, except the sump, were rebuilt and certified, as
well. I wish I'd done the sump because it bit me later. I just had to put
a rebuilt one on the engine, this month, to stop induction leaks at the
nipples. I'll know better the next time I do an overhaul.
> It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
> have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop". However,
> since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just a
> quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
> installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
> Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
> prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours.
This is not true in all cases. My engine and prop did get the 25 hour fly
off; but, a friend's engine and prop didn't because his was rebuilt to 160hp
without the proper paperwork to support the power increase. I'm not sure if
his log book showed the ADs, etc, were complied with, or not, either. The
friend got a 40 hour fly off.
With that, there seems to be a big difference in what DARs will do, just as
there are for our FAA inspectors. I'm hoping the new DAR-AB program will
help eliminate some of that. At least with that program, we may be lucky
enough to get more than one DAR's opinion. Right now, we only have one DAR
in our area who does our inspections. The FAA doesn't, at all, anymore.
Other than price, he's a pretty good one.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: RV-List: alternative engines
> When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming,
lets
> not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
>
> S. Todd Bartrim
> Turbo 13B rotary powered
Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he chose. The
decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a dealer.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Fowler" <mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Taildragger Vs.Ti Gear |
Thanks everyone,
Wow, alot of great advice. I'm leaning toward the Trigear. I just really
love the way
the taildragger looks.
Thanks again for all the advice,
Mark Fowler
mark(at)fowlerssheetmetal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post |
The FAA inspector has ask for the paper work from the AD search for this
fridays inspection. I guess if AD are not complete I will have to do 40 Hour
fly off.
Jerry Willken
Albany Oregon
N699WP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
With reference to cams, Brian Crower (Crower Cams) pulled out an old
master to make me one for the 4.3. Fred Carter, in Colorado wrote a
number of articles for CONTACT magazine, has built many engines. His 4.3
made strong power from 3000 to 5000 rpm. So I chose to use that grind. I
intend to never exceed 4500 and hopefully cruise at 3500 rpm.
3500 rpm is not much higher than I hit , on an open road, from Montclair
to Albany, to see my grand daughter. Hahaha. Radar detector is a must!
Barry Pote
> Actually Jim,
>
> Getting a handle on the mysterious black art of cam grinding is easier than
> most people think. Most cam grinding shops can utilize one or another set of
> masters to modify a cam to suit an intended use.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post |
Jerry, even though your inspector is making you jump through some
unnecessary hoops, you are still going to end up with a great plane! :-)
The forty hour fly off is not a bad thing. It takes forty hours to shake
out all the systems and gain confidence in your aimanship in the new
plane. Since you will be flying a lot, the forty hours will not steal
much calendar time, and once the test phase is over, you will fly with
assurance that you have a safe vehicle in which to transport your
valuable passengers.
Enjoy!
Sam Buchanan
P.S. *After* you have the pink slip in hand, hand a copy of the FARs to
the FAA man and request that he show you chapter and verse to justify
the AD search!!
=================================
WPAerial(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> The FAA inspector has ask for the paper work from the AD search for this
> fridays inspection. I guess if AD are not complete I will have to do 40 Hour
> fly off.
>
> Jerry Willken
> Albany Oregon
> N699WP
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Long First Flight Report (Great Story) |
Reposted from last year. Originally written by Scott Revere (aka ABAYMAN). We
will miss him.
Paul Besing
>1st. flight log entry;
>
>Finally, the sun was shinning, a gentle wind was blowing down a dry runway
>27. The grass all around Peter O Knight Airport had just been cut short, and
>the smell was permeating the air. It was a comfortable 75 degrees this Sunday
>morning, and there wasn't a soul around. This was going to be the day. The
>day we all dream about. After years being cooped up in the poorly lit, shops,
>hangers and living rooms, all across the world, the homebuilder emerges from
>his garage, with the birth of a new flying contraption, created by his own
>two hands.
> I had gone over every checklist 3 times. I poked, prodded, wiggled,
>waggled, pulled, and pushed, everything on the new plane, everything seemed
>to be firmly attached. Then I clicked, flipped, spun, and turned, every
>electrical toy on the panel. Everything came to life and gyros started
>whining. I had no more excuses, I couldn't find a reason to put this day off
>any longer. It was a queasy feeling building in my stomach. A feeling of
>uncertainty, anxiousness, excitement, nervousness all rolled up in a large
>pit and sat there eating my stomach lining out. Although I had carefully
>handcrafted this pile of aluminum and wires into the magnificent machine it
>was into today, I didn't feel that I was competent enough, with my whole 100
>hours of flight time in Cessna 172's, to do the honors. I looked around for
>someone to double check all my work, but no one around had the qualifications
>to take on such a task.
>The test pilot who was on standby, is a fellow by the name Dee Olmernick. He
>is a retired airforce tests pilot who lives about 30 minutes away. So I
>called him up, and he said he wasn't surprised that I picked this day to do
>the first flight, as" all conditions were green", to put it in his words. He
>said he was getting dressed as we spoke, and he would be there to take the
>first flight, and deliver it to Vandenburg for me. There he would transition
>me into flying my own aircraft, and set me up on the flight-testing program
>he developed. You see, I had to take off from Peter O Knight, and fly to
>Vandenburg airport. Peter O Knight is under Tampa's class B airspace. The
>pattern altitude is 800 feet and at 1200 ft is where class B starts.
>Vandenburg wasn't so close to the class B airspace of Tampa Bay. It also had
>a lot of cleared land around incase of an emergency landing of some sort. It
>would be the home base for all future flight-testing.
> After hanging up the phone with him, I realized I needed to get some
>pictures of the blessed event, and have someone do a once over my project,
>before it became an official airplane. So I summoned up old Ron Hughes, a
>nice fellow and a homebuilder as well. He didn't seem as excited about this
>moment as I was, perhaps I should have waited until he awoke, before I came
>calling. A few cups of coffee later, he was buzzing all around my pride and
>joy looking in every nook and cranny. He stepped back after a few minutes
>under the cowling, and gave her an eager thumbs up. Shucks, I thought, he's
>going to make me do this thing today. Then I finally came up with an excuse!
>I didn't have a chase plane, to follow Dee to the nearest airport. Ron ( the
>intelligent man that he is ), suggested that I rent an airplane for him to
>pilot, and be the chase plane, so I could get some air to air photos. He
>would then fly Dee back to his car at Peter O Knight, and drive my car back
>to Vandenburg. Before I could give him an " I didn't bring any money excuse "
>he reminded me that I still had a bunch of credit with the FBO, for
>installing an air conditioning system for them this summer.
> I agreed, and he went on to preflight the Warrior, on the rental
> line,
>while I would do some high speed taxi testing. I made two fast taxi runs down
>the runway, and everything was feeling OK. I looked over and saw Ron still
>doing the preflight, so I elected to do one more high-speed run.
> As I lined up with the centerline, a Mooney out of nowhere, called he
>was on a very short final. I pushed the throttle forward quickly to get to
>the first taxi way exit, but before I could think the plane lifted off the
>ground, and I was committed to go around the patch. My heart was pounding
>like a big band drum. I couldn't believe I was off the ground. This is not
>the plan. What do I do next. Oh yeah, get some altitude, keep the power in,
>don't let go of the throttle, careful don't stall, fly the plane,. I was
>frozen in time, with my eyes wide open, fixated on the instruments in front
>of me. Ok airspeed 110 kts,. Climbing, aircraft pulling to the left, oh yeah
>lots of right rudder, keep it centered, fighting with the very sensitive
>controls, over controlling all the way, as I kept climbing. A quick look
>back, I see Ron taxiing in the Warrior but nowhere near the runway, and
>nowhere near me to give instructions.
>When all of a sudden I hear over the radio, " aircraft over Peter O Knight,
>say your ID", Oh S%
T, I busted the class B airspace! , Should I lie about my
>tail number?, should I just get down without answering? Should I fly straight
>to Vandenburg, and hide in a hanger? What am I going to say, damn this thing
>is going everywhere, FLY THE PLANE!!!! I looked at my altimeter, Wow! 4
>thousand feet and climbing, how did I get up here so fast? Level out, hold
>her steady, man look at the airspeed climb, throttle back, get control. Again
>I hear, " aircraft off of Peter O Knight, your in Class B airspace and are
>about to enter McDill Airforce Base Airspace, Say Your Intentions And Your ID
>!! )
> Ok flying the airplane is not going to be enough, I'm going to
> have to
>say something. Let go of the throttle, what do I do with the blue knob? I
>hadn't been taught about that constant speed prop thing yet, but I did see my
>instructor pull it back after we took off in the Arrow the other day. Ok
>pull it back a little at a time, wait the engine is making a different noise.
>Ok, I need help, I have a death grip on the stick, and I'm biting hole in my
>lip, WHAT STILL CLIMBING!, 5 thousand feet, TRIM ! oh yeah, I need to take
>all the pressure off of the stick. Mac sure makes this easy, tap, tap, tap,
>ok getting close, nose down, a little left aileron, more left aileron, whoa!
>Ball way off center, let go of the rudder, damn, trim the other way
>now.
> Ok starting to settle down, " Aircraft You Have Entered Government
>Airspace And Are Demanded To Turn Around, Before Defensive Actions Will Be
>Taken." There is no getting out of this one. Let me confess now before they
>shoot a missile at me, and take me out. I flipped the audio panel to com 1
>and pressed the mic on the stick grip, " pa pah pa please don't shoot " I
>said. They quickly replied, " aircraft turn around and take a heading of 090,
>and say your ID" I couldn't think of any proper terminology or phraseology,
>so I just blurted everything out in 1 sentence. " I didn't mean to take off,
>I am flying a experimental RV6A, and supposed to land at Vandenburg." They
>replied " experimental you need to vacate McDill Airspace and tune your radio
>to 121.5" I had already made a gentle turn to 090 and I turned the radio to
>121.5. "ok I'm on 121.5 and on a 090 heading" a different guy responded, "
>experimental you just cleared the Mcdill Airspace but are in my final
>approach corridor, descend to 2000 feet, there is a 747 at your 3:o'clock." I
>responded "Wilco".
> Then they said the sweetest words every homebuilder wants to hear in
>there career of flying, "Experimental, slow to 200 " as nervous as I was, and
>as in as much trouble as I was in, I couldn't help but grin. I had pretty
>much acknowledged that this was going to be my last flight, as I knew if I
>survived, they would not only yank my ticket, they would take my plane away
>also. Now I'm over Tampa Bay, nothing but water everywhere, I have a good
>view of the Skyscrapers downtown Tampa, The St.Pete Peir, The Skyway Bridge,
>all very clear, and hey, what's that huge ship down there? That's the biggest
>military ship I'd ever seen in and around Tampa, I always thought the bay was
>too shallow to allow such a massive ship like that. Ohh, so that's what it
>is, it's an aircraft carrier. What's that doing here? Maybe that's why they
>were so pissed that I was in their space. Maybe that's how they were going to
>shoot me down?
> Ok back to flying the plane, slow down, maybe if I push the blue
> knob
>forward, yes, different noise, little back on the throttle, silence. Oh no my
>headphone went out, no its not my headphone, IT'S MY ENGINE !!!. push the
>throttle back where it was, nothing, push the red, no the blue, still
>nothing, This is it, I'm gonna go in the drink, come on, don't give up,
>starter , throttle, mixture prop, pushing , pulling, oh fuel valve, on , ok ,
>switch tanks, now throttle mix, props, pulling pushing , starter, still,
>nothing, power panel, still have electric, must be fuel, come on, pumping the
>throttles and mixture, playing with the prop settings, and hitting the
>starter in between each function. Come now think! Glide speed, what is the
>glide speed? Had no testing done yet, keep it at 90, that should be safe, but
>I'm loosing altitude, at 1500 feet. Settled at 90 dropping about 600
>fpm.
> Look for a landing spot, there nothing but a small sand bar, way to
>small, land is too far, I'll never make it, which way is the wind coming
>from? Doesn't matter, I only have 1 choice, by now the guy on the radio was
>barking vectors but I couldn't hear what he was saying, " mayday mayday
>mayday, experimental lost engine, can't get it to restart, send help, over
>the bay, off Mcdill Airforce Base, mayday, mayday, mayday." I thought about
>turning back, I looked and saw the aircraft carrier. Should I turn back? I
>always heard this was bad. Not enough altitude to make the turn. Wait, that's
>on take off when your about 500 to 600 feet up, I've got 1100 now, slow
>gentile turn , humm, this is not good, the deck has a bunch of people and
>boxes and I see the cables strung across the deck, 2 no 3 cables, that will
>surely flip me if I hit them, should I ditch in the water or try for the
>carrier, quick thinking led me to believe if I ditched in the salt water of
>the bay, I would probably survive, and the plane would be ruined. If I try
>and make the carrier, might flip on the cables, might hit those big boxes,
>don't know what is in them, might be real solid hit, might even hit some
>people. Still aimed at the carrier I think I can make it if I stretch it a
>little, ok 80 glide speed still settling down, try to restart again, no joy,
>S#$T !! this sucks.
> Ok tell them what I'm going to do. " Tampa Approach, experimental has no
>engine, only choice is the water or the carrier, I think I'll try to make the
>carrier, if I can't I'll ditch near it so I could have some help right away"
>They came back," experimental, we cannot warn the carrier, suggest you ditch.
>What is your aircraft ID!" at that moment, the people on the deck started
>scrambling as if a horn went off. Boxes quickly started disappearing off the
>deck, I could see that they were aware that I was going to try and make it on
>the deck, the only snag was the cables, and the length of the runway. I had
>no idea what the stalling speed was, or even if my airspeed indicator was
>accurate. I was afraid I would stall just at the threshold of the deck and
>hit that giant wall of iron. So I would have to land faster, than I would
>like, and that meant possibly going off the other end. That's if I didn't rip
>the gear off or flip over. At about 500 feet I decided t slow down a little
>to see if I could feel a buffet, but if I stalled, I don't know if I could
>recover in time at that altitude, surely I would plunge into the
>bay.
> I was amazed that they had cleared the flight deck. I mean there were
>a lot of big boxes there just a few seconds ago, now I had a wide open
>runway, although very short. All the sailors were taking positions of safety.
>I could now see a red siren light turning, so I'm sure, they were waiting for
>me to land, or was about to shoot me down. Keep in mind this is happening in
>slow motion as I remember it, it seems like it was seconds. I was lined up,
>got the airspeed down to 55 indicated and felt a little burble. Whoa! That's
>enough, fly 60 dropping fast deck coming up fast, man it is short, when a
>calm voice came over the radio. " aircraft in distress, this is the air boss,
>you have permission to land, I'll drop the cables and put up the net" What!
>What he say! He has a net that want let me go over the end?! All of a sudden,
>the cables dropped slacked on the deck, and 2 arms on each side of the deck
>came up, a large holed net made out of a twine looking material raised on the
>rails and tightened up. I couldn't believe it, I'm gonna make it, I've got
>the deck made, a little high, ok flaps, flaps, where's the flaps? Ok no
>flaps, slip, no don't slip at this airspeed, just put it down on the deck,
>hear it comes, holding my breath, I see I cleared the threshold still too
>high over the deck, gonna over fly the net, screw it slip!! Full right
>rudder left aileron , kaplunk, brakes, stand on the brakes!!! Brakes pulling
>to one side let off the other side, swinging back and forth. whammmmpppp. In
>the net, the prop blades wrap it up, in a knot, and the net cables gives a
>little with enough tension that it slows me to a stop.
> I'm alive, I'm alive. The plane, how much damage, what kind of
>trouble am I in? will I have to pay for the net, I just tore up? How am I
>gonna get this thing off of here? What happened to the engine, why did I have
>this trouble on the first flight. Where's Ron,? And Dee, man if my wife finds
>out about this. She will kill me. I wonder where they are and what they are
>doing. I wonder if they know where I'm at. Did I say thanks to the air boss,
>I can't remember. Just then about 10 sailors were untangling the net and
>trying to figure out how to open my tip up canopy. One sailor had a tool in
>his hand and was about to smash it open. I screamed at him, NNOOOO!!!!. I
>unlatched and opened it up.
> There were medical people everywhere, fire people everywhere. And
>they reminded me to secure the aircraft, I guess they meant, mags off,
>switches off, everything off, brakes off, but I think my foot is permanently
>attached to the brake pedals. The shoulder belts really did a good job, but I
>didn't hit all that hard. The way I was swerving when I hit, I thought I had
>broken an axle or wheel, but it was the rudder pedal that failed giving me a
>false sensation. Once I departed the aircraft, the air boss came up to me,
>and invited me to have a little "let's get to know each other session with
>the commander" meeting. Here it comes. Hung off the highest mask? Walk the
>plank? Shot out of a cannon? Which will it be, I asked embarrassed, at my
>stupidity. I was not expecting to here the words I heard next. The commander
>commended me on my landing, and congratulated me on the decision I made, then
>he asked if I built the RV6A myself. As he has a son building one, and is
>just about ready to fly it him self. What's this, a connection with the big
>guy? Could I be this lucky 2 times in 1 day?
> Thinks kinda got bogged down in paperwork after that. Licenses,
>insurance, pilots logs, aircraft papers, etc. I had everything they wanted
>back in my aircraft. I wanted to go back to my aircraft and do a thorough
>inspection, as they had wisked me away so fast, I couldn't get a good look at
>it. They took me down some stairs, I was wondering where they were taking
>me,( THE DUGEON ), but when they opened the door, I was under the flight deck
>and my plane was being tied down. They had somehow gotten my plane under the
>deck with some large elevator. I looked it over, no damage that I could tell,
>other than a little scratched paint where the cables on the edge of the net
>rubbed. The prop didn't even look bent, but I'll have to spin it to check it
>out. They asked if I wanted their mechanic to look at it, but I felt
>overwhelmed, and didn't want to impose more than I had
>already.
>
> After I gave them the paperwork they requested, I asked how was I
>going to get off the ship, how was I going to get the plane back to the
>airport, implying that I still could keep it. He said he would have a chopper
>from Lakeland fly down and strap it up and unload it at the airport. Peter O
>Knight wasn't far away. He said he was going to order it as a training
>exercise if I signed the appropriate forms waving responsibility, and I
>agreed whole-heartedly. I thought I would have to remove the wings, but he
>assured me, no it wasn't necessary.
> I showed my concern about violating the class B airspace, and what
>kind of trouble was I going to be in with them. He said he had no control
>over them. ( Darn, just when I was doing so good. ) he gave me a phone number
>to the person who was going to coordinate the helicopter mission, and
>escorted me to a little boat, where they dropped me off at he boat dock at
>the Davis Island Yacht Club. A very short walk to Peter O Knight Airport,
>where I meet Ron and Dee, sitting there wondering, what in the world happen
>to me. They had flown to Vandenburg together looking for me. Couldn't find
>me, so returned to Peter O Knight. Ron was busy preflighting to notice what
>happened when I took off. Millions of questions soon followed, especially
>when the manager of the airport came out to get my N number, as Tampa
>International never gotten it from me. I was caught hands down. So far, all I
>had to do was file an incident report. The news media caught wind of the
>event, but was denied permission to fly into Mcdill's Airspace to get video.
>The air boss did video the landing on their emergency-landing camera. I'll
>try and get a copy of it tomorrow. I think they will deliver my aircraft
>tomorrow at noon. I'll get some pictures of it on the helicopter. I have a
>few squawks about the airplane, but I don't have a good 1st. Flight report on
>flight testing. Wow what a day, I think how lucky I was, What a day dream
>I'll never forget.
>( No aircraft, persons, tools, chemicals, animals, or any organic or no so
>organic materials were hurt in the invention of this figment of my
>imagination. All persons, and or characters are purely fictional, and no way
>represent the actual guys in this story. Filmed in technicolor, and
>panorama. Copywrited in 2001.
>Would like to thank the US Air Force, Tampa International, Davis Island Yacht
>Club, Peter O Knight, and Vandenburg.
>Also the city of Tampa, and the Base of McDill
>
>Written and directed by: Awesome Powers
This bit of entertainment was brought to you by Scott Revera in Tampa,
Florida. (Sorry if I misspelled your last name Scott). Also known as
"ABAYMAN".
This bit of entertainment was brought to you by Scott Revera in Tampa,
Florida. (Sorry if I misspelled your last name Scott). Also known as
"ABAYMAN".
Won't you dig deep and consider giving a little something to Matt for this
great list.
You can make your contribution at the following web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or send a personal check to:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
Al Mojzisik
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV assessor values - WAS:Tailwheel blah blah |
>
>In a message dated 12/3/2002 8:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes:
>
>And as long as the advertised price of RVs remains high in all the aviation
>rags, those of us in extortionist states will continue to pay huge personal
>property taxes as counties look to build their coffers. One way experimental
>aircraft are valued for tax purposes is by the assessor looking at the asking
>prices in Trade-a-Plane.
I've heard of people establishing the make of their RV as some unique
name. Maybe choosing one that suggests that the plane is an ultralight or
some such. How does the assessor evaluate a "Fogmoth"? He asks you to
supply the value!
I'm too square for such stuff, I guess.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
bogus. While it is true that once the aircraft is issued its airworthiness
certificate ADs are not compulsory but are still very much a safety issue.
Nobody argues that point, I'm sure. But during the course of certification,
and this is where I'm sure you disagree, the inspector, be it FAA or a DAR,
is determining whether, in his/her opinion, the aircraft is safe to operate,
and what the chances are that the pilot will possibility hurt/kill anybody
else or somebody elses property. If part of that process is having the ADs
checked for installed equipment that is Type Certificated then so be it.
Call it blackmail, or what you will, but that is the way it is.
In 1998 there was a ruling from Washington DC that determined that ADs can
be made mandatory for experimental aircraft, but it was determined that,
because until the mid 80's engines and props were not part of the
information gathered for Amateur-built aircraft, there is no system to make
sure all owners get the information, and, therefore, it is not enforcable.
So our (the FAA) only system to ensure safety is have the ADs checked at the
time of certification. This is slowly getting out to all inspectors.
Granted, lots of them have either not gotten the info yet, or don't care.
I, for one, do care, because I am the one who has to face the wife and kids
when someone has an accident, and I want to be able to do that with as clean
a conscience as possible.
The bottom line is, yes they are not mandatory, but unless an AD search is
conducted on Type Certificated products installed on your aircraft, you may
not get your airworthiness certificate.
Sorry guys, but that is the cold hard truth. Now flame away all you want.
You're entitled. And, by the way, I am the one inspecting Jerry's RV.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:00:21 -0600
>
>
>Just a clarification:
>
>The Sensenich 70 series fixed metal prop for the O-320 is indeed
>certified with the FAA's blessing; the prop for the O-360 is not.
>
>The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however. There
>is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
>not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with all
>ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
>desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
>has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
>plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
>that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
>
>It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
>have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop". However,
>since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just a
>quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
>installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
>Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
>prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours. Install a wood prop on a
>box-stock, brand new out-of-the-crate Lycoming from Lycoming themselves,
>and you are rewarded with a 40 hour flyoff.
>
>Go figure.......
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>============================
>
>Stein Bruch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > Don't bother. With the sensenich prop, you are not eligible for the TCD
> > time period anyway. Since you'll end up with the 40hr test period with
>the
> > experimental prop, there is NO legal reason to do an AD search. While
>it is
> > a good idea, it is NOT required on your engine at this point. It's
> > technically no longer a "certified" engine/prop combination and does not
> > need current AD's. The FAA cannot legally mandate that all AD's be
>current
> > if you're not applying for the certified time period. If there is an AD
> > outstanding on the engine, the FAA cannot force you to comply with it
>unless
> > you're trying to keep it "certfied". Truth be told, you can
> > cast/carve/layup your own "homemade" prop, and assemble an engine from
>any
> > parts you wish, both certified and not...al-a Lightspeed ignition,
>Nippon
> > Alternator, etc.
> >
> > Just an FYI!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stein Bruch, Minneapolis.
> > RV6, Flying 60hrs
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of WPAerial(at)aol.com
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> >
> >
> > FAA is inspecting my RV6A Fri. He wants an AD search on the engine and
>prop.
> > what is the web address? I think I 've found though a link, but not sure
>how
> > to use it or what I am looking for to write down in my search what he
>wants.
> > I have a rebuilt lycoming 0-320D2A and Sensenich fixed prop. ?
> >
> > Jerry Wilken
> > Albany Oregon
> > N699WP
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
| From: | Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net> |
Actually I don't think he is a dealer. He can't sell you an engine unless
you buy a kit. Sounds to me like he is only an OEM supplier.
> From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:56:55 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
>> When Van makes his usual recommendation to stick with Lycoming,
> lets
>> not forget that he is a Lycoming dealer.
>>
>> S. Todd Bartrim
>> Turbo 13B rotary powered
>
> Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he chose. The
> decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a dealer.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post |
Sam,
I can identify that reg right now. Take a look at FAR 39, as amended on SEP
27, 2002. There have been several changes to the reg. FAR 39.15
specifically states that ADs apply even if the individual product has been
changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addrerssed by
the AD. Then take a look at the new 39.3. It states that ADs apply to the
following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.
The times are changing, and the FAA is trying to close the loophole that
Experimenters have been enjoying for many years. With over 10% of the GA
registered aircraft in this country being Experimental Amateur-builts it had
to happen. Whether you, I , and anybody else likes it (or doesn't like it),
that is the way it is going to be.
Now don't go crazy quite yet. Because, as of right now, they still have not
figured out a way to ensure all owners of each product gets a copy of each
AD. Until they do, enforcment of ADs will not be able to happen. In my
opinion, and my opinion only, I think somebody will get smart and say that
for Experimental aircraft, ADs will become effective at the time of the
first annual condition inspection after the effective date of the AD. So at
each condition inspection, an AD search will be needed, and if any new ADs
are found they will then have to be dealt with. Again, this is my opinion
only.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post
>Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 09:41:09 -0600
>
>
>Jerry, even though your inspector is making you jump through some
>unnecessary hoops, you are still going to end up with a great plane! :-)
>
>The forty hour fly off is not a bad thing. It takes forty hours to shake
>out all the systems and gain confidence in your aimanship in the new
>plane. Since you will be flying a lot, the forty hours will not steal
>much calendar time, and once the test phase is over, you will fly with
>assurance that you have a safe vehicle in which to transport your
>valuable passengers.
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>P.S. *After* you have the pink slip in hand, hand a copy of the FARs to
>the FAA man and request that he show you chapter and verse to justify
>the AD search!!
>
>=================================
>
>WPAerial(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > The FAA inspector has ask for the paper work from the AD search for this
> > fridays inspection. I guess if AD are not complete I will have to do 40
>Hour
> > fly off.
> >
> > Jerry Willken
> > Albany Oregon
> > N699WP
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)attbi.com> |
> Randall,
> Did you ever find out if removing the paint and polishing the blades
voided
> the warranty?
> Did you do this by yourself?
Yes I did, and yes it does. Only found out after the fact however but
happily my prop has made it through the warranty period with no problems. As
far as I can tell their beef is with corrosion which is understandable. I do
keep it clean and polished (and in a hangar most of the time) so that
shouldn't be a problem.
I had my plane painted professionaly by a guy who does a lot of
experimentals (and warbirds) -- all custom stuff and he'd done the same
thing to a lot of props prior to mine so I felt comfortable him doing it on
mine. I did have it balanced afterward and it was nearly perfect already.
Randall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mstewart(at)qa.butler.com |
| Subject: | insurance for a subie info |
Well after reading many recent posts on the ins. ?, I checked with my subie
buddie Bob Goodman, flying a subie for 3 years, 300 hours on the plane. It
is a terrific plane, and not an Egg package. Here is his info on insurance:
=====
Mike,
I have had insurance on my Subaru since 1999, current rate is $ 1400/yr.
with Travers & Associates (800) 888-9859. They don't seen to care too much
about the engine, but are picky about pilot experience and use of aircraft.
in response to your attachemnt of :
"You cannot compare the Eggenfellner FWF package to a one-off home brew auto
conversion, that is simply not relevant"
Robert Paisley
RV-7, Eggenfellner Subaru
Builder's site"
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
Answer:
This is true, the Eggenfellner will never have the performance of mine, and
could never fit in an RV-4.
Bob Goodman
N311U
1st place 160 hp division, Sun 100, 2002.
===========
Mike Stewart
Flying next this funny sounding engine, and very nice guy, all the time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BELTEDAIR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Dear List. We at Belted Air Power have been flying auto power for 20 years
this Dec. 8th. We have 750 hrs. experience on the Buick V-8s and 425 hours on
the Chevy 4.3L V6 engine. On our part we have found that with the auto
engines people tend to get complacent. The engines don't use oil, don't leak
coolant etc. It's true we could use a better prop at altitude, but for
general all around flying the cost and fun is hard to beat. Our packages have
been engineered and flight proven. I don't want this to sound commercial, but
if any of you get to Las Vegas and call ahead of time to make sure were here,
fly ours and compare it for yourself. Jess
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mstewart(at)qa.butler.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
I have a NEW o-360 from lyc, a NEW hatrz c/s prop, and I got 40.
Dar said he "felt more comfortable if I flew the 40 than 25."
There is no consistency and there was no recourse.
FSDO said its his call. By the time I got done messing with the feds, I had
200 hours on her anyway. I had several changes made to my op lims I did not
like and FSDO removed many restrictions from my phase 2 at my request.
Mike Stewart
670hrs since x-mas.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:AD search - how |
No Flaming necessary Mike,
In my earlier post, I did not fully realize that the aircraft was using a
"certified engine/prop" combination. Had I know that I would totally agree
with you. In a case where they engine prop are not certified and my
inspector came to me with the same requirements for a non-certified
combination I would disagree.
If an inspector still tried to push the issue with a "non-certified"
combination, I would simply rip off the engine data plate, make up one of my
own and declare it airworthy. What would you as an inspector do in this
situation??
That isn't necessarily a prudent course of action, but more to prove a
point. I agree wholeheartedly that for safety reasons, one should make sure
they're complied with. My issue comes in from a regulatory standpoint and
differing interpretations of vague rules.
Thanks for your informative and usefull posts.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
RV7 getting ready to start!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
bogus. While it is true that once the aircraft is issued its airworthiness
certificate ADs are not compulsory but are still very much a safety issue.
Nobody argues that point, I'm sure. But during the course of certification,
and this is where I'm sure you disagree, the inspector, be it FAA or a DAR,
is determining whether, in his/her opinion, the aircraft is safe to operate,
and what the chances are that the pilot will possibility hurt/kill anybody
else or somebody elses property. If part of that process is having the ADs
checked for installed equipment that is Type Certificated then so be it.
Call it blackmail, or what you will, but that is the way it is.
In 1998 there was a ruling from Washington DC that determined that ADs can
be made mandatory for experimental aircraft, but it was determined that,
because until the mid 80's engines and props were not part of the
information gathered for Amateur-built aircraft, there is no system to make
sure all owners get the information, and, therefore, it is not enforcable.
So our (the FAA) only system to ensure safety is have the ADs checked at the
time of certification. This is slowly getting out to all inspectors.
Granted, lots of them have either not gotten the info yet, or don't care.
I, for one, do care, because I am the one who has to face the wife and kids
when someone has an accident, and I want to be able to do that with as clean
a conscience as possible.
The bottom line is, yes they are not mandatory, but unless an AD search is
conducted on Type Certificated products installed on your aircraft, you may
not get your airworthiness certificate.
Sorry guys, but that is the cold hard truth. Now flame away all you want.
You're entitled. And, by the way, I am the one inspecting Jerry's RV.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Mike, thanks for your reply. I do have a couple questions, however. :-)
Suppose (and this example is not an attempt to prompt a confrontation
but an effort to explore issues that could appear with an experimental
engine installation) I install a Lycoming in my RV-6 project and you are
assigned the task of inspection in regards to issuing the airworthiness
certificate. However, I have come up with an alternative way to supply
oil to the engine (dry sump with integrated pump) which means the
standard oil pump is no longer the primary source of oil pressure, and I
elect to retain the sintered iron pump gears in conflict with the oil
pump AD. I also have adapted automotive pistons to the Lycoming because
I feel my design promotes better combustion. In addition to that, the
ignition system is a design I have adapted from various automotive and
stationary powerplant components because I am convinced it works better
than the old mags.
How do you approach this engine? Is it a candidate for an airworthiness
certificate? Is it still a "Lycoming, type certificated" engine?
Does the installation of non-TSOed ignition systems, exhaust systems,
injection systems, and engine components jeopardize the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate to Lycoming-powered experimental aircraft due
to the guidelines you have outlined?
If not, why not? If so..........we got major problems......... :-)
Thanks in advance for your continued dialog on this very important
topic.
Sam Buchanan (still learning......)
===========================
Mike Robertson wrote:
>
>
> Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
> bogus. While it is true that once the aircraft is issued its airworthiness
> certificate ADs are not compulsory but are still very much a safety issue.
> Nobody argues that point, I'm sure. But during the course of certification,
> and this is where I'm sure you disagree, the inspector, be it FAA or a DAR,
> is determining whether, in his/her opinion, the aircraft is safe to operate,
> and what the chances are that the pilot will possibility hurt/kill anybody
> else or somebody elses property. If part of that process is having the ADs
> checked for installed equipment that is Type Certificated then so be it.
> Call it blackmail, or what you will, but that is the way it is.
>
> In 1998 there was a ruling from Washington DC that determined that ADs can
> be made mandatory for experimental aircraft, but it was determined that,
> because until the mid 80's engines and props were not part of the
> information gathered for Amateur-built aircraft, there is no system to make
> sure all owners get the information, and, therefore, it is not enforcable.
> So our (the FAA) only system to ensure safety is have the ADs checked at the
> time of certification. This is slowly getting out to all inspectors.
> Granted, lots of them have either not gotten the info yet, or don't care.
> I, for one, do care, because I am the one who has to face the wife and kids
> when someone has an accident, and I want to be able to do that with as clean
> a conscience as possible.
>
> The bottom line is, yes they are not mandatory, but unless an AD search is
> conducted on Type Certificated products installed on your aircraft, you may
> not get your airworthiness certificate.
>
> Sorry guys, but that is the cold hard truth. Now flame away all you want.
> You're entitled. And, by the way, I am the one inspecting Jerry's RV.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
> RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
>
> >From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> >Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:00:21 -0600
> >
> >
> >Just a clarification:
> >
> >The Sensenich 70 series fixed metal prop for the O-320 is indeed
> >certified with the FAA's blessing; the prop for the O-360 is not.
> >
> >The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however. There
> >is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
> >not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with all
> >ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
> >desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
> >has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
> >plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
> >that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
> >
> >It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
> >have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop". However,
> >since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just a
> >quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
> >installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
> >Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
> >prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours. Install a wood prop on a
> >box-stock, brand new out-of-the-crate Lycoming from Lycoming themselves,
> >and you are rewarded with a 40 hour flyoff.
> >
> >Go figure.......
> >
> >Sam Buchanan
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Helms" <jhelms(at)i1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: insurance for a subie info |
Your friends insurance that he's paid for for 3 years likely would not have
paid out. Since none of the companies will cover them (knowingly) then that
means the company does not know about it. If he crashes, they could have
reason to deny the claim.
Your friend may have one heck of a lawsuit against an agent, though (if the
agent knew about the engine, and didn't inform the insurance company, and a
resulting claim was denied based on that info).
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Pleasure and Business Branch
----- Original Message -----
From: <mstewart(at)qa.butler.com>
Subject: RV-List: insurance for a subie info
Well after reading many recent posts on the ins. ?, I checked with my subie
buddie Bob Goodman, flying a subie for 3 years, 300 hours on the plane. It
is a terrific plane, and not an Egg package. Here is his info on insurance:
=====
Mike,
I have had insurance on my Subaru since 1999, current rate is $ 1400/yr.
with Travers & Associates (800) 888-9859. They don't seen to care too much
about the engine, but are picky about pilot experience and use of aircraft.
in response to your attachemnt of :
"You cannot compare the Eggenfellner FWF package to a one-off home brew auto
conversion, that is simply not relevant"
Robert Paisley
RV-7, Eggenfellner Subaru
Builder's site"
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
Answer:
This is true, the Eggenfellner will never have the performance of mine, and
could never fit in an RV-4.
Bob Goodman
N311U
1st place 160 hp division, Sun 100, 2002.
==========
Mike Stewart
Flying next this funny sounding engine, and very nice guy, all the time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ernie billing <ebilling(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | retractable tie down |
Anyone designed retractable tie down eyes for their
RV?
I'm starting the wings on my RV7, and although I like
the simplicity of the screw in tie down bolt, I'm
partial to the retractable tie down on my Cardinal RG.
Its out of the way, but always there when I need it.
Don't have to dig throught the cabin for eye bolts.
I looked into getting the hooks from Cessna, but
balked at the $150 price.
I may just design my own and kit it if enough people
are interested.
Ernie Billing
RV7 - beginning wings
San Luis Obispo, CA
ebilling(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
> Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he chose. The
> decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a dealer.
Yes, and also long before any of the current alternatives were available. Now
that he's committed to Lycoming, should we assume that his publicly expressed
option is completely objective, or is it reasonable to assume that it might be
slightly coloured by the need to maintain a good relationship with Lycoming? I
don't mean that as a slight against Van. I have great respect for him as a
person and as an engineer. But also as an astute businessman. Is it a
coincidence that his publicly expressed opinion is also exactly the opinion
that's best for his business?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Hawkins <lhawkins(at)giant.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:AD search - how |
Mike is right, we should all try to stay up with the AD's on our engines and
props, it's for our own good. With internet access, it's easy. Tedious but
easy, once a year do a search for AD's issued in the past year.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way we are very fortunate to have Mike Robertson lurking on this
list, Thanks Mike.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, flying soon! Waiting on new
mag.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson [mailto:mrobert569(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
bogus.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
>
RE: RV-List:AD search - how
Mike is right, we should all try to stay up with the AD's on our engines and props,
it's for our own good. With internet access, it's easy. Tedious but easy,
once a year do a search for AD's issued in the past year.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
By the way we are very fortunate to have Mike Robertson lurking on this list, Thanks
Mike.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, flying soon! Waiting on new mag.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson [<A HREF"mailto:mrobert569(at)hotmail.com">mailto:mrobert569(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
-- RV-List message posted by: Mike Robertson mrobert569(at)hotmail.com
Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
bogus.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MARSHALL,STEPHANIE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <stephanie.marshall(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | Way off topic but cool |
I know this is off topic, but check out what you can buy on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1791560632
Stephanie Marshall
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post |
In a message dated 12/4/2002 10:08:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, WPAerial writes:
> The FAA inspector has ask for the paper work from the AD search for this
> fridays inspection. I guess if AD are not complete I will
> have to do 40 Hour
> fly off.
--------------------------------------------------
Jerry,
Are you sure the inspector was really looking for a list of ADs on the engine and
prop? There is a field that needs to be filled in on form 8130-6 Application
for airworthiness. This is talked about in AC 20-27e. Basically you have
to go to the FAA web sight and find the latest version on the AD SUPPLEMENT and
verify your aircraft is not listed. (I'm not sure how it could be since it is
unique and has never flown.) Then record the number on the 8130-6 form in the
Airworthiness Directives space.
Hope this helps,
Alan Kritzman
Cedar Rapids, IA
RV-8 2 hours (waiting for Airspeed indicator to be returned after I determined
it was 30 MPH slow.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
| From: | cecilth(at)juno.com |
I really believe Van thinks of insurance liability, close to the top of
the list, when he says use a Lycoming engine. He (and the company) is
pretty safe that way.
Cecil
writes:
>
> > Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he
> chose. The
> > decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a
> dealer.
>
> Yes, and also long before any of the current alternatives were
> available. Now
> that he's committed to Lycoming, should we assume that his publicly
> expressed
> option is completely objective, or is it reasonable to assume that
> it might be
> slightly coloured by the need to maintain a good relationship with
> Lycoming? I
> don't mean that as a slight against Van. I have great respect for
> him as a
> person and as an engineer. But also as an astute businessman. Is
> it a
> coincidence that his publicly expressed opinion is also exactly the
> opinion
> that's best for his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin P. Leathers, DC" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
It seems to me that if I will not be able to insure my investment, that
Subaru engines are a mute point. Even if they are vastly superior, which I
suspect they are, I for one can not fly uninsured. Even if my hull insurance
was not an issue, I suspect that my life insurance company might try to
avoid payment because of the engine discrepancy as well.
I'm going to Van's in Aurora this Saturday, Dec. 7th. If I can save anyone
some shipping costs let me know. I live in Kirkland, WA You can e-mail me at
DrLeathers(at)822heal.com or call me at 425-260-0657. I'll be driving a Range
Rover SUV with a roof rack, so I could bring back most smaller items.
DOC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines
>
> > Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he chose.
The
> > decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a dealer.
>
> Yes, and also long before any of the current alternatives were available.
Now
> that he's committed to Lycoming, should we assume that his publicly
expressed
> option is completely objective, or is it reasonable to assume that it
might be
> slightly coloured by the need to maintain a good relationship with
Lycoming? I
> don't mean that as a slight against Van. I have great respect for him as
a
> person and as an engineer. But also as an astute businessman. Is it a
> coincidence that his publicly expressed opinion is also exactly the
opinion
> that's best for his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | alternative engines insurance |
Hi John;
After reading your response, I went searching for the info on Subaru
insurance, as I couldn't remember the details of it. I found it on
Eggenfeller's web site on the FAQ page. It turns out it is everybody's
favorite.... Avemco. So maybe the insurance argument is still valid.
I'm currently insured with Avemco for builders insurance. When I
first began my project, I told them my intention to use a rotary engine and
asked about flight insurance. The agent on the phone said it would not be a
problem, but could not quote me any rates. He merely said that we could deal
with that when we get there. I should have pushed him a little further. He
did however express his personal opinion that it was a better engine choice,
but that doesn't count for much.
Now that I'm getting close to first flight, I've been considering
upgrading my insurance, when I recently received notice from Avemco that
they will not be renewing my policy as they are pulling out of Canada. I
think my only option now is Marsh insurance, but when I called them last
week the person who answered spoke French, when I asked for English she
passed me to someone who spoke English with such a heavy French accent that
I still didn't understand a damn thing he said. Maybe I'll try email. Too
bad you can't deal in Canada, you would certainly get my business.
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: John Helms [SMTP:jhelms(at)i1.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:38 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
> Reposted from VansAirforce Yahoo group in response to a claim that several
> insurance companies were writing coverage for Suburu's....
>
> My initial response was "None of the companies (I work with all of them
> except AVEMCO) will do Suburu engine powered RVs." It had been a while
> since I had polled each and every company about this specific issue. So I
> decided to do it again, and I must admit that I was wrong. Here were my
> findings:
>
> I just verified that with the underwriters of the new EAA "program"
> (Global/AAU) and US Specialty Insurance company (which has always been
> into
> writing homebuilt coverages) and neither will do Suburu engines. I know
> AIG, USAIG, Phoenix won't do it (I've asked them again as recently as last
> week). That leaves W. Brown (which doesn't really even do airplanes
> smaller
> than a Baron, and their prices are too high anyway) and Aerospace
> Insurance
> Managers (AIM).
>
> I got a very interesting answer from AIM. Let me preface their answer by
> saying that they write for 2 different companies (one A rated and one B+
> rated.) You may get either one depending on the state you live in.
> Almost
> all the other companies left in Aviation are A+ rated or better.
>
> AIM said generally no, but if we had trouble placing coverage (which we
> would since no one else will do it but AVEMCO the direct writer) they
> would
> consider it. They added that they would consider it as long as nothing
> was
> too "weird" about the risk. I would take that to mean a pilot over the
> age
> of 65, in a state they don't like, based on a less than 2000' grass strip,
> or something like that. This is a much more positive answer than I've
> ever
> received about these engines. It is a step in a positive direction for
> those of you dead set (sorry) about using them.
>
> As I said before, I am glad AVEMCO will do them. Please remember, though,
> the differences in AVEMCO's policy vs. any other. They limit the
> liability
> payout to everyone not just passengers inside your plane (they do per
> person
> sub-limits instead of the per passenger which all other companies do.)
> And
> they further sublimit your family members (which no other companies do) to
> 25% of the sub-limit.
>
> There may be isolated instances where these engines are being covered by
> the
> other companies, but that does not mean they will or intend to write
> coverage for these engines. Those are mistakes. I have my fair share of
> mistakes that I have written and are currently on the books, as I
> mentioned
> before.
>
> John "JT" Helms
> Branch Manager
> NationAir Insurance Agency
> Pleasure and Business Branch
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
"James E. Clark" wrote:
>
>
> Maybe a slightly different perspective, though consistent with Jim's, I
> think (your opinion may vary) ...
>
> 1. After all that is invested in making these planes our "dream planes",
> what's so bad about having an AD search. So what if it costs a few more
> dollars or hours. We have spent tens of thousand of dollars and thousands of
> hours. This "check" is hopefully just a bit more insurance that we are AWARE
> of any issues that may exist with the engine we are using. And THAT is a
> good thing. Just because the engine out of Granma's Buick (or Subie, or
> 'Vette) doesn't come with AD's does not mean that it is not a good idea to
> check those for the Lycoming or Continental.
=======================
Jim, how do you run an AD search on an engine that has no logs? Some of
the ADs reference internal engine parts; are you willing to disassemble
what you feel is a good engine just to satisfy the desires of the DAR?
Is it reasonable to require the owner of a Lycoming to disassemble his
engine to satisfy ADs when the builder who has installed a Subaru or
Honda or Mazda or turbine does not have to do the same?
Folks, we are talking about a MONUMENTAL shift in the FAA's approach to
experimental certification! I press this point not to disallow the value
of conformance to ADs; I satisfied all ADs and used only yellow-tagged
parts in my O-320 rebuild precisely because I wanted the best engine I
could build.
But, being FORCED to do this via regulation is something far removed
from what we have up to this point enjoyed in the experimental
community! This recent amendment to FARs has the potential of having
far-reaching ramifications to any of us that use "certificated" engines,
and may very well be the end of alternative engines if only engines that
have been blessed by the FAA are approved. The next issue to fall into
place behind this amendment will be insurance.....just wait until you
start seeing claims refused due to lack of conformance to ADs......
My apologies to those who think I may be overbearing on this point, but
as an EAA Technical Counselor, and someone who fields a LOT of RV
questions, I need to know what to tell potential, new, and current
builders when they raise powerplant/certification questions.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:AD search - how |
Even if the engine/prop combination is not an "approved" grouping, it does
not matter. If you use a Lycoming o-320 with a non-certificated prop, the
engine AD search would still be applicable. Any product installed that has
a Type Certificate, a TSO, a PMA, or STC MAY have had an AD published
against it.
For a more clear explanation see AC 39-7C at:
http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur/
Since this AC was published in 1995, further ruling in 1998 concluded that
ADs for Amateur-built aircraft are not enforceable at this time, although
they are applicable. That means that, yes, they do apply, but if you chose
to not do them, the FAA can't do anything about it, other than to point out
to that they are for your own (and the public's) safety and that you really
should do them.
Sorry to those who don't want to hear this. I am off of my soap box. Keep
flying, and building, and have fun.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List:AD search - how
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:13:52 -0600
>
>
>No Flaming necessary Mike,
>
>In my earlier post, I did not fully realize that the aircraft was using a
>"certified engine/prop" combination. Had I know that I would totally agree
>with you. In a case where they engine prop are not certified and my
>inspector came to me with the same requirements for a non-certified
>combination I would disagree.
>
>If an inspector still tried to push the issue with a "non-certified"
>combination, I would simply rip off the engine data plate, make up one of
>my
>own and declare it airworthy. What would you as an inspector do in this
>situation??
>
>That isn't necessarily a prudent course of action, but more to prove a
>point. I agree wholeheartedly that for safety reasons, one should make
>sure
>they're complied with. My issue comes in from a regulatory standpoint and
>differing interpretations of vague rules.
>
>Thanks for your informative and usefull posts.
>
>Cheers,
>Stein Bruch
>RV6, Minneapolis
>RV7 getting ready to start!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>
>
>Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
>bogus. While it is true that once the aircraft is issued its airworthiness
>certificate ADs are not compulsory but are still very much a safety issue.
>Nobody argues that point, I'm sure. But during the course of
>certification,
>and this is where I'm sure you disagree, the inspector, be it FAA or a DAR,
>is determining whether, in his/her opinion, the aircraft is safe to
>operate,
>and what the chances are that the pilot will possibility hurt/kill anybody
>else or somebody elses property. If part of that process is having the ADs
>checked for installed equipment that is Type Certificated then so be it.
>Call it blackmail, or what you will, but that is the way it is.
>
>In 1998 there was a ruling from Washington DC that determined that ADs can
>be made mandatory for experimental aircraft, but it was determined that,
>because until the mid 80's engines and props were not part of the
>information gathered for Amateur-built aircraft, there is no system to make
>sure all owners get the information, and, therefore, it is not enforcable.
>So our (the FAA) only system to ensure safety is have the ADs checked at
>the
>time of certification. This is slowly getting out to all inspectors.
>Granted, lots of them have either not gotten the info yet, or don't care.
>I, for one, do care, because I am the one who has to face the wife and kids
>when someone has an accident, and I want to be able to do that with as
>clean
>a conscience as possible.
>
>The bottom line is, yes they are not mandatory, but unless an AD search is
>conducted on Type Certificated products installed on your aircraft, you may
>not get your airworthiness certificate.
>
>Sorry guys, but that is the cold hard truth. Now flame away all you want.
>You're entitled. And, by the way, I am the one inspecting Jerry's RV.
>
>Mike Robertson
>Das Fed
>RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Interesting Scenario, and things similar to this have come up.
Every AD has a provision for an alternate means of compliance. If, in the
opinion of the inspector, you kept the sintered oil gears, but your other
means of supplying oil was satisfactory, he has the authority to accept
that, or ignore it and just educate you, or say "no" the sintered gears need
to go if you want the airworthiness certificate. The same goes with any
other mod, although if the engine was modified that much he may question
leaving the data plate on it. The bottom line is that there are not many
hard and fast rules. Issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate is
based on the opinion of the Inspector at the time of the inspection if the
aircraft is safe to operate. You may not agree with him/her, and
can/may/should, go over their head to get it if you think you are in the
right, but they also have the right to say "no" if they feel they have a
good reason.
If the products are non-TSO'd,etc, they do not have ADs, therefore there is
nothing to issue an AD against/for.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:20:28 -0600
>
>
>Mike, thanks for your reply. I do have a couple questions, however. :-)
>
>Suppose (and this example is not an attempt to prompt a confrontation
>but an effort to explore issues that could appear with an experimental
>engine installation) I install a Lycoming in my RV-6 project and you are
>assigned the task of inspection in regards to issuing the airworthiness
>certificate. However, I have come up with an alternative way to supply
>oil to the engine (dry sump with integrated pump) which means the
>standard oil pump is no longer the primary source of oil pressure, and I
>elect to retain the sintered iron pump gears in conflict with the oil
>pump AD. I also have adapted automotive pistons to the Lycoming because
>I feel my design promotes better combustion. In addition to that, the
>ignition system is a design I have adapted from various automotive and
>stationary powerplant components because I am convinced it works better
>than the old mags.
>
>How do you approach this engine? Is it a candidate for an airworthiness
>certificate? Is it still a "Lycoming, type certificated" engine?
>
>Does the installation of non-TSOed ignition systems, exhaust systems,
>injection systems, and engine components jeopardize the issuance of an
>airworthiness certificate to Lycoming-powered experimental aircraft due
>to the guidelines you have outlined?
>
>If not, why not? If so..........we got major problems......... :-)
>
>Thanks in advance for your continued dialog on this very important
>topic.
>
>Sam Buchanan (still learning......)
>
>===========================
>
>
>Mike Robertson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aw contrar mon ami, An AD search for a Type Certificte product is not
> > bogus. While it is true that once the aircraft is issued its
>airworthiness
> > certificate ADs are not compulsory but are still very much a safety
>issue.
> > Nobody argues that point, I'm sure. But during the course of
>certification,
> > and this is where I'm sure you disagree, the inspector, be it FAA or a
>DAR,
> > is determining whether, in his/her opinion, the aircraft is safe to
>operate,
> > and what the chances are that the pilot will possibility hurt/kill
>anybody
> > else or somebody elses property. If part of that process is having the
>ADs
> > checked for installed equipment that is Type Certificated then so be it.
> > Call it blackmail, or what you will, but that is the way it is.
> >
> > In 1998 there was a ruling from Washington DC that determined that ADs
>can
> > be made mandatory for experimental aircraft, but it was determined that,
> > because until the mid 80's engines and props were not part of the
> > information gathered for Amateur-built aircraft, there is no system to
>make
> > sure all owners get the information, and, therefore, it is not
>enforcable.
> > So our (the FAA) only system to ensure safety is have the ADs checked at
>the
> > time of certification. This is slowly getting out to all inspectors.
> > Granted, lots of them have either not gotten the info yet, or don't
>care.
> > I, for one, do care, because I am the one who has to face the wife and
>kids
> > when someone has an accident, and I want to be able to do that with as
>clean
> > a conscience as possible.
> >
> > The bottom line is, yes they are not mandatory, but unless an AD search
>is
> > conducted on Type Certificated products installed on your aircraft, you
>may
> > not get your airworthiness certificate.
> >
> > Sorry guys, but that is the cold hard truth. Now flame away all you
>want.
> > You're entitled. And, by the way, I am the one inspecting Jerry's RV.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> > RV-8A flying, RV-6A a-building, RV-9A a-building
> >
> > >From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > >Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> > >Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:00:21 -0600
> > >
> > >
> > >Just a clarification:
> > >
> > >The Sensenich 70 series fixed metal prop for the O-320 is indeed
> > >certified with the FAA's blessing; the prop for the O-360 is not.
> > >
> > >The AD thing is still bogus for an experimental aircraft, however.
>There
> > >is no way you can have a "certified" engine on an RV because the RVs do
> > >not possess a type certificate. It is indeed possible to comply with
>all
> > >ADs and service bulletins on your Lycoming RV engine if that is your
> > >desire, and while it may help with resale value and piece of mind, it
> > >has absolutely no bearing on the certification status of the plane. The
> > >plane still possesses an experimental certificate just the same as one
> > >that is powered by a Rotax two-stroke.
> > >
> > >It seems that the FAA exercises some inconsistency in allowing us to
> > >have a 25 hour flyoff if we have a "certified engine and prop".
>However,
> > >since there really is no such animal in experimental-dom, this is just
>a
> > >quirk of the regulations. It seems not to matter whether or not you
> > >installed helicopter pistons, a carb from a lawnmower, and plugs from a
> > >Chevy, if it is a Lycoming O-320 with the 70 series Sensenich
> > >prop.......you get 25 instead of 40 hours. Install a wood prop on a
> > >box-stock, brand new out-of-the-crate Lycoming from Lycoming
>themselves,
> > >and you are rewarded with a 40 hour flyoff.
> > >
> > >Go figure.......
> > >
> > >Sam Buchanan
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Helms" <jhelms(at)i1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines insurance |
for Canadian risks you might try Grant Robinson at Jones-Brown in Calgary at
(403) 265-1920
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: RE: RV-List: alternative engines insurance
Hi John;
After reading your response, I went searching for the info on Subaru
insurance, as I couldn't remember the details of it. I found it on
Eggenfeller's web site on the FAQ page. It turns out it is everybody's
favorite.... Avemco. So maybe the insurance argument is still valid.
I'm currently insured with Avemco for builders insurance. When I
first began my project, I told them my intention to use a rotary engine and
asked about flight insurance. The agent on the phone said it would not be a
problem, but could not quote me any rates. He merely said that we could deal
with that when we get there. I should have pushed him a little further. He
did however express his personal opinion that it was a better engine choice,
but that doesn't count for much.
Now that I'm getting close to first flight, I've been considering
upgrading my insurance, when I recently received notice from Avemco that
they will not be renewing my policy as they are pulling out of Canada. I
think my only option now is Marsh insurance, but when I called them last
week the person who answered spoke French, when I asked for English she
passed me to someone who spoke English with such a heavy French accent that
I still didn't understand a damn thing he said. Maybe I'll try email. Too
bad you can't deal in Canada, you would certainly get my business.
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: John Helms [SMTP:jhelms(at)i1.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 4:38 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
> Reposted from VansAirforce Yahoo group in response to a claim that several
> insurance companies were writing coverage for Suburu's....
>
> My initial response was "None of the companies (I work with all of them
> except AVEMCO) will do Suburu engine powered RVs." It had been a while
> since I had polled each and every company about this specific issue. So I
> decided to do it again, and I must admit that I was wrong. Here were my
> findings:
>
> I just verified that with the underwriters of the new EAA "program"
> (Global/AAU) and US Specialty Insurance company (which has always been
> into
> writing homebuilt coverages) and neither will do Suburu engines. I know
> AIG, USAIG, Phoenix won't do it (I've asked them again as recently as last
> week). That leaves W. Brown (which doesn't really even do airplanes
> smaller
> than a Baron, and their prices are too high anyway) and Aerospace
> Insurance
> Managers (AIM).
>
> I got a very interesting answer from AIM. Let me preface their answer by
> saying that they write for 2 different companies (one A rated and one B+
> rated.) You may get either one depending on the state you live in.
> Almost
> all the other companies left in Aviation are A+ rated or better.
>
> AIM said generally no, but if we had trouble placing coverage (which we
> would since no one else will do it but AVEMCO the direct writer) they
> would
> consider it. They added that they would consider it as long as nothing
> was
> too "weird" about the risk. I would take that to mean a pilot over the
> age
> of 65, in a state they don't like, based on a less than 2000' grass strip,
> or something like that. This is a much more positive answer than I've
> ever
> received about these engines. It is a step in a positive direction for
> those of you dead set (sorry) about using them.
>
> As I said before, I am glad AVEMCO will do them. Please remember, though,
> the differences in AVEMCO's policy vs. any other. They limit the
> liability
> payout to everyone not just passengers inside your plane (they do per
> person
> sub-limits instead of the per passenger which all other companies do.)
> And
> they further sublimit your family members (which no other companies do) to
> 25% of the sub-limit.
>
> There may be isolated instances where these engines are being covered by
> the
> other companies, but that does not mean they will or intend to write
> coverage for these engines. Those are mistakes. I have my fair share of
> mistakes that I have written and are currently on the books, as I
> mentioned
> before.
>
> John "JT" Helms
> Branch Manager
> NationAir Insurance Agency
> Pleasure and Business Branch
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Thanks again, Mike. I just read the updated FAR39 you referenced and it
really is a new development for us experimental types.
So......are you saying I could just remove the data plate from my
Lycoming and it would no longer be subject to ADs under the umbrella of
FAR 39? Or would it need to be modified to the point that the DAR no
longer "recognizes" it as a Lycoming?
This could get get VERY interesing.........and expensive.........and
frustrating......... ;-)
Sam Buchanan
====================
Mike Robertson wrote:
>
>
> Interesting Scenario, and things similar to this have come up.
>
> Every AD has a provision for an alternate means of compliance. If, in the
> opinion of the inspector, you kept the sintered oil gears, but your other
> means of supplying oil was satisfactory, he has the authority to accept
> that, or ignore it and just educate you, or say "no" the sintered gears need
> to go if you want the airworthiness certificate. The same goes with any
> other mod, although if the engine was modified that much he may question
> leaving the data plate on it. The bottom line is that there are not many
> hard and fast rules. Issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate is
> based on the opinion of the Inspector at the time of the inspection if the
> aircraft is safe to operate. You may not agree with him/her, and
> can/may/should, go over their head to get it if you think you are in the
> right, but they also have the right to say "no" if they feel they have a
> good reason.
>
> If the products are non-TSO'd,etc, they do not have ADs, therefore there is
> nothing to issue an AD against/for.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> >From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> >Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:20:28 -0600
> >
> >
> >Mike, thanks for your reply. I do have a couple questions, however. :-)
> >
> >Suppose (and this example is not an attempt to prompt a confrontation
> >but an effort to explore issues that could appear with an experimental
> >engine installation) I install a Lycoming in my RV-6 project and you are
> >assigned the task of inspection in regards to issuing the airworthiness
> >certificate. However, I have come up with an alternative way to supply
> >oil to the engine (dry sump with integrated pump) which means the
> >standard oil pump is no longer the primary source of oil pressure, and I
> >elect to retain the sintered iron pump gears in conflict with the oil
> >pump AD. I also have adapted automotive pistons to the Lycoming because
> >I feel my design promotes better combustion. In addition to that, the
> >ignition system is a design I have adapted from various automotive and
> >stationary powerplant components because I am convinced it works better
> >than the old mags.
> >
> >How do you approach this engine? Is it a candidate for an airworthiness
> >certificate? Is it still a "Lycoming, type certificated" engine?
> >
> >Does the installation of non-TSOed ignition systems, exhaust systems,
> >injection systems, and engine components jeopardize the issuance of an
> >airworthiness certificate to Lycoming-powered experimental aircraft due
> >to the guidelines you have outlined?
> >
> >If not, why not? If so..........we got major problems......... :-)
> >
> >Thanks in advance for your continued dialog on this very important
> >topic.
> >
> >Sam Buchanan (still learning......)
> >
> >===========================
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com> |
| Subject: | Way off topic but cool |
Stephanie,
Hey girlfriend, you've got WAAAAAY too much time on your hands.
Shouldn't you be squeezing rivets or something?
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: MARSHALL,STEPHANIE (HP-Corvallis,ex1) <stephanie.marshall(at)hp.com>
Subject: RV-List: Way off topic but cool
>
> I know this is off topic, but check out what you can buy on ebay.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1791560632
>
> Stephanie Marshall
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Hi Barry,
Lets suppose that a guy with some coin in his pockets and some time on his
hands decided to go this 4.3 L V6 rout.
If he where to order a custom built aluminum block with the biggest bore
that can be utilized (4+ inches I believe) and also a the longest stroked
crankshaft that would be workable. (?) This stuff is available in the
market place.
Some time spent with a cam grinder to provide a cam that could supply good
torque and horsepower at even lower RPM., say somewhere closer to 2000 to
4000 RPM.
From this he might realize some operational benefits such as lower engine
speed would allow a less tall PRSU. reduction thereby delivering more energy
to the prop.(less gallons per hr.). Potentially more durability and
reliability due to better power at lower RPM..
Add aluminum heads with sodium cooled valves, flow benched and ported with
an eye toward the intended use.
Now with the weight of the cast iron bits gone. The power band and RPM range
closer to his applications demands and his pockets no longer pulling his
pants down off his hips. Would he be on the road to his ultimate goal?
At Vans good price, $31300.00 for a new 200 HP. Lycoming, the above power
plant could be configured for similar and arguably but possibly less money.
As others have said the overhaul cost for this unit would be significantly
less than any aircraft industry manufactured engine. A few thousand dollars
as opposed to somewhere near two thirds of the original engine purchase
price.
So far there has been little reference to the many light weight high output
engine designs that have arrived and continue to arrive on the scene. Who's
to say which one of these 250 lb. 245 HP type units might jump up onto a
firewall. The Cadillac North Star engine has pulled an aircraft through the
sky for one example.
Just fueling the fire a bit :)!
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "barry pote" <barrypote(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
> With reference to cams, Brian Crower (Crower Cams) pulled out an old
> master to make me one for the 4.3. Fred Carter, in Colorado wrote a
> number of articles for CONTACT magazine, has built many engines. His 4.3
> made strong power from 3000 to 5000 rpm. So I chose to use that grind. I
> intend to never exceed 4500 and hopefully cruise at 3500 rpm.
> 3500 rpm is not much higher than I hit , on an open road, from Montclair
> to Albany, to see my grand daughter. Hahaha. Radar detector is a must!
>
> Barry Pote
>
>
> > Actually Jim,
> >
> > Getting a handle on the mysterious black art of cam grinding is easier
than
> > most people think. Most cam grinding shops can utilize one or another
set of
> > masters to modify a cam to suit an intended use.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
Sam,
Yep, just remove the data plate and it is no longer considered an aircraft
product, therefore no way to track the ADs. And I completely agree with you
last statement. Hang on!!
Mike
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:03:39 -0600
>
>
>Thanks again, Mike. I just read the updated FAR39 you referenced and it
>really is a new development for us experimental types.
>
>So......are you saying I could just remove the data plate from my
>Lycoming and it would no longer be subject to ADs under the umbrella of
>FAR 39? Or would it need to be modified to the point that the DAR no
>longer "recognizes" it as a Lycoming?
>
>This could get get VERY interesing.........and expensive.........and
>frustrating......... ;-)
>
>Sam Buchanan
>
>====================
>
>Mike Robertson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting Scenario, and things similar to this have come up.
> >
> > Every AD has a provision for an alternate means of compliance. If, in
>the
> > opinion of the inspector, you kept the sintered oil gears, but your
>other
> > means of supplying oil was satisfactory, he has the authority to accept
> > that, or ignore it and just educate you, or say "no" the sintered gears
>need
> > to go if you want the airworthiness certificate. The same goes with any
> > other mod, although if the engine was modified that much he may question
> > leaving the data plate on it. The bottom line is that there are not
>many
> > hard and fast rules. Issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate
>is
> > based on the opinion of the Inspector at the time of the inspection if
>the
> > aircraft is safe to operate. You may not agree with him/her, and
> > can/may/should, go over their head to get it if you think you are in the
> > right, but they also have the right to say "no" if they feel they have a
> > good reason.
> >
> > If the products are non-TSO'd,etc, they do not have ADs, therefore there
>is
> > nothing to issue an AD against/for.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> >
> > >From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > >Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
> > >Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:20:28 -0600
> > >
> > >
> > >Mike, thanks for your reply. I do have a couple questions, however. :-)
> > >
> > >Suppose (and this example is not an attempt to prompt a confrontation
> > >but an effort to explore issues that could appear with an experimental
> > >engine installation) I install a Lycoming in my RV-6 project and you
>are
> > >assigned the task of inspection in regards to issuing the airworthiness
> > >certificate. However, I have come up with an alternative way to supply
> > >oil to the engine (dry sump with integrated pump) which means the
> > >standard oil pump is no longer the primary source of oil pressure, and
>I
> > >elect to retain the sintered iron pump gears in conflict with the oil
> > >pump AD. I also have adapted automotive pistons to the Lycoming because
> > >I feel my design promotes better combustion. In addition to that, the
> > >ignition system is a design I have adapted from various automotive and
> > >stationary powerplant components because I am convinced it works better
> > >than the old mags.
> > >
> > >How do you approach this engine? Is it a candidate for an airworthiness
> > >certificate? Is it still a "Lycoming, type certificated" engine?
> > >
> > >Does the installation of non-TSOed ignition systems, exhaust systems,
> > >injection systems, and engine components jeopardize the issuance of an
> > >airworthiness certificate to Lycoming-powered experimental aircraft due
> > >to the guidelines you have outlined?
> > >
> > >If not, why not? If so..........we got major problems......... :-)
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance for your continued dialog on this very important
> > >topic.
> > >
> > >Sam Buchanan (still learning......)
> > >
> > >===========================
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Truitt <Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov> |
Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
top of the firewall? I spoke to someone at Oshkosh this year, the name
escapes me, who told me it works well in that location. I'm wondering
about any heat related problems, or any other problems I may not be
considering.
The antenna cable I have is rated to 80C, but I'm not sure just how much
heat will be in the cowling, on a tarmac, on hot Indiana days.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andy Karmy" <andy(at)karmy.com> |
| Subject: | Closing wing tips? |
Have any of the rest of you done anything to close the gaps in the wing tips that
match up to the ailerons? Similar to what we do to the tail tips? There are
various holes and openings left around the one short rib that is riveted into
the opening...
- Andy Karmy
RV9A Seattle WA - working on the glass...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/04/2002 4:02:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov writes:
> Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
> top of the firewall? I spoke to someone at Oshkosh this year, the name
> escapes me, who told me it works well in that location. I'm wondering
> about any heat related problems, or any other problems I may not be
> considering.
>
Mine works wonderfully atop the glareshield in my tip-up 6A. Seems like a
GPS patch antenna forward of the firewall would be very much in the way when
working on the engine accessories, in additon to the heat issues you already
mentioned. Also, some shielding at the horizon from the top edge of the
firewall is bound to occur. Why mess with success?
Your mileage may vary.
-Bill B
270 hours behind a Lowrance AirMap 300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com> |
I fly in cold climate here in Minnesota so I have two heat valves on the firewall
with the idea of having two heat muffs (Rick Robbins on Vetterman crossover
for an RV6). I have seen the air pick up in two differant locations... (1)
on the forward baffles just inside the cowling air intake scoops ahead of the
engine cylinders and (2) on the aft baffle above the engine accessory case and
then via scat tubing to the muffs. My question is which location produces the
best heat and performance for the cockpit? Pros and cons appreciated especially
from other cold climate flyers.
Dick DeCramer
N500DD
RV6 slider 160/ Sensenich
engine installation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
Jim:
> The Cadillac North Star engine has pulled an aircraft through the
> sky for one example.
The North Star's a good engine, but apparently it's not as light as you might
think. The OHC adds a lot of weight. An aluminum small-block V6 would be
lighter. You can also build a 272 ci Buick V6 with an aluminum block from GM,
which would be quite a bit lighter than the Chevy (but you'd give up some cubic
inches, too). Higher cost per horsepower, but for the very weight-conscious it
would be a good choice.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Balch <kbalch1(at)attbi.com> |
Jim Truitt wrote:
>
>Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
>top of the firewall? I spoke to someone at Oshkosh this year, the name escapes
me, who told me it works well in that location. I'm wondering about any heat
related problems, or any other problems I may not be considering.
>The antenna cable I have is rated to 80C, but I'm not sure just how much heat
will be in the cowling, on a tarmac, on hot Indiana days.
>
I did this and it's been working fine. I saw it on an -8 at SnF two
years ago (maybe Dick Martin's?) and shamelessly copied the installation.
Regards,
Ken Balch
RV-8 N118KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | alternative engines |
At this stage, why does Van **need** Lycoming for his business???
Given the prices we pay him for the Lyc, he does not seem to be making a
killing selling them. His planes are set up to accept Lycomings from him or
Bart or your favorite overhauler. There are even Subie kits and Rotaries
available for the RV series. It is not like the RV would die off if Van
stopped selling Lycoming engines or if Lycoming all of a sudden said "your
deal is off, all sales are now direct, and at a higher price".
It seems that his publicly expressed opinion has always been backed up with
data, seemingly very logical data. He also seems to be open to BETTER ideas
and concepts when there is data to prove it. I have **ZERO** knowledge of
anything in this area but I would suspect that if the Subies continue on the
path they SEEM to be on then one of these days even Van himself may say they
are "cool" (based on the data made available to him).
On the other hand he could just be "old fashioned" ... aluminum
construction, basic instruments, Lycoming engines. :-)
James
... not as sceptical of Van's views on engines
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:52 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
> > Todd: I suspect that Van could be a dealer for any engine he
> chose. The
> > decision to go with Lycoming was made long before he became a dealer.
>
> Yes, and also long before any of the current alternatives were
> available. Now
> that he's committed to Lycoming, should we assume that his
> publicly expressed
> option is completely objective, or is it reasonable to assume
> that it might be
> slightly coloured by the need to maintain a good relationship
> with Lycoming? I
> don't mean that as a slight against Van. I have great respect
> for him as a
> person and as an engineer. But also as an astute businessman. Is it a
> coincidence that his publicly expressed opinion is also exactly
> the opinion
> that's best for his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List:AD search - how |
Good points Sam ...
As to your first question ... I don't know.
My partner and I puchased an "RV project" that included an engine that had
been "overhauled". I mentioned to her (my RV partner) that all we could view
it as was a CORE since it did NOT have logs or a data plate. I even tracked
down the owner before the owner (and th rebuilder) to discuss the engine. He
was going to fly behind it, which made me feel a little better, but to
answer your next quest, YES!. We sent that engine off to Bart to have it
torn down (which he did for a reasonable fee) and put back together in only
the "right way".
THat is what we did. Others may take more of a chance.
Now about changing the regulations and being forced to do something that is
a big change, that is another discussion (very worthwhile one I might add).
It probably needs to be phrased more like you put it in this message.
I am nowhere near being a Technical Counselor but I would advise anyone who
asked to do exactly what you and we did. Then if they feel they know enough
and can tolerate the risk of doing otherwise, so be it for them. Maybe we
will all gain (positively) from their experience.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List:AD search - how
>
>
> "James E. Clark" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe a slightly different perspective, though consistent with Jim's, I
> > think (your opinion may vary) ...
> >
> > 1. After all that is invested in making these planes our "dream planes",
> > what's so bad about having an AD search. So what if it costs a few more
> > dollars or hours. We have spent tens of thousand of dollars and
> thousands of
> > hours. This "check" is hopefully just a bit more insurance that
> we are AWARE
> > of any issues that may exist with the engine we are using. And THAT is a
> > good thing. Just because the engine out of Granma's Buick (or Subie, or
> > 'Vette) doesn't come with AD's does not mean that it is not a
> good idea to
> > check those for the Lycoming or Continental.
>
> =======================
>
> Jim, how do you run an AD search on an engine that has no logs? Some of
> the ADs reference internal engine parts; are you willing to disassemble
> what you feel is a good engine just to satisfy the desires of the DAR?
>
> Is it reasonable to require the owner of a Lycoming to disassemble his
> engine to satisfy ADs when the builder who has installed a Subaru or
> Honda or Mazda or turbine does not have to do the same?
>
> Folks, we are talking about a MONUMENTAL shift in the FAA's approach to
> experimental certification! I press this point not to disallow the value
> of conformance to ADs; I satisfied all ADs and used only yellow-tagged
> parts in my O-320 rebuild precisely because I wanted the best engine I
> could build.
>
> But, being FORCED to do this via regulation is something far removed
> from what we have up to this point enjoyed in the experimental
> community! This recent amendment to FARs has the potential of having
> far-reaching ramifications to any of us that use "certificated" engines,
> and may very well be the end of alternative engines if only engines that
> have been blessed by the FAA are approved. The next issue to fall into
> place behind this amendment will be insurance.....just wait until you
> start seeing claims refused due to lack of conformance to ADs......
>
> My apologies to those who think I may be overbearing on this point, but
> as an EAA Technical Counselor, and someone who fields a LOT of RV
> questions, I need to know what to tell potential, new, and current
> builders when they raise powerplant/certification questions.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Yes.
Others have and we "borrowed" the concept. In our case an RV6 tip up (I
doubt if that matters).
Still in 40 hour test phase. No problems seen yet.
Before final comit though I did power up the GPS, get a measure of the
signal quality BEFORE and AFTER cowl and saw no difference.
Also, regarding het, my logic was that if it too hot for the antenna then
the cowl would probably be too hot to touch and we would have other
problems.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Truitt
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:02 PM
> To: Receipt Notification Requested
> Subject: RV-List: GPS Antenna
>
>
> Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
> top of the firewall? I spoke to someone at Oshkosh this year, the name
> escapes me, who told me it works well in that location. I'm wondering
> about any heat related problems, or any other problems I may not be
> considering.
> The antenna cable I have is rated to 80C, but I'm not sure just how much
> heat will be in the cowling, on a tarmac, on hot Indiana days.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV List - AD search |
My DAR wanted AD's on my Lycoming listed and complied with . The engine had
been o'hauled 10 years prior , and a different owner ; so I could not show
compliance without completely disassembling the engine . WHEW ! I chose to
de-certify the engine - Remove the data plate and install a new data plate -(
Bob Olds experimental O-320-B3A )
NO problem - it'll outlive me anyway..
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
On our RV-4 I took the heater air from the back baffle above the engine .
I use 1" SCAT to the muff - which has a screendoor spring wound around inside
the muff - and 2" SCAT to the heater valve . I used the horizontal baffle
inlet on our first RV-4 , and I can't tell any difference ( also 1" inlet &
2" outlet ) That spring must help the air heat & expand .
Tyr it - You'll like it !
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
Pretty sure Laird Owens did that in his beautiful RV-6. If I recall, he has
a picture of it in an album somewhere...I think it's:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/socal230330/429050/guest.phtml
And here's the full image:
http://members3.clubphoto.com/_cgi-bin/getImage.pl?imgID=4846103-590e&trans
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Truitt" <Jim.Truitt(at)usdoj.gov>
Subject: RV-List: GPS Antenna
>
> Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
> top of the firewall? I spoke to someone at Oshkosh this year, the name
> escapes me, who told me it works well in that location. I'm wondering
> about any heat related problems, or any other problems I may not be
> considering.
> The antenna cable I have is rated to 80C, but I'm not sure just how much
> heat will be in the cowling, on a tarmac, on hot Indiana days.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | alternative engines |
> It is not like the RV would die off if Van
> stopped selling Lycoming engines or if Lycoming all of a sudden said "your
> deal is off, all sales are now direct, and at a higher price".
You have to be kidding. Van sells the engines that are preferred by 99 percent
of his customers, and demanded by most, at 2/3 market value, and you're
suggesting that arrangment isn't valuable to his business?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Hine" <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
| Subject: | retractable tie down |
Ernie
There was an artical in a RVator many years ago with good photos about
building retractable tie down rings. I have no idea what year or issue but
I will try and find it again and let you and the list know. If anyone else
finds it feel free to post it before me.
Joe Hine
RV4 C-FYTQ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of ernie billing
Subject: RV-List: retractable tie down
Anyone designed retractable tie down eyes for their
RV?
I'm starting the wings on my RV7, and although I like
the simplicity of the screw in tie down bolt, I'm
partial to the retractable tie down on my Cardinal RG.
Its out of the way, but always there when I need it.
Don't have to dig throught the cabin for eye bolts.
I looked into getting the hooks from Cessna, but
balked at the $150 price.
I may just design my own and kit it if enough people
are interested.
Ernie Billing
RV7 - beginning wings
San Luis Obispo, CA
ebilling(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how why my frist post |
Mike Robertson wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> I can identify that reg right now. Take a look at FAR 39, as amended on SEP
> 27, 2002. There have been several changes to the reg. FAR 39.15
> specifically states that ADs apply even if the individual product has been
> changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in the area addrerssed by
> the AD. Then take a look at the new 39.3. It states that ADs apply to the
> following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.
> The times are changing, and the FAA is trying to close the loophole that
> Experimenters have been enjoying for many years. With over 10% of the GA
> registered aircraft in this country being Experimental Amateur-builts it had
> to happen. Whether you, I , and anybody else likes it (or doesn't like it),
> that is the way it is going to be.
>
> Now don't go crazy quite yet. Because, as of right now, they still have not
> figured out a way to ensure all owners of each product gets a copy of each
> AD. Until they do, enforcment of ADs will not be able to happen. In my
> opinion, and my opinion only, I think somebody will get smart and say that
> for Experimental aircraft, ADs will become effective at the time of the
> first annual condition inspection after the effective date of the AD. So at
> each condition inspection, an AD search will be needed, and if any new ADs
> are found they will then have to be dealt with. Again, this is my opinion
> only.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
>
Well Mike, this is a really interesting way for the FAA to drag all those
superstitious pilots kicking & screaming into the future of aviation powerplants.
(See concurrent thread on [GASP!] Alternative Engines.)
Charlie
obligatory ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: for sale O 320 E3D |
Terry, we need a new prop and spinner. Can you provide more information such
as bolt size and prop pitch and diameter?
Thanks
Rollie & Rod
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
Dick, since you are building both into your plane, it looks like you
will be the best source of the difference, if any, of where the air is
picked up for the heaters. I suspect no difference will be found.
A couple of thoughts - 1) a very small inlet area is needed, I have
ground adjustable throttles on the heater air pickup points behind #3,
and they are almost entirely closed off, 2) use a counter-flow technique
on the muff, i.e., run the heater air the opposite direction as the
exhaust. The key to staying warm in these planes is to put a large
volume of heated air into them, minimizing cold drafts. A small volume
of very hot air is not as good as a large volume of not so hot air.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> I fly in cold climate here in Minnesota so I have two heat
> valves on the firewall with the idea of having two heat
> muffs (Rick Robbins on Vetterman crossover for an RV6). I
> have seen the air pick up in two differant locations... (1)
> on the forward baffles just inside the cowling air intake
> scoops ahead of the engine cylinders and (2) on the aft
> baffle above the engine accessory case and then via scat
> tubing to the muffs. My question is which location produces
> the best heat and performance for the cockpit? Pros and cons
> appreciated especially from other cold climate flyers.
>
> Dick DeCramer
> N500DD
> RV6 slider 160/ Sensenich
> engine installation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Keith and Jean Williams" <kandjwilliams(at)earthlink.net> |
>
> Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
> top of the firewall?
Jim,
Several of the RVs around here (Western Illinois, Eastern Iowa) including
mine (flying since 1999) have the antenna in that location and it works
fine. I checked with II Morrow (now UPS) and they said no problem so long
as I avoid metallic paint on cowl top.
Keith Williams
RV6 Moline, IL
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Lakeland RV weekend at SnF facility |
The second annual event will be held Friday and Saturday, Jan 10th and 11th.
They really did a bang up job last year and we really should support it with a
great turnout this year. You can camp free or someone will drop you at a local
motel if you prefer, but camping is great with campfire and lots of loose hangar
flying! It would be a good time for some of you to check out Key West maybe
on Sat nite.
You can keep up with the status by checking Laura Crook's site at www.rotaryaviation.com
and clicking on the Florida Van's AF spot.
Bernie Kerr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
> Dick, since you are building both into your plane, it looks
> like you will be the best source of the difference, if any,
> of where the air is picked up for the heaters. I suspect no
> difference will be found.
>
Dick, sorry, I misread your original post, which generated my above
erroneous comment... However, I don't think it matters where you pick up
the heat. Robbins claims some additional heat is garnered by putting
the pickup low behind #3. Maybe so.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front cowling at the
top of the firewall?
Hi Jim
This answer is off topic - for others who are planning a location for their
GPS antenna, especially for IFR use, make sure to keep your GPS antenna away
from the ELT antenna. Some ELT's pick up comm radio transmissions
(frequencies close to 121.17) and re-radiate a 13th order harmonic that will
bother or shut down the GPS.
George McNutt
Langley, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | alternative engines |
No what I am suggesting is that is is not the most critical thing for his
business at this stage. If Lycoming got out of the engine business and
Continental had a replacement Van would continue to sell kits.
If Jan's Subie conversion continues to prove to be a BIG TIME winner and
Lycoming drops off the face of the earth, Van will still sell kits.
Van sells Lycomings but so do a LOT of other people and ***SOME*** of them
are viewed as "competitive" with Van on this.
If Van STOPS selling kits **then** his business goes away (at least the
business we know). If he stops selling Lycoming engines and simply gives us
a phone number or web site where we can order an engine, I say his business
is not significantly impaired. Of course it is more convenient for all of us
to be able to get engines and props from Van but it is not absolutely
critical, just like it is not critical that we get a Hartzell Constant speed
prop from him.
I bought a Lycoming from Van. My partner and I bought one from someone and
sent it to Bart. I have looked many times at the Subie site. None of this
though had any affect on the fundamental decision to build an RV. That
decision is the one that Van has to (and I believe does) keep his eye on so
his business continues to thrive ... make the best value aircraft kits out
there that are built to the needds and desires of real potential customers.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:57 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
> > It is not like the RV would die off if Van
> > stopped selling Lycoming engines or if Lycoming all of a sudden
> said "your
> > deal is off, all sales are now direct, and at a higher price".
>
> You have to be kidding. Van sells the engines that are preferred
> by 99 percent
> of his customers, and demanded by most, at 2/3 market value, and you're
> suggesting that arrangment isn't valuable to his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Geoff Evans" <gwevans(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Elevator cover plate |
I need some advice regarding the cover plate on the bottom of the left elevator
where the trim tab cable passes through.
Unfortunately, I didn't dimple the screw holes before installing the nutplates
in the elevator. What can I do to fix this problem?
Here are the options I can think of:
1. Don't dimple the cover plate itself and use pan head screws instead of the flush
screws. This would be the easiest, but the
screw heads will stick out.
2. Countersink the screw holes, without removing the nutplates, to provide a place
for the cover plate dimples to go. This will
remove a lot of material (perhaps all of it) if I countersink enough to accept
the dimple in the cover plate.
3. Drill out the rivets and remove the nutplates. Dimple the screw holes and then
reinstall the nutplates.
The guy at Van's said to lube up one of the screws, screw it in, and wang on it
enough to form the dimple with the screw head. I
looked at this option, but the screws are very tight in the nutplates and I don't
think I can do this without stripping the screw
head.
What should I do?
Thanks.
Geoff Evans
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | alternative engines |
No what I am suggesting is that is is not the most critical thing for his
business at this stage. If Lycoming got out of the engine business and
Continental had a replacement Van would continue to sell kits.
If Jan's Subie conversion continues to prove to be a BIG TIME winner and
Lycoming drops off the face of the earth, Van will still sell kits.
Van sells Lycomings but so do a LOT of other people and ***SOME*** of them
are viewed as "competitive" with Van on this.
If Van STOPS selling kits **then** his business goes away (at least the
business we know). If he stops selling Lycoming engines and simply gives us
a phone number or web site where we can order an engine, I say his business
is not significantly impaired. Of course it is more convenient for all of us
to be able to get engines and props from Van but it is not absolutely
critical, just like it is not critical that we get a Hartzell Constant speed
prop from him.
I bought a Lycoming from Van. My partner and I bought one from someone and
sent it to Bart. I have looked many times at the Subie site. None of this
though had any affect on the fundamental decision to build an RV. That
decision is the one that Van has to (and I believe does) keep his eye on so
his business continues to thrive ... make the best value aircraft kits out
there that are built to the needds and desires of real potential customers.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:57 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: alternative engines
>
>
> > It is not like the RV would die off if Van
> > stopped selling Lycoming engines or if Lycoming all of a sudden
> said "your
> > deal is off, all sales are now direct, and at a higher price".
>
> You have to be kidding. Van sells the engines that are preferred
> by 99 percent
> of his customers, and demanded by most, at 2/3 market value, and you're
> suggesting that arrangment isn't valuable to his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator cover plate |
How about grinding off the threaded portion of a screw of the appropriate
size. Next, use double sided tape to secure this screw to the flat set in
your squeezer. Finally, dimple the hole using your new squeezer die on the
outside and a flat set on the inside.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Evans" <gwevans(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Elevator cover plate
>
> I need some advice regarding the cover plate on the bottom of the left
elevator where the trim tab cable passes through.
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't dimple the screw holes before installing the
nutplates in the elevator. What can I do to fix this problem?
> Here are the options I can think of:
>
> 1. Don't dimple the cover plate itself and use pan head screws instead of
the flush screws. This would be the easiest, but the
> screw heads will stick out.
>
> 2. Countersink the screw holes, without removing the nutplates, to provide
a place for the cover plate dimples to go. This will
> remove a lot of material (perhaps all of it) if I countersink enough to
accept the dimple in the cover plate.
>
> 3. Drill out the rivets and remove the nutplates. Dimple the screw holes
and then reinstall the nutplates.
>
> The guy at Van's said to lube up one of the screws, screw it in, and wang
on it enough to form the dimple with the screw head. I
> looked at this option, but the screws are very tight in the nutplates and
I don't think I can do this without stripping the screw
> head.
>
> What should I do?
>
> Thanks.
> Geoff Evans
> RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator cover plate |
I would remove the nutplates and dimple, re-install.
If you run a #6 tap though the nutplate you should be able to make the
dimple
with the screw head as suggested by Van's.
Steve
Rv7A
panel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Evans" <gwevans(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Elevator cover plate
>
> I need some advice regarding the cover plate on the bottom of the left
elevator where the trim tab cable passes through.
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't dimple the screw holes before installing the
nutplates in the elevator. What can I do to fix this problem?
> Here are the options I can think of:
>
> 1. Don't dimple the cover plate itself and use pan head screws instead of
the flush screws. This would be the easiest, but the
> screw heads will stick out.
>
> 2. Countersink the screw holes, without removing the nutplates, to provide
a place for the cover plate dimples to go. This will
> remove a lot of material (perhaps all of it) if I countersink enough to
accept the dimple in the cover plate.
>
> 3. Drill out the rivets and remove the nutplates. Dimple the screw holes
and then reinstall the nutplates.
>
> The guy at Van's said to lube up one of the screws, screw it in, and wang
on it enough to form the dimple with the screw head. I
> looked at this option, but the screws are very tight in the nutplates and
I don't think I can do this without stripping the screw
> head.
>
> What should I do?
>
> Thanks.
> Geoff Evans
> RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator cover plate |
By "Lube up " the screws he means the threads too .
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Does this advice apply to both the 'big' antennas that come, I think,
with the panel mount GPSs as well as the smaller ones that come with the
handhelds? I was wondering about putting my handheld antenna in under
the cowl.......
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Keith and Jean Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:40 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: GPS Antenna
>
>
> -->
>
>
> >
> > Has anyone installed their GPS antenna under the front
> cowling at the
> > top of the firewall?
>
> Jim,
>
> Several of the RVs around here (Western Illinois, Eastern
> Iowa) including mine (flying since 1999) have the antenna in
> that location and it works fine. I checked with II Morrow
> (now UPS) and they said no problem so long as I avoid
> metallic paint on cowl top.
>
> Keith Williams
> RV6 Moline, IL
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Kramer" <JRKramer(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RV8 Project for sale in Arizona |
RV8 project for sale. Cut some building time down!! Empennage and wing
with builder's manual. Empennage is completed. Left wing and gas tank
65% completed. Would include combo wing jig and work bench with lots of
space for tools and parts storage on bottom. Buyer must pick up in west
Phoenix area. Asking $6000. Contact Joe at 623-202-8223
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how - lota talk but no how |
went to the FBO today, paid him $20.00, got the search.
Jerry Wilken
N699WP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
> As I live 6 miles from Van's and have know him since his RV-3 days I can tell
you his
> publicly expressed opinion has never changed. It has always been if you want
a
> conversion "take cash and convert it into an aircraft engine."
Exactly. Despite all the changes in the market, not much change in Van's
stance yet. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm putting Van down. I'm not. I
have tremendous respect for him as a person and as an engineer. But I've never
been a fan of argument-by-authority, and invoking Van as an authority on
engines isn't even a particularly good choice of authority. There are people
on this list who know a lot more about engines than Van does, and some of them
are building (or support building) auto conversions.
Van's postion is perfectly reasonable considering his postion. It wouldn't be
prudent for him to recommend something for his products that he hasn't tried
and been satisfied with himself. But his opinion on this subject shouldn't be
treated as gospel. And nobody's opinion on anything should thought of as a
trump card in a debate. Arguments have to stand on their own merits.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative Engine Questions |
Steve Wittman, if you remember, converted a buick or olds aluminum V8
for his Tailwind by turning it upside down and running the prop direct
drive using a bell housing for prop bearing. No reduction unit. I think
he ran it at around 3000 or 3300 rpm with a smaller diameter prop to
make up for lack of cubic inches. Claimed 150 hp. He sold conversion
plans for years.
If one didn't want to turn the prop so fast, he'd need more displacement
than 4.3 liters. That's only 262 cu. Even bored and stroked you'd need
more inches to get 160 or 180 horses at 2700 rpm.
If you're going the alum vee engine route, why not a 350 cu V8, inverted
(to keep the thrust line right), direct drive. You should be able to get
close to 180 hp out of it at 2700 rpm. Even with all the light race
stuff, it's still gonna be heavier than a Lycoming though, if only
because of the radiator and stuff.
By the way, I have no intention of doing this myself. I thought about it
and talked myself out of the idea some years back.
Ed Holyoke
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Lets suppose that a guy with some coin in his pockets and some time on
his
> hands decided to go this 4.3 L V6 rout.
> If he where to order a custom built aluminum block with the biggest
bore
> that can be utilized (4+ inches I believe) and also a the longest
stroked
> crankshaft that would be workable. (?) This stuff is available in the
> market place.
> Some time spent with a cam grinder to provide a cam that could supply
good
> torque and horsepower at even lower RPM., say somewhere closer to 2000
to
> 4000 RPM.
> From this he might realize some operational benefits such as lower
engine
> speed would allow a less tall PRSU. reduction thereby delivering more
> energy
> to the prop.(less gallons per hr.). Potentially more durability and
> reliability due to better power at lower RPM..
> Add aluminum heads with sodium cooled valves, flow benched and ported
with
> an eye toward the intended use.
> Now with the weight of the cast iron bits gone. The power band and RPM
> range
> closer to his applications demands and his pockets no longer pulling
his
> pants down off his hips. Would he be on the road to his ultimate goal?
>
> At Vans good price, $31300.00 for a new 200 HP. Lycoming, the above
power
> plant could be configured for similar and arguably but possibly less
> money.
> As others have said the overhaul cost for this unit would be
significantly
> less than any aircraft industry manufactured engine. A few thousand
> dollars
> as opposed to somewhere near two thirds of the original engine
purchase
> price.
>
> So far there has been little reference to the many light weight high
> output
> engine designs that have arrived and continue to arrive on the scene.
> Who's
> to say which one of these 250 lb. 245 HP type units might jump up onto
a
> firewall. The Cadillac North Star engine has pulled an aircraft
through
> the
> sky for one example.
>
> Just fueling the fire a bit :)!
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "barry pote" <barrypote(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
>
>
> >
> > With reference to cams, Brian Crower (Crower Cams) pulled out an old
> > master to make me one for the 4.3. Fred Carter, in Colorado wrote a
> > number of articles for CONTACT magazine, has built many engines. His
4.3
> > made strong power from 3000 to 5000 rpm. So I chose to use that
grind. I
> > intend to never exceed 4500 and hopefully cruise at 3500 rpm.
> > 3500 rpm is not much higher than I hit , on an open road, from
Montclair
> > to Albany, to see my grand daughter. Hahaha. Radar detector is a
must!
> >
> > Barry Pote
> >
> >
> > > Actually Jim,
> > >
> > > Getting a handle on the mysterious black art of cam grinding is
easier
> than
> > > most people think. Most cam grinding shops can utilize one or
another
> set of
> > > masters to modify a cam to suit an intended use.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator cover plate |
Geoff,
Your RV-8 is obviously yours to manufacture and configure as you personally
see fit. However, shop for some low profile stainless pan head screws, put
them in the elevator as you have constructed it, and imagine that it is
mounted on the finished aircraft. Realistically, how many people are going
to see this tiny panel or be surprised that the screws are not completely
flush? I think you can be assured that the type of screw head is irrelevant
to the performance or future operation of the aircraft.
A reasonable alternative is to cut the threaded portion off a flush head
screw, place it in the hole, and then to use a squeezer to form the dimple.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Evans" <gwevans(at)attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Elevator cover plate
>
> I need some advice regarding the cover plate on the bottom of the left
elevator where the trim tab cable passes through.
>
> Unfortunately, I didn't dimple the screw holes before installing the
nutplates in the elevator. What can I do to fix this problem?
> Here are the options I can think of:
>
> 1. Don't dimple the cover plate itself and use pan head screws instead of
the flush screws. This would be the easiest, but the
> screw heads will stick out.
>
> 2. Countersink the screw holes, without removing the nutplates, to provide
a place for the cover plate dimples to go. This will
> remove a lot of material (perhaps all of it) if I countersink enough to
accept the dimple in the cover plate.
>
> 3. Drill out the rivets and remove the nutplates. Dimple the screw holes
and then reinstall the nutplates.
>
> The guy at Van's said to lube up one of the screws, screw it in, and wang
on it enough to form the dimple with the screw head. I
> looked at this option, but the screws are very tight in the nutplates and
I don't think I can do this without stripping the screw
> head.
>
> What should I do?
>
> Thanks.
> Geoff Evans
> RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines |
I agree with Tedd. Surely, it is in Van's business interest to do whatever
he can to help RV builders over the engine installation stumbling block - a
major hurdle in any homebuilt project. This helps get completed RV's into
the air, results in more satisfied customers, and thus should lead to
increased future kits sales - his core business activity.
So, from this viewpoint, it is a quite reasonable strategy to stock parts
and offer support for a reliable and proven engine choice for the RV product
line - and he has chosen the Lycoming engine series for this purpose. It
would also make sense to act as an OEM source for new Lycomings at a minimal
mark-up just to get them into the hands of his customers as another way of
influencing future kit sales. From Lycoming's position, they get to sell
more engines to RV builders in this way rather than forcing them to go some
other route and they are happy too.
Attempting to stock parts for and support a variety of "alternative"
engines, be they auto conversions or straight aircraft engines, would take a
lot of time and effort and not help sell that many more kits. So why do it?
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-3
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: alternative engines
>
> > It is not like the RV would die off if Van
> > stopped selling Lycoming engines or if Lycoming all of a sudden said
"your
> > deal is off, all sales are now direct, and at a higher price".
>
> You have to be kidding. Van sells the engines that are preferred by 99
percent
> of his customers, and demanded by most, at 2/3 market value, and you're
> suggesting that arrangment isn't valuable to his business?
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Compton" <rdcompton(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:AD search - how |
> If the products are non-TSO'd,etc, they do not have ADs, therefore there
is
> nothing to issue an AD against/for.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
Looks like this is the way to go. Only use non-TSO'd / PMA'd / STC'd stuff
if you want to avoid potentially arbitrary hassles with the fuzz.
At face value I see where the FAA would think that this regulatory change
will make all of this experimental stuff "safer", and it might. But it
seems to me that the unintended consequence will be that folks now have even
more of an incentive to avoid certified parts and really do some
experimenting.
If the fuzz would have been around in 1903 they'd have grounded Orville and
Wilbur on the spot. With absolutely no aviating going on, they could then
sit in their Washington offices and congratulate themselves on how safe
they've made aviation. Kind of reminds me of the discussion my squadron
operations officer, maintenance officer, and safety officer were having:
Ops says we need to fly more, maintenance says don't fly so much, and safety
says don't fly at all! ;-)
Randy Compton
RV-3 N84VF
Gulf Breeze, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick07x(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines ad nauseum |
Being a "dealer" and an "OEM supplier" are two entirely different job
descriptions. It does Van a disservice to suggest by way of not too
subtle innuendo that his relationship with Lycoming is ulterior and
self-serving. But even if it were, (which I
doubt), Van's choice of a Lycoming powerplant is really a
no-brainer from a dispassionately cold and logical point of view. A review of
Business 101 will quickly illustrate that you'll be more efficient (read
profitable) and simplify your inventory if you strive for commonality, lets
say for instance....oh I don't know, how about ....engine mounts and
cowlings? The costs we all pay for our kits are driven in part by this
irrefutable dynamic. However those who would bemoan this inconvenient
economic reality in part to justify dreams of an alternative power plant
choice, to them I say GO TO. Who's stopping you, except for maybe
those intransigent insurance companies, dubious economics, and more
than one box canyon on the road to Eldorado? The RVs' reputation and
popularity and insurability and safety and sheer numbers are overwhelmingly
based upon a Lycoming up front doing what it does best after
decades of service and millions of hours of operational
experience. Wagging a finger at Van because of this undeniable
reality is like blaming Tiger Woods for keeping women out of
Augusta.
--- Rick Galati
--- rick07x(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines ad nauseum |
| From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
>
>
>Being a "dealer" and an "OEM supplier" are two entirely different job
>descriptions. It does Van a disservice to suggest by way of not too
>subtle innuendo that his relationship with Lycoming is ulterior and
>self-serving. But even if it were, (which I
>doubt), Van's choice of a Lycoming powerplant is really a
>no-brainer from a dispassionately cold and logical point of view.
And in support of Van's being open minded, they did seem to make a very
good faith effort to make an alternative engine (Franklin) work on their
airplanes. It reportedly was a nightmare, even with all the engineering
and building skills available there. And this was a real AIRPLANE
engine. Alternatives are not for the faint of heart.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines ad nauseum |
Well put Rick.
You drive home the points I attempted to make although I was a bit more
oblique. :-)
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: rv-list
> Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines ad nauseum
>
>
> Being a "dealer" and an "OEM supplier" are two entirely different job
> descriptions. It does Van a disservice to suggest by way of not too
> subtle innuendo that his relationship with Lycoming is ulterior and
> self-serving. But even if it were, (which I
> doubt), Van's choice of a Lycoming powerplant is really a
> no-brainer from a dispassionately cold and logical point of view.
> A review of
> Business 101 will quickly illustrate that you'll be more efficient (read
> profitable) and simplify your inventory if you strive for
> commonality, lets
> say for instance....oh I don't know, how about ....engine mounts and
> cowlings? The costs we all pay for our kits are driven in part by this
> irrefutable dynamic. However those who would bemoan this inconvenient
> economic reality in part to justify dreams of an alternative power plant
> choice, to them I say GO TO. Who's stopping you, except for maybe
> those intransigent insurance companies, dubious economics, and more
> than one box canyon on the road to Eldorado? The RVs' reputation and
> popularity and insurability and safety and sheer numbers are
> overwhelmingly
> based upon a Lycoming up front doing what it does best after
> decades of service and millions of hours of operational
> experience. Wagging a finger at Van because of this undeniable
> reality is like blaming Tiger Woods for keeping women out of
> Augusta.
>
>
> --- Rick Galati
>
> --- rick07x(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)vondane.com> |
"vansairforce"
Hi all...
I am looking for an accessory case that will fit an O320-E3D that is ready for
a prop governor...
-Bill VonDane
RV-8A ~ 79 hours
www.vondane.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative engine - expert opinion |
First, let me declare myself an expert in the area of Automotive Electronic Powertrain
Control systems
(10 yrs industry experience, 1 patent, others pending). My opinion on the alternate
engine subject is:
The Lycoming WILL eventually be replaced by something better. The question is
not IF, but WHEN.
Whether this will be an automotive engine core modified for aircraft use, micro-turbine,
fusion reactor,
etc, no one can say for sure right now. Kudos to those that are working toward
achieving
that goal. For me personally, I am more interested in getting in the air quickly
and as painlessly as
possible, so I am going with a Lycoming.
Phil
8A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
> What's the scoop on Subarus and other alternative engines and aerobatics?
Lucky:
Disregarding engine peripherals (fuel system, etc.) which could be anything on
a given installation, and disregarding airframe issues (weight, CofG, etc.),
there are two main things to consider for an aerobatic airplane's engine:
inverted oil and non-torsional prop loads (especially gyroscopic prop loads).
The G loads you induce on the engine by flying aerobatics aren't going to be a
big factor, given the loads that internal engine components experience in
normal use. I've heard it suggested that crankshaft gyro loads could be a
problem for an auto conversion, but that hypothesis doesn't stand up to
analysis. You have to remember that your car experiences some pretty high
pitch, roll, and yaw rates too, and often at fairly high RPM.
I've never seen an RV with inverted oil unless it had a Lycoming. I asked
Jabiru about inverted oil for their new 6000 engine, and they said they were
not planning for it. It probably wouldn't be too hard to add inverted oil to
the Jabiru, but presumably it would be more difficult than adding it to a
Lycoming, where there are off-the-shelf solutions. Adding inverted oil to an
auto conversion would probably be more complicated than adding it to a Jabiru
in most cases. So if inverted oil is a priority for you, and you don't want to
tinker, you should go with a Lycoming. That's one of the key reasons I'm using
a Lycoming in my project.
Most 150-200 horsepower auto conversions use a PSRU that isolates the
crankshaft from non-torsional prop loads. So prop loads are a question for the
PSRU manufacturer.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> I fly in cold climate here in Minnesota so I have two heat
> valves on the firewall
> with the idea of having two heat muffs (Rick Robbins on
> Vetterman crossover
> for an RV6). I have seen the air pick up in two differant
> locations... (1)
> on the forward baffles just inside the cowling air intake
> scoops ahead of the
> engine cylinders and (2) on the aft baffle above the engine
> accessory case and
> then via scat tubing to the muffs. My question is which
> location produces the
> best heat and performance for the cockpit? Pros and cons
> appreciated especially
> from other cold climate flyers.
>
> Dick DeCramer
Dick:
I fly in northeast Wisconsin and have a dual Robbins muff setup as you
describe. For my air inlets I used one of each. The left side inlet
is in the left front lower baffle in front of the #2 cylinder. The
right side inlet is in the right rear baffle -- near the corner, just
above the top of the #3 cylinder. As far as I can tell, both sides
work equally well. However, I haven't made any measurements to see if
one side puts out more heat than the other.
Generally, I would classify my heating system as "not bad". Heat
enters the cabin through two homemade diffusion boxes. The diffusion
boxes are located on the firewall, one on each side, centered above
the pilot/copilots feet. As configured, the system puts out more heat
than I can use, because when I turn on full heat, it "burns my toes".
I find that when the heat is adjusted such that my feet are warm, my
shoulders get a little cold, and I need a jacket to be comfortable.
When it gets cold, I find drafts in the cockpit that I can't feel when
the weather is warm.
When it is very cold, I wear a heavy coat for preflight preparation,
then change to a medium jacket when I am ready to go. (For safety,
the coat goes in the baggage compartment in case of an off airport
landing.) This has always been comfortable for me. The only time I
get cold is when the engine stops making power. When in the pattern,
if I pull power abeam the numbers, I am cold by the time I touch down.
Note: I do NOT have a spring or pot scrubber in my heat muffs. I did
however, restrict the inlet airflow as was recommended in the Robbins
instructions. As I recall, for the inlet I drilled a pattern of 7,
3/8" diameter holes.
Mark Nielsen
RV-6, 792 hrs.
Green Bay, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
Hey List;
I was just offered a row of 3 seats from a 737 that is currently
being upgraded to leather seats. The catch is that I have to drive to
Calgary and take the entire row. Obviously I'm not going to put an entire
seat in my RV, but I'm interested in the cushions as they are covered in the
correct color.
My question to the list is anyone out there familiar with these
seats (other than having to sit in one for many hours)? I assume the foam &
fabric is reasonably fireproof? Is there much that I could use? I've spent
untold hours in these seats, but never gave them a second thought. I'm not
planning on flying on a 737 until Jan, but I have to decide in the next
week, so I won't have an opportunity to examine one. (besides, I imagine it
would upset the flight crew if I began an extensive inspection of my seat
during a flight ;-)).
I really don't know if it is worth it to get these seats, because I
may have to cut open much of the fabric to remove all the metal structure,
trayback, etc.
I've read all about the Orndorff seats and other options, so I'm not
looking for opinions on these. Thanks.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close
they were to success when they gave up"
Thomas A. Edison
Boeing Seats
Hey List;
I was just offered a row of 3 seats from a 737 that is currently being upgraded
to leather seats. The catch is that I have to drive to Calgary and take the
entire row. Obviously I'm not going to put an entire seat in my RV, but I'm interested
in the cushions as they are covered in the correct color.
My question to the list is anyone out there familiar with these seats (other than
having to sit in one for many hours)? I assume the foam fabric is reasonably
fireproof? Is there much that I could use? I've spent untold hours in these
seats, but never gave them a second thought. I'm not planning on flying on a
737 until Jan, but I have to decide in the next week, so I won't have an opportunity
to examine one. (besides, I imagine it would upset the flight crew if
I began an extensive inspection of my seat during a flight ;-)).
I really don't know if it is worth it to get these seats, because I may have to
cut open much of the fabric to remove all the metal structure, trayback, etc.
I've read all about the Orndorff seats and other options, so I'm not looking for
opinions on these. Thanks.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up
Thomas A. Edison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
JR,
Could you explain the "aerobatic out of the box" comment? I have an
XP-I0-360 on order from Bart, and hadn't heard about that. What makes the
engine different in that respect from a Lycoming? What else is needed to
insure negative G lubrication?
Thanks,
Terry
RV-8A #80729 finish
Seattle
Both of these engines can be had as
a kit or built up by various sources such as Aerosport, Matituck and several
others to customer specifications. They are also aerobatic out of the box.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Hi Todd,
Those of us that are lucky enough to have friends that are airline mechanics
have lots of these "cushions" in our shops as the airlines regularly throw
them away. The come in all sizes/shapes, and the seat frames themselves are
worthless. I wouldn't bother.
The cushions are relatively heavy, and basically only one layer of molded
foam rubber. After a couple of years the cushions are worthless. The won't
pass the "float test" anymore, and have become "squished".
About the only thing the cusions are good for is padding while working on
your RV. I've seen numerous RV's on the internet and you can spot the
airline employees right away. They're the ones with airline seat cushions
scattered about their project.
I would say the Orndorff, Lauritsen, or Oregon Aero seats are FAR superior.
I have almost 400,000 miles in airliners this year and you couldn't pay me
to put one of those seats in my RV. I have the Oregon Aero seats and love
them!
Just my opnions!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
Flying.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bartrim, Todd
Subject: RV-List: Boeing Seats
Hey List;
I was just offered a row of 3 seats from a 737 that is currently
being upgraded to leather seats. The catch is that I have to drive to
Calgary and take the entire row. Obviously I'm not going to put an entire
seat in my RV, but I'm interested in the cushions as they are covered in the
correct color.
My question to the list is anyone out there familiar with these
seats (other than having to sit in one for many hours)? I assume the foam &
fabric is reasonably fireproof? Is there much that I could use? I've spent
untold hours in these seats, but never gave them a second thought. I'm not
planning on flying on a 737 until Jan, but I have to decide in the next
week, so I won't have an opportunity to examine one. (besides, I imagine it
would upset the flight crew if I began an extensive inspection of my seat
during a flight ;-)).
I really don't know if it is worth it to get these seats, because I
may have to cut open much of the fabric to remove all the metal structure,
trayback, etc.
I've read all about the Orndorff seats and other options, so I'm not
looking for opinions on these. Thanks.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close
they were to success when they gave up"
Thomas A. Edison
Boeing Seats
Hey List;
I was just offered a row of 3 seats from a 737 that is currently being
upgraded to leather seats. The catch is that I have to drive to Calgary and
take the entire row. Obviously I'm not going to put an entire seat in my RV,
but I'm interested in the cushions as they are covered in the correct color.
My question to the list is anyone out there familiar with these seats
(other than having to sit in one for many hours)? I assume the foam fabric
is reasonably fireproof? Is there much that I could use? I've spent untold
hours in these seats, but never gave them a second thought. I'm not planning
on flying on a 737 until Jan, but I have to decide in the next week, so I
won't have an opportunity to examine one. (besides, I imagine it would upset
the flight crew if I began an extensive inspection of my seat during a
flight ;-)).
I really don't know if it is worth it to get these seats, because I may
have to cut open much of the fabric to remove all the metal structure,
trayback, etc.
I've read all about the Orndorff seats and other options, so I'm not
looking for opinions on these. Thanks.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were
to success when they gave up
Thomas A. Edison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: MT-Propeller |
In a message dated 12/05/2002 10:41:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nhunger(at)sprint.ca writes:
> How long do you expect the blades to last? I fly in the Pacific Northwest
> where we get alot of rain. The primary duty of my ship is cross-country so
> I
> expect to fly in rain more than the fair weather local jaunt crowd.
>
Hi Norm,
I just got back from Germany.
The Pacific Northwest doesn't know squat about rain, compared to Germany. :-)
And it's a lot colder in Germany, also.
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A engine Warnke FP wood prop
Electric CS MT Propeller ready to be balanced
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rv8forduane(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
Is there such a thing as a "engine kit" that can be assembled like the RV,
and if yes, what's the price difference?
Duane
still dreaming
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
Charlie,
Don't you fly a 'pusher' with a 4.3 Chevy in it?
Barry Pote RV9a
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
Here's Mattituck's prices for the XP and SL 360. For the $1000 I think I'll
let the factory build it. http://www.mattituck.com/new/xp36cvr.htm
Dave
6/6A
Prime/Not Prime
Slider/tilt
Still working on right wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Leathers" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com> |
| Subject: | Rockets vs Van's |
Hey Guys,
I'm looking really hard at the RVs. I've been studying the line for about a
year. Of course I've seen the Harmon Rockets and the F1 Rockets as well. I
understand that the Rockets are based on Van's RV4, but modified to accept
the (I)O 540. My question to all of you is, why has Van's not offered an
Ultimate 8, so to speak?
I once e-mailed Van's and asked if they ever would consider the concept. I
received an single syllable answer "NO"
People are buying these Rockets. It sound like a great machine. I have seen
some beauties at airshows. Van's has the corner on quality and ease of
build. Does anyone know why they don't corner the market in the genre, and
offer a hotrod like the Rockets?
DOC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: engines
>
> Well,
>
> as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list, and it
> did. ;{)
>
> I'm not knocking the use of an auto conversion for those of you who have
the
> design background to do this and not kill anybody.
>
> I think it more important to focus on the use of automotive technology in
> aeromotive. There is a long history of this, from flange and hardware
> standards, hose and plumbing standards, ignition system standards, etc all
> came out of the SAE standards.
>
> To me, I could care less what makes the airplane go forward. I only care
> that it keeps doing it, and it is reasonable in cost. The best advance in
> technology would be a 10000 hour power reduction unit with three small
> $2000/1000 hr centrifugal turbine engines attached that operate at 3500
degs
> so they compare to a recip on fuel economy.
>
> Shut one off for cruise, and two off for descent. Throw them away every
1000
> hours TTIS.
>
> This would allow someone to gear up for mass producing these units as they
> would be excellent for GPUs and for hybrid autos. But we still need to
> invent some materials that can handle the heat and vibration and be light.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv6tc" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
A year ago they (Superior) were selling the kit version of the XP-360 for
$16,900. That didn't include accessories, but did include phone support
from Mattituck. I guess there was a good market as they now sell the kit
(SL-360) through Mattituck for $19,900. I was a potential buyer until they
ratcheted up the price $3,000.
Keith Hughes
RV-6
Denver
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rv8forduane(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Superior XP-360
>
> Is there such a thing as a "engine kit" that can be assembled like the RV,
> and if yes, what's the price difference?
>
> Duane
> still dreaming
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: RE: Engine options] |
Saw this in a parallel thread on another list & couldn't resist.
(much snipped)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bd4-request@northwest-aero.com
> [mailto:bd4-request(at)northwest-aero.com]On Behalf Of amsp3(at)att.net
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:23 PM
> To: bd4@northwest-aero.com
> Subject: RE: Engine options
>
>
> hello
> your right about the power settings. if you go to the xp-360
> web site they
> give a nice chart for the dif power settings rich and lean. there
> can be a very
> dif amount of fuel flow in just leaning compaired to running
> rich. the hp only
> goes down just a little to between them also.
> im not going to get into the thing of what is better a auto
> or aircraft
> engine. that is a choice depending on situation. i know how
> people say in the
> late 60's could get a lyc 360 for $3,500. and now cant fig why so
> much. the
> average car was also about $3,500. you can get the xp-360 engine
> for 20k ready
> to run and the average car is about 20k. i see it as the aircraft
> engine was
> also expensive in the 60's as it is now in 2002. you can still
> find good deals
> on the 320s especially the 150 hp engines. then can always go to
> 160 hp without
> to much.
>
> stephan
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Engine options
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:43:17 -0800
From: "Johnny" <nwaero@northwest-aero.com>
Bad analogy. You still get the same old Lyc, but now for $20k. The new car
you get makes the '60's one look like a flinstones mobile.
-j-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Brandon <tbrandon(at)shaw.ca> |
Hi Terence:
This is Tom Brandon back with you, the American building an RV7A on
Vancouver Island. I just found out some bad news today. It seems I'm going
to have to pay the Canadian Government $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes for the
I import. Are any of of your members tax lawyers? Can you give us any
advice? Darren & I are trying to find out if it's a mistake, but so far, no
luck.
Thanks
Tom Brandon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Kramer" <JRKramer(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RV8 Kit for sale |
Empennage completed. Left wing and tank 65% completed. Phoenix, ,AZ
Joe @ 623-202-8223 for more info
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
>
>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda 13B
I
>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy flys
>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>relatively 'dirty.'
>
>Charlie
Charlie
Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4. Most
PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not design the units
to tolerate acro.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
>
>Here's Mattituck's prices for the XP and SL 360. For the $1000 I think I'll
>let the factory build it
Probably a good idea if you haven't built any engines before. If you've
done some auto or even motorcyles then why not build this simple
engine? What do you save for your labor? Maybe $100 per hour?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
>
>Is there such a thing as a "engine kit" that can be assembled like the RV,
A runout Lycoming? But wait till the RV is nearly done.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
I know it was sent to the wrong address, but for anyone listening who's
interested, the taxes to build in Canada *are* horrendous.
$17000 US for kit. 1.55x = $26350 CDN. 0.145x = $3821 CDN Tax, paid at
the CAN-US border on import. And that's just for the kit. Count on
twice that, to cover the taxes on instruments, engine, etc. over the
life of your project, unless you buy parts locally.
Advice: Keep all receipts, and keep all records of things you import
tax-free. You are allowed certain exemptions each time you are out of
the country, so keep track of what you bring back (if it's related to
the aircraft). If you can't show at the end of the day that you've paid
all taxes on all components, or were exempt on some components, the
Canadian government will charge you 7.5% Provincial and 7% gGvernment
Sales Tax on the market value of the completed aircraft.
Just one of the benefits of being a Canadian, I guess... 8-)
-RB4
RV7 Empennage
Tom Brandon wrote:
>
> Hi Terence:
> This is Tom Brandon back with you, the American building an RV7A on
> Vancouver Island. I just found out some bad news today. It seems I'm going
> to have to pay the Canadian Government $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes for the
> I import. Are any of of your members tax lawyers? Can you give us any
> advice? Darren & I are trying to find out if it's a mistake, but so far, no
> luck.
> Thanks
> Tom Brandon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
>The question being
>addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft use?"
And the answer is a resounding "YES". Y'all got that? I'm sure you know
of Bernie Pietenpol, Steve Wittman, Jeff Meyers and Tracy Crook. They all
had/have airplanes powered by converted auto engines. We are always
speaking of auto engines that have been converted or adapted. These
people have demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt that an auto engine can
power an aircraft to a landing point higher than the takeoff point.
What is so different about an auto engine, physically? These guys all used
liquid cooled engines with radiators and plumbing as did the P51
Mustang. The latter two had reduction drives - PSRUs - So did the
Mustang, of course. Usually, the critical difference is weight. I figured
that if I put a Chevy V-6 in my airplane it would be like flying with a
Young Eagle all the time. Hopefully, it wouldn't get airsick :-)
What if we had a powerplant like the Mustang's for our RVs?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
>
Sam is proposing the Panasonic LC-RD1217P which for $18 is a steal.
I have downloaded the data for this battery and comparing it with the
Odyssey see one difference which may be significant to their relative
performance.
The internal resistance of the Panasonic is 12 milliohm, the Odyssey 7
milliohm. The internal voltage drop and power dissipation (significant
during starting) within the Panasonic will be nearly double that of the
Odyssey.
I would guess this would halve the useful life of the Panasonic in
comparison with the Odyssey. Time will tell and I would like to hear how
well the Panasonic does hold up. I was not planning to include a battery
in my onboard spares kit.
Doug Gray
RV-6 fuse
> 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!!
> > 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??
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster(at)flion.com> |
| Subject: | Rockets vs Van's |
This has been beat to death in the archives, so you can look for details
and all the various opinions there. The quick tell is that Van has
other fish to fry. He's currently working on a 4-place RV and a
motorglider; the former because there seems to be a demand for it and
the latter because he wants to. He considers the RV-7 and RV-8 to be
'souped-up' versions of his original SBS and tandem designs,
respectively; perhaps one day he will take it farther. If you mentioned
Rockets in your query to him it would explain the terse reply; he has
said before that he considers the Rockets to be too much power for the
airframe as he designed it. Van is fairly conservative regarding his
designs, which is one reason he has been so successful.
I'm not sure what the ratio of Rockets to unmodified airframes there are
out there, but my guess is that it's not a large enough market for Van
to consider a separate kit for. Like I said, for details on the pros,
cons, and Van's opinions, check the archives.
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - framing forward fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Leathers
Subject: RV-List: Rockets vs Van's
Hey Guys,
I'm looking really hard at the RVs. I've been studying the line for
about a
year. Of course I've seen the Harmon Rockets and the F1 Rockets as well.
I
understand that the Rockets are based on Van's RV4, but modified to
accept
the (I)O 540. My question to all of you is, why has Van's not offered an
Ultimate 8, so to speak?
I once e-mailed Van's and asked if they ever would consider the concept.
I
received an single syllable answer "NO"
People are buying these Rockets. It sound like a great machine. I have
seen
some beauties at airshows. Van's has the corner on quality and ease of
build. Does anyone know why they don't corner the market in the genre,
and
offer a hotrod like the Rockets?
DOC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: engines
>
> Well,
>
> as I said earlier, to list all the differences would fill the list,
and it
> did. ;{)
>
> I'm not knocking the use of an auto conversion for those of you who
have
the
> design background to do this and not kill anybody.
>
> I think it more important to focus on the use of automotive technology
in
> aeromotive. There is a long history of this, from flange and hardware
> standards, hose and plumbing standards, ignition system standards, etc
all
> came out of the SAE standards.
>
> To me, I could care less what makes the airplane go forward. I only
care
> that it keeps doing it, and it is reasonable in cost. The best advance
in
> technology would be a 10000 hour power reduction unit with three small
> $2000/1000 hr centrifugal turbine engines attached that operate at
3500
degs
> so they compare to a recip on fuel economy.
>
> Shut one off for cruise, and two off for descent. Throw them away
every
1000
> hours TTIS.
>
> This would allow someone to gear up for mass producing these units as
they
> would be excellent for GPUs and for hybrid autos. But we still need to
> invent some materials that can handle the heat and vibration and be
light.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: for sale O 320 E3D |
Rollie: The Sensenich prop is a fixed pitch 70 CM 6S16-0-78. I sure
hope you could use it. I think If you call Sensenich they will be able to
tell you the bolt size. I think it is listed in the numbers above. It is a
new prop never used . Bruce the owner is out of town again. I have hade a lot
of interest in it. let me know soon if you can use it Sorry but he wants to
sell it as a package. but I may be able to work something out. Good to here
from you. hope all is going well.
Terry E. Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda 13B
I
>>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy flys
>>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>>relatively 'dirty.'
>>
>>Charlie
>
>
> Charlie
> Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4. Most
PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not design the
units to tolerate acro.
> Charlie Kuss
>
When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have questions
about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best in his
quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has the engine
been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is this
just
an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess is and
I
could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know anythig
different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears that during
this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine changes.
Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the total
time
on the engine without major work is the question.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rockets vs Van's |
Why should Van's offer a competing design? Every HR2 starts out as a RV-4
kit, which he sells.
Jim Ayers
RV-4 sn 2708 (HR2 sn 269)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
ECI offers one for $ `4,700.00.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rv8forduane(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Superior XP-360
>
> Is there such a thing as a "engine kit" that can be assembled like the RV,
> and if yes, what's the price difference?
>
> Duane
> still dreaming
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion (Tracy Crook rebuilds) |
Hi Jerry,
Tracy did nothing on the first engine til 850 hours at which time he
inspected it and found the wear to be less than 1/3 the limits on any
tolerances. IF you can linearly extrapolate this wear, than the engine
should go over 2400 TBO. Tracy upgraded the engine to a higher HP and later
generation engine at this point. He originally used a Ross PSRU until he
decided to do one himself. The current gearbox and engine combo have 450
hours. This engine has not been apart in that time.
I've sent Tracy a copy of this. He does not normally monitor the list, so
maybe he will expound on my comments or correct any errors.
Bernie Kerr
>From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion
>Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:47:07 -0800
>
>
>Charlie Kuss wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3
>Mazda 13B I
> >>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes.
>Tracy flys
> >>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
> >>relatively 'dirty.'
> >>
> >>Charlie
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> > Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his
>4. Most PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not
>design the units to tolerate acro.
> > Charlie Kuss
> >
>
>When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have
>questions
>about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best in
>his
>quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has the
>engine
>been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is
>this just
>an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess
>is and I
>could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know
>anythig
>different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears
>that during
>this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine
>changes.
>Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the
>total time
>on the engine without major work is the question.
>Jerry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Stribling" <ken(at)soundsuckers.com> |
I run the Panasonic in my plane for the last year and it ran fine last
winter, but this winter is a different story. I have had to jump it 3 times
and if I let it sit for more than 2 weeks it is totally dead. I have a new
odyssey that I will install when I convert to Auto engine next month.
Ken S. 6-A flying
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Gray" <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: RV-List: re: battery
>
> >
>
> Sam is proposing the Panasonic LC-RD1217P which for $18 is a steal.
>
> I have downloaded the data for this battery and comparing it with the
> Odyssey see one difference which may be significant to their relative
> performance.
>
> The internal resistance of the Panasonic is 12 milliohm, the Odyssey 7
> milliohm. The internal voltage drop and power dissipation (significant
> during starting) within the Panasonic will be nearly double that of the
> Odyssey.
>
> I would guess this would halve the useful life of the Panasonic in
> comparison with the Odyssey. Time will tell and I would like to hear how
> well the Panasonic does hold up. I was not planning to include a battery
> in my onboard spares kit.
>
> Doug Gray
> RV-6 fuse
>
> > 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!!
>
> > > 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??
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda 13B
I
>>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy flys
>>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>>relatively 'dirty.'
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
>
>Charlie
> Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4. Most
PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not design the
units to tolerate acro.
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
Tracy has no G limitation on the PSRU he sells other than recommendation
to replace hub/output shaft regularily if doing hard (airshow)
areobatics, just like the airshow performers replace their engines or
crankshafts.
But go to
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/
and send him an e-mail if you really want the correct info.
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
>Charlie Kuss wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda 13B
I
>>>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy
flys
>>>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>>>relatively 'dirty.'
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>
>>
>> Charlie
>> Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4.
Most PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not design the
units to tolerate acro.
>> Charlie Kuss
>>
>
>When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have questions
>about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best in his
>quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has the engine
>been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is this
just
>an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess is and
I
>could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know anythig
>different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears that during
>this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine changes.
>Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the total
time
>on the engine without major work is the question.
>Jerry
Jerry,
Hopefully, Bernie will get Tracy to weigh in on this himself. I know that his
original engine was a "junkyard" used engine. No major internal work was done
to it before use in his RV-4. Tracy realized the nature of what he was doing and
tended to use 40% power settings for cruise on that engine until he had many
hundreds of hours on it. Part of this was because during this time, he was working
on and improving the fuel and other ancillary systems. His Ross PSRU developed
output bearing problems in less than 400 hours use. His own PSRU design
has gone through several improvements. (ie added thrust bearings and increased
output shaft diameter) His PSRU as he now sells it is very well designed.
Tracy has designed and marketed a redundant ignition system for the 13B engine.
One point no one else has brought up yet in this discussion, is the fact that
MOST auto engine conversions have only one ignition source. The Mazda 13B comes
with duel spark plugs and duel ignition, stock. This was done to help pass
US emission standards. The rotary combustion chamber is a long, thin rectangle,
rather than the circular wedge or hemisphere common to piston engines. This
necessitated duel plugs to get a rapid burn of the complete combustion chamber.
For aircraft use, it makes for a nice redundant system. The 13B also has 2
fuel injectors per rotor. Tracy has designed his ECU to allow for the failure
of an injector, without complete loss of power in the affected rotor.
Finn has had a number of engine related problems. But most of that is due to
his being, shall we say....... extremely frugal.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Tim, I saw Bobby's web-site, very nice, but something made me
nervous!---The jig posts! Be sure that the lumber you use is well dried and
depending on how humidity goes up-and-down where you are, seal them with
poly-varnish when dry. I speak for my son-in-law who learnt "from the school
of hard knocks" that after drilling the h-stab rear spar halves to the
flange strips and riveting them together, then putting on the hinge
brackets, finding that the assembly was not straight! (could not get the
brackets centered in line) The cross-member of the jig had warped during the
process! He had to re-build.
Based on that, when I made my jig I used 3 pieces of 3/4" ply-wood screwed
and glued together,-for the posts and cross-beam. Firm as a rock!
I did the same for the wing jig, but for the posts I used two old 2"x8"s I
had stored years earlier (from a demolished deck) and then laminated them
each side also with 3/4" ply wood strips.
It was very satisfying that when I was ready to remove the wings form the
jigs (I built both at the same time), releasing the rear spar clamps to the
jig showed no deflection of the plum-bobs whatsoever!
Cheers!!-----Happy Holidays!------Henry Hore---6-A,--
C-GELS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
I readily agree that the jury may still be out on the service life of
the cheap little batteries. No doubt a lot will depend on your
geographic location and whether or not your plane is sheltered in a
hangar.
I am located in the South where we get cold weather on a sporadic basis,
my plane is hangared, and I use a sump heater. This will probably
prolong the life of the battery in my plane. If I lived where I needed
to make frequent cold starts on a plane that is deep-frozen, a larger
battery would probably be a much better choice.
In my situation, the first time the little battery shows ANY signs of
weakening, it will be promptly replaced; it won't get the opportunity to
be jumped off two or three times. :-)
For clarification, the Panasonic I reference cost $36.95 at DigiKey. I
don't know the brand of the $18 battery available locally; we have a L-6
pilot who uses the $18 battery and he said the last one was serviceable
for three years.
Sam Buchanan
===========================
Ken Stribling wrote:
>
>
> I run the Panasonic in my plane for the last year and it ran fine last
> winter, but this winter is a different story. I have had to jump it 3 times
> and if I let it sit for more than 2 weeks it is totally dead. I have a new
> odyssey that I will install when I convert to Auto engine next month.
>
> Ken S. 6-A flying
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Gray" <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: re: battery
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > Sam is proposing the Panasonic LC-RD1217P which for $18 is a steal.
> >
> > I have downloaded the data for this battery and comparing it with the
> > Odyssey see one difference which may be significant to their relative
> > performance.
> >
> > The internal resistance of the Panasonic is 12 milliohm, the Odyssey 7
> > milliohm. The internal voltage drop and power dissipation (significant
> > during starting) within the Panasonic will be nearly double that of the
> > Odyssey.
> >
> > I would guess this would halve the useful life of the Panasonic in
> > comparison with the Odyssey. Time will tell and I would like to hear how
> > well the Panasonic does hold up. I was not planning to include a battery
> > in my onboard spares kit.
> >
> > Doug Gray
> > RV-6 fuse
> >
> > > 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!!
> >
> > > > 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??
> > > >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Brumbelow <csbrumbelow(at)fedex.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Superior XP-360 |
I went to the XP-360 builders' forum at Oshkosh this year, intending to learn
and buy the kit. Long story short, Superior seems to be shying away from selling
kits to individuals. At the time, they would only sell the kits to you through
a
build shop (i.e., Mattituck, AeroSport Power, America's Aircraft Engines) with
the intent of at least making sure you had supervision while building.
At Oshkosh they were offering a "special" on the built up version that
essentially had it priced at the same level as the kit - which did NOT have any
special pricing. Thus, it was a no-brainer decision - buy the built-up version
for the same price as the kit! One other advantage that I had not previously
considered was that buying the built-up version also provided for having it test
run for a few hours. In hindsight, to me, that is a much better alternative than
trying to test run a kit built version myself.
For what it's worth, my price ended up being about $19,300 - which is about
$3,700 less than the equivalent pricing for a Lycoming through Vans. Superior
has reduced their prices since Oshkosh, and I have seen the "regular" advertised
price now at $19,900. I used America's Aircraft Engines for the build (they were
the ones working with Superior at Oshkosh) and have been more than happy with
them.
csb
rv6tc wrote:
>
> A year ago they (Superior) were selling the kit version of the XP-360 for
> $16,900. That didn't include accessories, but did include phone support
> from Mattituck. I guess there was a good market as they now sell the kit
> (SL-360) through Mattituck for $19,900. I was a potential buyer until they
> ratcheted up the price $3,000.
>
> Keith Hughes
> RV-6
> Denver
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rv8forduane(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Superior XP-360
>
> >
> > Is there such a thing as a "engine kit" that can be assembled like the RV,
> > and if yes, what's the price difference?
> >
> > Duane
> > still dreaming
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
>>>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda 13B
I
>>>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy
flys
>>>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>>>relatively 'dirty.'
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Charlie
>> Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4. Most
PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not design the
units to tolerate acro.
>>Charlie Kuss
>>
>>
>Tracy has no G limitation on the PSRU he sells other than recommendation
>to replace hub/output shaft regularily if doing hard (airshow)
>areobatics, just like the airshow performers replace their engines or
>crankshafts.
>
>But go to
>http://www.rotaryaviation.com/
>and send him an e-mail if you really want the correct info.
>
>Finn
Finn,
Sorry, poor wording. I didn't mean to imply that Tracy's PSRU was weak. In my
reply to Jerry Springer's comments, I mention that his PSRU is well designed.
Before he upgraded the output shaft size that may have been an issue. I certainly
would not attempt and acro with a Ross PSRU or quite a few of the PSRUs designed
for other automotive piston engined conversions.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com> |
| Subject: | A response from Van's own Tom Green to Doc's Rocket questions. |
Thanks Tom!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Green" <tomg(at)vansaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: More info please
> It simply is a question of volume. To design and test a new
> airframe for such an endeavor would cost a lot of money and the
> known sales volume perceived at this time would not be our best
> return... maybe in the future Van might do something like it but if
> we started tomorrow, it would take 2-3 years to go to market... fly
> safe, Tom at Van's
>
> Forwarded by: "Support"
> Forwarded to: TOMG
> From: "Dr. Leathers" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com>
> To:
> Subject: More info please
>
> Hello Gentlemen,
>
> I once wrote to ask if Van's would ever consider offering something
> in the vein of the F1 Rocket or Harmon Rocket. Perhaps an RV8
> designed to accept an IO540 powerplant.
>
> I got a single syllable answer, "NO"
>
> I'm trying to decide what to build. I'm a serious, well heeled buyer. I
> have been researching your aircraft and the others for over a year. I
> know that your quality is without question, so why are you not
> considering offering an ultra-8, so to speak? Van's could corner the
> entire market with something like that in your stable, right???
>
> What am I missing?
>
> DOC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
>
> >The question being
> >addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft
use?"
>
> And the answer is a resounding "YES". Y'all got that? I'm sure you know
> of Bernie Pietenpol, Steve Wittman, Jeff Meyers and Tracy Crook. They all
> had/have airplanes powered by converted auto engines. We are always
> speaking of auto engines that have been converted or adapted. These
> people have demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt that an auto engine
can
> power an aircraft to a landing point higher than the takeoff point.
>
> What is so different about an auto engine, physically? These guys all
used
> liquid cooled engines with radiators and plumbing as did the P51
> Mustang. The latter two had reduction drives - PSRUs - So did the
> Mustang, of course. Usually, the critical difference is weight. I
figured
> that if I put a Chevy V-6 in my airplane it would be like flying with a
> Young Eagle all the time. Hopefully, it wouldn't get airsick :-)
>
> What if we had a powerplant like the Mustang's for our RVs?
>
>
> K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
> RV6-a N7HK flying!
> PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Hi all,
Just found the time to join this list and would be happy to answer any and
all questions about the Mazda rotary as an alternative aircraft engine.
I've put about 1300 hours on my RV-4 with a Mazda 13B 2 rotor and have had
no signifigant problems with the core engine. Spent about a year designing
a gear drive to replace the Ross gear drive which did give me a few (but no
emergency landings).
The engine with all systems weighs about the same as an O - 320 and makes
slightly more power. Fuel burn is in the same ballpark at SL and seems to
have a slight advantage at higher altitudes. How clean (aerodynamicly) the
airplane is will make much more difference in fuel burn than which engine
you use.
I'm building an RV-8 powered with a 20B 3 Rotor & fixed pitch wood prop.
Power is about 260 HP and will weigh about the same as an IO - 360 with CS
prop. Figure I can make up the disadvantage of no CS prop with the extra 60
HP.
Tracy Crook
tcrook(at)rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
This is for Canadian builders: ( sorry, other guys, but we also put-up with
all the ramblings re the Fed and AD's!)
In the days when I imported my kit, Canadian Customs did not collect
Provincial tax, only GST. I bought my engine out-of-province and they did
not charge provincial tax. Be advised that after my aircraft was registered
by TC, I got a friendly "reminder" from the Ontario sales tax people that
they had no record that sales tax was paid. ( As if it had been a an
aircraft purchase) Well, having all my procurement records, I advised them
that it was a home-built, but some sales tax had not been paid. I ended up
forking up C$ 3547.00, being strictly honest about it.
Cheers!!----Happy Holidays--- Henry Hore,
Bainsville, On, C-GELS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
> Charlie Kuss wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3
Mazda 13B I
> >>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes.
Tracy flys
> >>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
> >>relatively 'dirty.'
> >>
> >>Charlie
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> > Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his
4. Most PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not
design the units to tolerate acro.
> > Charlie Kuss
> >
>
> When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have
questions
> about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best
in his
> quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has
the engine
> been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is
this just
> an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess
is and I
> could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know
anythig
> different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears
that during
> this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine
changes.
> Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the
total time
> on the engine without major work is the question.
> Jerry
Excellent points from both of you Charlie & Jerry. I definitely agree
that the point about time between opening the engine up is a key parameter.
Ray Ward put over a thousand hours on a Chevy V8 but a tiny fraction of that
between changes & tearing down the engine. Also had several mechanical
failures of the core engine.
I put 856 hours on my first engine before opening it the first time. That
engine was a 'junk yard dog' with a minimal overhaul before installing in
the plane (apex seals & gaskets) which is the equivalent of slaping in a new
set of rings in a piston engine. A complete tear down and inspection was
done showing only about 30% of allowable wear on the apex seals (the fastest
wearing part in the engine). The wear on all other parts was not
measurable with one exception. The thrust bearing was severly worn due to
the thrust that the Ross gear drive put on the crank shaft. The RWS
Redrive that replaced the Ross has its own thrust bearing so this will not
be a problem in the future.
Engine builder Bruce Turrentine offered to build me a zero timed engine for
cost of parts only just to get the exposure so I took him up on the offer.
Otherwise, I could have continued to use the old engine after replacing the
thrust bearing. The new engine has performed flawlessly for 400+ hours
except for a broken tension bolt which I found & replaced at the Waco RV
Fly-in. earlier this year.
Charlie slightly overstated my conservative aerobatic G limit. I pull about
3.5 G during loop entry and limit myself to 4 G in any maneuver. This is my
personal limit and has nothing to do with the plane or redrive. Bruce Moore
at American Top Gun gave me my aerobatic instruction during which I found
that I start graying out at slightly over 5 G. Call me a wuss. I have no
inverted oil system so I avoid anything more than momentary negitive G. I
usually only pull slightly over 1.5 G during rolls (big barrel type usually)
only because I like to make them last as long as possible. French
Connection rather than Sean Tucker is my style.
Tracy Crook
tcrook(at)rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avery tach drive cover |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Guys,
I just got the Avery Tools' tach drive cover since I've got dual Lightspeeds and
get my RPM sensing directly from the ignition units. The cover doesn't have
any kind of gasket with it....does anyone know if I should make one or is there
no significant oil present at the tach drive opening?
Generally I've had outstanding quality and service from Avery but if I had to do
it over, I'd probly go to the hardware store and make my own tach drive cover....it
doesn't look like it's worth $7.50 to me...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D sanding fiberglass...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
> One point no one else has brought up yet in this discussion, is the fact that
MOST auto engine conversions have only one ignition source.
Not having surveyed the field, I'm not prepared to say that most do, but there
may be more redundancy in auto conversion ignitions than you're allowing for.
For example, Eggenfellner uses dual-redundant power sources which, in
conjunction with the internal redundancy of the stock Subaru ignition system
make for a very redundant system. In V6 or V8 conversions it's simple to have
two fully-independent systems firing different sets of cylinders, which still
gives you good performance after complete failure of one system. The Falconer
V12 uses that approach. I don't know how common it is with "home brewed"
conversions, but it's simple to do.
The important thing is to get redundancy up to the plug and lead, which is easy
to do in any installation. Failure of one plug or lead is (a) low probability
and (b) non-critical (except, perhaps, during a short-field take-off at high
weight or density altitude). Plugs don't foul or fail in auto-based systems as
frequently as they do in Lycomings because of the longer, hotter, cleaner
spark, and less need to use excess fuel for cooling during high power settings.
But I agree that the Mazda rotaries have a small advantage in having dual plugs
per chamber. The biggest reliability advantage of the rotaries, though, is
that they will run indefinitely (at 50 percent power) with no coolant.
Catastrophic loss of coolant in a piston engine would give you much less time
to get back on the ground safely.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
| Subject: | alternative engines and Van's opinion |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Springer [SMTP:jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:47 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion
>
> When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have
> questions
> about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best
> in his
> quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has
> the engine
> been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is
> this just
> an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess
> is and I
> could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know
> anythig
> different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears
> that during
> this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine
> changes.
> Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the
> total time
> on the engine without major work is the question.
> Jerry
>
>
Hi Jerry;
I think by nature it would be difficult for an experimenter such as
Tracy to accumulate 2000 hours on an engine without modification due to an
overwhelming desire to continually improve on it. A builder that is driven
to build his own conversion engine is also motivated to and skilled enough
(hopefully) to continually be looking for ways to improve on it. This makes
it difficult to achieve the high hours that you rightfully desire to see.
Consider that the cost for each of these early (and often
unnecessary) rebuilds is far less than the replacement cost for a cylinder,
which I'm told is not uncommon, and correct me if I'm wrong, but replacement
of a cylinder doesn't count towards TBO time?
As more FWF packages from Eggenfeller, Powersport and others become
more common, this is where we will begin to get a better idea of TBO on
these engines, as these purchasers of packages are less inclined to
"tinker".
I do recall reading somewhere about a gyrocopter at a school in
Arizona that has accumulated 6000 ? hours, without rebuild. Sorry but I
can't recall the details on this, maybe someone else can provide more info
on it.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close
they were to success when they gave up"
Thomas A. Edison
RE: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Springer [SMTP:jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net]
Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion
When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have questions
about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best in his
quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has the engine
been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is this
just
an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess is and
I
could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know anythig
different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears that during
this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine changes.
Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the total
time
on the engine without major work is the question.
Jerry
Hi Jerry;
I think by nature it would be difficult for an experimenter such as Tracy to accumulate
2000 hours on an engine without modification due to an overwhelming
desire to continually improve on it. A builder that is driven to build his own
conversion engine is also motivated to and skilled enough (hopefully) to continually
be looking for ways to improve on it. This makes it difficult to achieve
the high hours that you rightfully desire to see.
Consider that the cost for each of these early (and often unnecessary) rebuilds
is far less than the replacement cost for a cylinder, which I'm told is not
uncommon, and correct me if I'm wrong, but replacement of a cylinder doesn't count
towards TBO time?
As more FWF packages from Eggenfeller, Powersport and others become more common,
this is where we will begin to get a better idea of TBO on these engines, as
these purchasers of packages are less inclined to tinker.
I do recall reading somewhere about a gyrocopter at a school in Arizona that has
accumulated 6000 ? hours, without rebuild. Sorry but I can't recall the details
on this, maybe someone else can provide more info on it.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up
Thomas A. Edison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
Yes, Tom, I have a suggestion (tho' not practical for you I suspect) - come
to Colorado...aircraft parts and kits are not taxable...about 10 years ago
the state tried to get United to move their overhaul base to Denver and they
passed the "no tax on aircraft parts" law as an inducement for UAL to come
here...they didn't, but the law remains on the books. No tax at all on my
Rv6A.
John at Salida, CO
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brandon" <tbrandon(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: RV-List: Taxes!
>
> Hi Terence:
> This is Tom Brandon back with you, the American building an RV7A on
> Vancouver Island. I just found out some bad news today. It seems I'm going
> to have to pay the Canadian Government $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes for the
kit
> I import. Are any of of your members tax lawyers? Can you give us any
> advice? Darren & I are trying to find out if it's a mistake, but so far,
no
> luck.
> Thanks
> Tom Brandon
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
Jim Jewell wrote:
>
> Hi Tedd,
>
> Add to this that if a failure of the combustion chamber seals takes place
> the rotary will still produce some measure of useful power. In this
> condition I'm told that the engine will not re-start once shut down. I am
> not sure as to the amount of power the engine will continue to produce
> because I have no first hand experiance in this regard. Perhaps someone can
> provide some more information on this theoretical engine condition.
>
> Jim in kelowna
>
You are correct about continued running with loss of apex sealing. It's common
for the cars to have stuck seals due to carbon, brought on by running at very
low power levels. Compression will be unmeasurable. Removal of a spark plug & a
dose of auto transmission fluid in the combustion chambers will supply enough
compression to get the engine running again. Once running, it will usually shake
the seals loose for another few months of operation.
Broken apex seals will cause major damage to the housings, but breakage is
extremely rare unless the engine is severely overboosted to the point of
detonation. And the engine will continue to run until you shut it off.
I have personal experience with a car that ran on the highway at 65-75mph for
around 20 mi with no coolant. Obviously not the high power levels required in a
plane, but an RV would almost certainly fly at that power level. It quit when I
stopped to turn in my driveway. I actually got it to restart after that,
thinking it was stuck seals again. It continued to run at idle for around 15
minutes before I discovered the coolant loss & shut it off. When I tried to top
off the coolant, it poured out of the water pump, radiator, and flooded the
rotor housings (equivalant to the cylinders).
There have been at least a couple of cases where a/c had complete coolant loss
&
carried the pilot back to the airport.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Single Strobe Power Supply Source? |
Has anyone found an acceptable, reasonably-priced Strobe Power Supply Source
for single tail strobe? I have searched archives w/o success for alternative
source. Thanks for your help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
Tracy, thanks for a current and informative update.
Jerry
Tracy Crook wrote:
>
>>Charlie Kuss wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3
>>>
> Mazda 13B I
>
>>>>think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes.
>>>
> Tracy flys
>
>>>>with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
>>>>relatively 'dirty.'
>>>>
>>>>Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>> Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his
>>
> 4. Most PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not
> design the units to tolerate acro.
>
>>>Charlie Kuss
>>>
>>
>>When someone says that they have over 1200 hours on an auto engine I have
>
> questions
>
>>about the process. I know Tracy is an expert and I wish him all the best
>
> in his
>
>>quest for an alternative engine. Now the question is how many times has
>
> the engine
>
>>been apart in that 1200 hours? How many times have parts been replaced? Is
>
> this just
>
>>an install and run for 1200 hours? Or is it a continual upgrade? My guess
>
> is and I
>
>>could be wrong :) this engine has been apart several times. Anyone know
>
> anythig
>
>>different?... I just went and looked at Tracy's web site and it appears
>
> that during
>
>>this time there has been PSRU upgrades and replacements and even engine
>
> changes.
>
>>Total time on an airframe with an auto engines does not count. What is the
>
> total time
>
>>on the engine without major work is the question.
>>Jerry
>
>
> Excellent points from both of you Charlie & Jerry. I definitely agree
> that the point about time between opening the engine up is a key parameter.
> Ray Ward put over a thousand hours on a Chevy V8 but a tiny fraction of that
> between changes & tearing down the engine. Also had several mechanical
> failures of the core engine.
>
> I put 856 hours on my first engine before opening it the first time. That
> engine was a 'junk yard dog' with a minimal overhaul before installing in
> the plane (apex seals & gaskets) which is the equivalent of slaping in a new
> set of rings in a piston engine. A complete tear down and inspection was
> done showing only about 30% of allowable wear on the apex seals (the fastest
> wearing part in the engine). The wear on all other parts was not
> measurable with one exception. The thrust bearing was severly worn due to
> the thrust that the Ross gear drive put on the crank shaft. The RWS
> Redrive that replaced the Ross has its own thrust bearing so this will not
> be a problem in the future.
>
> Engine builder Bruce Turrentine offered to build me a zero timed engine for
> cost of parts only just to get the exposure so I took him up on the offer.
> Otherwise, I could have continued to use the old engine after replacing the
> thrust bearing. The new engine has performed flawlessly for 400+ hours
> except for a broken tension bolt which I found & replaced at the Waco RV
> Fly-in. earlier this year.
>
> Charlie slightly overstated my conservative aerobatic G limit. I pull about
> 3.5 G during loop entry and limit myself to 4 G in any maneuver. This is my
> personal limit and has nothing to do with the plane or redrive. Bruce Moore
> at American Top Gun gave me my aerobatic instruction during which I found
> that I start graying out at slightly over 5 G. Call me a wuss. I have no
> inverted oil system so I avoid anything more than momentary negitive G. I
> usually only pull slightly over 1.5 G during rolls (big barrel type usually)
> only because I like to make them last as long as possible. French
> Connection rather than Sean Tucker is my style.
>
> Tracy Crook
> tcrook(at)rotaryaviation.com
> www.rotaryaviation.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lucky Macy" <luckymacy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 44 Msgs - 12/05/02 |
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion
-
>
You need to get out more, Lucky. ;-)
Both Tracy Crook (RV-4 Mazda 13B over 1200 hrs) & Finn Lassen (RV-3 Mazda
13B I
think somewhere around 200 hrs) do acro all the time in their planes. Tracy
flys
with 180 hp Lyc powered -4's at the same fuel burn, and his airframe is
relatively 'dirty.'
Charlie
Charlie, you are quite the clown and you couldn't be any further off if you
tried comparing these guys to what Lycoming "demos" with their 320, 360 and
540 every day at IAC meets and airshows. ;-)
Wake me up when there are some Pitts, G-200s, etc flying around with
"alternative" engines (M-14P Stinker Pitts NOT included though a radail
powered, round cowl RV-8 could be WAY cool!).
lucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Single strobe power supply |
Check .They have a bunch of this stuff .
Click on "Power Supplies" I got my four strobes and power supply with four
cables for $199 . ( Whelen )
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Avery Tach Drive Cover |
We got a tach drive cover from A/C S for my friends RV-6A . $14 I think.
It had an " O " ring inside to seal against the face of the drive housing.
Count your blessings and buy a two-bit " O " ring .
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>
>
>I have personal experience with a car that ran on the highway at 65-75mph for
>around 20 mi with no coolant.
My RX-7's all have a low coolant sensor that squeals like a stuck pig when
it is low.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: for sale O 320 E3D |
Terry, I looked in my Vans catalog and you are right the bolt size is in the
model number you sent, however it is a 3/8" and I need a 7/16". I also need
a spinner kit. If Bruce does decide to break up the set I will be
interested.
We are getting along great. Thanks for asking.
Rollie & Rod
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Single strobe power supply |
>
>Check .They have a bunch of this stuff .
>Click on "Power Supplies" I got my four strobes and power supply with four
>cables for $199 . ( Whelen )
You got the 60 watt - the 90 watt are $50 more. Do these meet FAA
requirements for an RVn?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com> |
Hey Guys,
Is anyone out there a CFI with his own RV6 or7 in Arlington, WA, Harvey Field (Snohomish
WA) or Paine Field (Everett WA) or other close by field. I'm looking
for some transition hours, or maybe just someone who wants to share gas expenses
occasionally while I build my RV.
DOC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 44 Msgs - 12/05/02 |
> Wake me up when there are some Pitts, G-200s, etc flying around with
> "alternative" engines
Wake up, you're on the wrong listserver!
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
| Subject: | Straight and level acro!!! |
"Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his 4. "
Surely you jest - "1G acro". ;-)
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
RV9A fuselage. N919RV resvd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
kempthornes wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have personal experience with a car that ran on the highway at 65-75mph for
>>around 20 mi with no coolant.
>
>
> My RX-7's all have a low coolant sensor that squeals like a stuck pig when
> it is low.
>
Unfortunately, coolant in the catch can won't cool the engine. Knowing that the
'pig' squealed when coolant got low lulled me into a false sense of security.
When the plastic header tank on the radiator cracked, there was still plenty of
water in the catch can to keep the pig quiet. No reason to watch for little red
lights when you've got a squealling pig to alert you, right?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dougweil(at)pressenter.com> |
| Subject: | RV 7A Quickbuild fuse and wings for sale |
Fellow Listers:
One of our members has a RV-7A quickbuild still in the crate (and still at the
truck terminal in Minneapolis) that is available for quick sale. Here's a chance
to get a RV-7A QB NOW!! Give Mike a call below..
Thanks
Doug Weiler
pres MN Wing
---------
----- Original Message -----
From: MGo8785265(at)aol.com
Subject: RV 7A Quickbuild fuse and wings for sale
Doug,
RV-7A quickbuild (wing and fuselage) for sale. I has just arrived and still in
the crates. My wife says either the plane or I go and unfortunately I think she's
serious this time. If you could list it for sale or let me know how I would
appreciate it.
Thanks,
Mike Gordon
3832 Pine Lane
Minnetonka, MN 55345
952 930-0682 (H)
612 278-3598 (W)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
| Subject: | Seawind accident. |
It was with great sorrow I read this in this week's AOPA news.
BUSH PILOT DIES IN ACCIDENT
Tim Johnson, 66, a former pilot and mechanic for missionaries in South
America who was featured in the November issue of "AOPA Pilot," died
November 30 while conducting a test flight of a Seawind aircraft, according
to newspaper reports. Also killed in the crash was Fred Caron, 63, owner
of the Seawind, according to a report in "The Seattle Times." The aircraft
crashed 7 miles north of the Arlington Municipal Airport in Arlington,
Washington. Witnesses reported hearing the engine sputter before the
aircraft crashed, the newspaper reported. In the 1960s Johnson flew for
the Jungle and Aviation Radio Service, now known as JAARS, and was a demo
pilot for GlaStar and Glasair aircraft.
I'm not sure how many on the list knew Tim. I was lucky enough to meet him two
years ago at Arlington where he took me for a test flight in the factory GlaStar.
A really nice man.
I didn't know Fred but I would like to extend my sympathies and best wishes to
his family and friends as well as Tim's.
It's sad to read this news.
Fly safe everyone.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
RV9A fuselage. N919RV resvd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Burks <tburks2(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rockets vs Van's |
Bob,
The F1 Rocket looks like a great airplane. How does the F1 kit compare to Van's
pre-punched kits (especially the empennage)?
>"Bob Japundza" wrote:
>
> The HR2 or the F1, on the other hand, are designed for the big engines and their
airframes are beefed
> up accordingly, and there's a lot less homework involved.
>F1 QB under const.
Terry Burks
RV8 QB Empennage
Huntsville, AL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion |
>snipped
>> > Charlie
>> > Tracy is also VERY careful to perform only 1 and 2 G maneuvers with his
>4. Most PSRU manufacturers will tell you straight out that they did not
>design the units to tolerate acro.
>> > Charlie Kuss
>> >
>snipped
>Charlie slightly overstated my conservative aerobatic G limit. I pull about
>3.5 G during loop entry and limit myself to 4 G in any maneuver. This is my
>personal limit and has nothing to do with the plane or redrive.
Tracy,
Thanks for stopping by and correcting my erroneous "guesstimate"
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Avery tach drive cover |
No gasket is apparently needed. My cover bailed out somewhere, and
nothing seems to be leaking. I now wonder just what the cover is
supposed to do...
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 236 hours, last 100 or so without a tach cover...
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> Guys,
>
> I just got the Avery Tools' tach drive cover since I've got
> dual Lightspeeds and get my RPM sensing directly from the
> ignition units. The cover doesn't have any kind of gasket
> with it....does anyone know if I should make one or is there
> no significant oil present at the tach drive opening?
>
> Generally I've had outstanding quality and service from Avery
> but if I had to do it over, I'd probly go to the hardware
> store and make my own tach drive cover....it doesn't look
> like it's worth $7.50 to me...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | inspection good experience - thx |
Had Mike Robertson FAA rep here in Oregon inspect my RV6A today. I have an
airplane after 6 yr. 8 MO.:-)
Had a real good experience. Thankyou Mike.
Jerry Wilken
Albany Oregon
N699WP S/N 23776
1056 lb.
2014 hours build time to date.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Guys,
I'm a few days behind as we just finished putting on our IA renewal seminar,
work has been nuts and mi Pops has been deathly ill in the hospital a 100
miles north of here, but he is miraculously feeling and breathing better, in
spite of the hospital.
I did need to jump in and clarify, Part 39 in no way exempts experimentals
from ADs, and it doesn't have to be a type certified item to qualify. I've
said it before and I'll say it again, ADs apply to what they say they apply
to,,, period. They have even been issued against people, or at least their
work. We in the EXP world have been lucky so far. The reason they want AD
work ups done on "previously" certified engines is because some of these
engines are finding their way back into the certified world without being
properly brought into compliance.
Its also kinda nutty to fly any engine out of AD compliance???
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Problems with Archive CD - Matt Dralle |
Matt (or others that may have subscribed to the Aeroelectric List):
Is the Aeroelectric List currently functioning? I have not received anything
from there since yesterday morning and was wondering if it my system or
that particulat list server that has a problem.
Unless everyone there went silent (not a chance! :-) )
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
> I fly in cold climate here in Minnesota so I have two heat valves on the
firewall with the idea of having two heat muffs (Rick Robbins on Vetterman
crossover for an RV6). I have seen the air pick up in two differant
locations... (1) on the forward baffles just inside the cowling air intake
scoops ahead of the engine cylinders and (2) on the aft baffle above the
engine accessory case and then via scat tubing to the muffs. My question
is which location produces the best heat and performance for the cockpit?
Pros and cons appreciated especially from other cold climate flyers.
Dick, looking for more heat? Try heating the seats. Heated pads can be
bought that will go under your seat covers and warm you up. I've seen cheapo
seat covers at Canadian Tire for $80 (Can) with electric heat. They plugged
into the cig lighter. They would sell millions of these things if they would
hit the right advertising media.
My aircraft has quality heated seat pads built into the Oregon Aero seats. I
got them at a seat upholstery place but after the fact I discovered they
were easy to find on the internet.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
________________________________________________________________________________
A few weeks ago someone posted a web reference for an electronic flux gate
compass. I thought I saved the reference, but now I can't find it. Does
anyone remember what it is? Thanks
Ray Grenier
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Avery tach drive cover |
Mine has a hole for safety wire..........
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:06 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Avery tach drive cover
>
>
>
>
> No gasket is apparently needed. My cover bailed out
> somewhere, and nothing seems to be leaking. I now wonder
> just what the cover is supposed to do... Alex Peterson Maple
> Grove, MN RV6-A N66AP 236 hours, last 100 or so without a
> tach cover... www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I just got the Avery Tools' tach drive cover since I've got
> > dual Lightspeeds and get my RPM sensing directly from the
> > ignition units. The cover doesn't have any kind of gasket
> > with it....does anyone know if I should make one or is there
> > no significant oil present at the tach drive opening?
> >
> > Generally I've had outstanding quality and service from Avery
> > but if I had to do it over, I'd probly go to the hardware
> > store and make my own tach drive cover....it doesn't look
> > like it's worth $7.50 to me...
>
>
> ==========
> =========
> =========
> =========
> =========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
http://www.nisongermarine.com/3-gcid2.html
The site appears to be down though....
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> GRENIER(at)aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 8:59 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Compass
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago someone posted a web reference for an
> electronic flux gate
> compass. I thought I saved the reference, but now I can't
> find it. Does
> anyone remember what it is? Thanks
>
> Ray Grenier
> RV-4
>
>
> ==========
> =========
> Matronics Forums.
> =========
> List members.
> =========
> =========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | How do you secure wiring harnesses in the aft fuselage? |
Hi,
I'm building and RV-9A and am wondering how you
are securing the aft fuselage wiring. The wire goes
through snap bushings on the bulkheads, but how do
you secure it between the bulkheads? Do you just
lace it together and let it dangle?
Joe Connell
Stewartville, MN
RV-9A N95JJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How do you secure wiring harnesses in the aft |
fuselage?
>I'm building and RV-9A and am wondering how you
>are securing the aft fuselage wiring. The wire goes
>through snap bushings on the bulkheads, but how do
>you secure it between the bulkheads? Do you just
>lace it together and let it dangle?
Yes.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GEORGE INMAN" <ghinman(at)attcanada.ca> |
If you are a non-resident,and the plane will be
exported
without being registerd in Canada.You may be able
to get a rebate.
See
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/tax/nonresidents/visitors/vrpqa-e.html#P106_2743
> Hi Terence:
> This is Tom Brandon back with you, the American building an RV7A on
> Vancouver Island. I just found out some bad news today. It seems I'm going
> to have to pay the Canadian Government $6,000 or $7,000 in taxes for the
kit
> I import. Are any of of your members tax lawyers? Can you give us any
> advice? Darren & I are trying to find out if it's a mistake, but so far,
no
> luck.
> Thanks
> Tom Brandon
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)attcanada.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative engines and Van's opinion (apology) |
snips
>
> 'You need to get out more'
>
snips
It seems I was suffering from a case of 'foot in mouth' with an earlier post.
I'm slowly learning that kidding around through email just doesn't work that
well. I would hate to cause any hard feelings or shift the focus of a useful
discussion to other areas.
I am sorry for causing any problems.
I think that the discussions about alternative engines are productive and I hope
to continue learning.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
First question: I have decided to make my own intersection fairings.
Instead of the oil-based modeling clay mentioned by Vans and the archives
for the molds, has anyone tried the normal (water-based) modeling clay that
is readily available - and cheap? First, I am considering mixing a
food-grade oil into the clay, replacing the water - stirring well in small
batches for each fairing. Second, I am considering laying up the
water-based clay, then rubbing a coating of oil on the surface for no
sticking. Would one of these methods work?? Working with fiber-glass is a
little bit of hell on Earth.
Second question: I would like to repair a few riveting dings. Would resin
mixed with flox - or milled fiber work after really roughing up the skin? I
understand that it would dry very hard. Although sanding may be really
tough, I only have very few of these so this wouldn't be a problem. It
would be great to hide these very few errors with something that won't
shrink, crack, fall off, etc. Thanks.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
Finish Kit 85% Complete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Modeling Clay |
I tried using the oil based clay for my fairings and it is awful! I was able
to lay up the glass & resin but I still can't get all the clay out! I have
picked, chipped and used damn near every solvent that I have in the shop and
nothing seems to dissolve the stuff! If I were to do it again, I will try
good ol' play-doe" or another water soluble clay.
Just my .02.
Kim Nicholas
RV9A hangin' the engine this week....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | camshaft grinder |
I sent in an email earlier. In its content I referred to a company called Shadblt
cams in Vancouver BC. In that email I spelled Shadbolt with two Ds. I thought
I had better correct that and provide a more usefull means of contact should
the need arise
http://www.shadboltcams.com/main.html
Should you have questions regarding camshaft technology Automotive, Marine, Industrial,
or Aircraft etc. This is one place that should be on your list of people
and places to research.
Aside from being a customer and a long and enduring friendship with Barry the owner
I have no business associations with Shadbolt cams
Jim in Kelowna
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Leathers" <DrLeathers(at)822heal.com> |
I noticed that the Van's prototype for the RV-10 has had no priming or other corrosion
treatment for the internal structures such as bulkheads etc. Do they dip
the entire thing after the fact, or what? What about the mated surfaces?
DOC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modeling Clay |
The clay to use, according to Sam James of Fiberglass 101 Video fame, is
PLASTOLINE. Buy in 1 pound bars. keep in can to keep from drying out.
Heat with a hair dryer to make it pliable. Roll it in small diameter
rolls. Dampen to smooth.
Barry Pote RV9a
> I tried using the oil based clay for my fairings and it is awful! I was able
> to lay up the glass & resin but I still can't get all the clay out! I have
> picked, chipped and used damn near every solvent that I have in the shop and
> nothing seems to dissolve the stuff! If I were to do it again, I will try
> good ol' play-doe" or another water soluble clay.
>
> Just my .02.
>
> Kim Nicholas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <albert.gardner(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Modeling Clay |
Modeling clay worked very well for me. Lay peep ply over the clay before you
start laying up the cloth to prevent clay from sticking to you fairing.
Albert Gardner, Yuma, AZ
RV-9A: N872RV
Working on panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KostaLewis" <mikel(at)dimensional.com> |
>First question: I have decided to make my own intersection fairings.
>Instead of the oil-based modeling clay mentioned by Vans and the
archives
>for the molds, has anyone tried the normal (water-based) modeling clay
that
>is readily available - and cheap.....
I used the oil-based. You don't have to pack just clay in the area to be
faired. I filled the rear tail fairing area with chunks of Styrofoam,
then filled in the important area with clay. Use Glad Wrap between the
clay and your airplane/foam. After putting a releasing agent on the clay
to keep it from sticking, use PeelPly or Dacron fabric against the clay.
Then, the oil-based clay comes off both the fairing and the airplane
easily. I'm not sure if you would be hacking away at the water-based
stuff to get it out after it dried out, oil mixed in or not. Sounds like
a mess, to me. It doesn't take that much oil-based and it is also pretty
cheap.
I have tools I use on the pottery wheel to carve and shape the clay,
but, while handy, you don't need them.
And man, does it make a tight-fitting fairing.
IMHO
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Powerplants et.al. |
In a message dated 12/7/2002 5:25:30 PM Central Standard Time,
perfeng(at)3rivers.net writes:
> "words looking at 200 HP, $8,000 compared to $36,000."
For 36,000 dollars you can buy one hell of an airplane engine or even
two. Fact is
> you can find Lycomings for 15,000 dollars or less but brand new ECi and
> Superior engines professionally assembled for a little over 20,000 dollars.
> You do not have to spend 36,000 dollars to get an "aviation type" engine of
> 180-200 horses. I may eat my words someday and I will gladly do it and bow
> down before thee but I suspect when the pedal hits the metal or should I
> say the throttle slaps the stop my XP360 will make that Chevy V6 suck it's
> exhaust. Does anyone know where I can get that sticker of a bratty kid
> doing something nasty to a Chevy. Hey, just kidding with you guys cuz right
> now I am up to my armpits in sheet metal and no where near finished but it
> is fun to do some ribbing. It is amazing to see people spend 50,000
> dollars for a Suburban or a boat and do it without even blinking an eye but
> then balk at paying for an engine that is going to carry them and their
> friends and loved ones thousands of feet into the air not to mention all
> the time you spend building the thing for it all to be betted on the same
> company that built the Vega, the Corvair, diesel converted gasoline
> engines, the Pontiac Aztec, the Chevette. Not a Bowtie sorta guy, I am
> prejudiced, admit it and apologize in advance for being non PC. Do Not
> Archive. JR, A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Powerplants et.al. |
Jim Duckett wrote:
> Maybe it shouldn't be first but, cost is a major factor with a lots of
> folks. Most Auto conversions run around $40.00 per HP, where Lyc's run
> right at $180.00 (both complete from mounts to prop hub) or in other
> words looking at 200 HP, $8,000 compared to $36,000. Okay, I know a lot
> of people do not have the expertise, the suppliers, or the facilities to
> do most if not all the conversion work themselves so, the $40.00 per hp
> doesn't reflect that. I'm just using my situation as an example. What
> my approximate cost to have either type hanging on the mounts ready for
> the prop.
I'd like to see some breakdown of the $8000 for an automotive "mount to
hub" installation, as that sounds exceedingly cheap. I'd also like to
see those numbers side-by-side with your breakdown for a "$36k, 200hp
Lycoming", as that number seems high to me. Not knowing any better, i'd
be guessing that you're comparing a homegrown automotive conversion to a
factory-new Lycoming.
Let's also not forget that *on average*, you would expect a given
Lycoming installation to stay on an aircraft, trouble-free, for 2000
hours. So far, nobody on this list has shown that a comparably powered
automotive conversion has done that (800 hours on a rotary-conversion is
the best i've seen yet). Furthermore, frequently a 2000 hour, well
maintained Lycoming can be overhauled for less than half the cost of a
new engine, and re-installed for another 2000 trouble-free hours. Can
the same be said for an automotive conversion, or should we expect to
replace the engine with a new one when it's time is up?
Automotive conversions all seem to either require lots of maintenance,
or prompt people to perform unscheduled maintenance in an attempt to
tinker with them somehow. If they *on average* worked that well, why
would people bother tinkering with them? Usually because of one of two
things: they want the engine to produce more power or weigh less. In
either case, it suggests that the engine didn't meet the requirements of
it's mission when it was installed.
I'm not against automotive conversions. What I want is lowest total
cost of ownership for my aircraft. Right now all of the anecdotal
evidence still points to Lycomings being better in the long run, with
rotary conversions a not so far away second. A few years from now when
I get to the engine-installation stage maybe the situation will be
different. If it's cheaper for a conversion, i'll go that route.
-RB4
RV7 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Stainless Steel Wool |
List:
Does anyone know where I can find "stainless" steel wool. I would like to
use it in the heat muff and so far have not been able to locate any.
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL
Greensboro, N.C.
20 hours !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Stainless Steel Wool |
Hi Len,
The steel wool you refer to is actually stainless steel pot scrubbers. They
can be found in hardware stores, the dollar store or your local food market.
They are much coarser than steel wool which will allow air flow at a better
rate. In theory at least.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lenleg(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: RE: Stainless Steel Wool
>
> List:
>
> Does anyone know where I can find "stainless" steel wool. I would like to
> use it in the heat muff and so far have not been able to locate any.
>
> Len Leggette RV-8A
> N901LL
> Greensboro, N.C.
> 20 hours !!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <chrisw3(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Stainless Steel Wool |
Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> List:
>
> Does anyone know where I can find "stainless" steel wool. I would like to
> use it in the heat muff and so far have not been able to locate any.
http://www.mcmaster.com They have everything :) well almost anyway
--
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> |
| Subject: | RV-6 Slider Air Leaks/Cold weather op's |
Anyone with an RV-6 with the sliding canopy is aware of the air leaks that occur
between the side skirts and the fuselage. Last night, in an inspired moment,
I came up with a solution that worked very well in 8 (yep 8!) airborne hours
today, with most of my flying in sub-zero (F) conditions...
I had some insulation left from a non-aviation project. This material is extruded
foam pipe insulation, with a 3/4" internal diameter and probably 1/2" wall
thickness. I took a piece of it and split it in half lengthwise. Once the canopy
is closed, the semicircular foam strip will slide right down into the gap
between the side skirts and the slider tracks, and will completely seal the
openings. In flight, the suction in that location will hold the seals firmly
in place, although they can be removed fairly easily.
Even if one was to forget to remove the seals before opening the canopy, the foam
is so soft it just collapses and doesn't impede the sliding mechanism at all.
I did some in flight testing with and without the seals and the difference was
very noticeable.
Despite the extremely cold outside air temps between 7 and 10k feet today, we had
to keep the heater turned down to its minimum setting so the heat wouldn't
run us out of the cockpit. Previously, the cold breezes inside the cockpit made
it a much less comfortable environment.
By the way, it was sub-20F when I started the airplane this morning. It cranked
right off. I had a $12 heating pad on the battery, two blankets over the cowl,
and a couple of trouble lights inside the cowl.
It was even colder when I got to Martinsburg WV 3 hours later. They had about
6" of snow on the ground. En-route, I was pleasantly surprised that all of the
airports on our route of flight (Atlanta-Martinsburg, staying on the East side
of the Appalachian Mts.) had been cleared of snow.
Kyle Boatright
160 hp RV-6
Master of cold weather op's...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil <sisson(at)mcleodusa.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Stainless Steel Wool |
Try scouring pads at Wal-mart. There are certain types of pots and pan cleaners
that are SS...
Chris wrote:
>
> Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > List:
> >
> > Does anyone know where I can find "stainless" steel wool. I would like to
> > use it in the heat muff and so far have not been able to locate any.
>
> http://www.mcmaster.com They have everything :) well almost anyway
>
> --
> 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: | "Gary" <rv9er(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Targa Strip (and tip-up stuff) |
Norman...........some people with Tip-ups experience plexi cracks at the lower
rear corners of the canopy. The reason is that the canopy twists slightly when
you close it from one side, and it hits the roll bar. The "21 years of the
RVator" book shows one solution: guides to guide the steel latch straight into
the slots. These prevent the plexi from contacting the roll bar.
I made a modified version of these out of some 1/4 inch thick UHMW plastic angle.
I can send pictures off list if you like.
On the front fairing to the windshield: I don't know of anyone who has made the
fairing separate from the windshield. Far as I know, everyone lays it up right
on the plexi, and bonds it to the windshield. Rough up the 'glass first so
it will stick.
The pop riveted tabs are a good idea. I had four of them, and they are imbedded
in the fairing. I applied a layer of flox to cover them, then did the glass
layers.
I didn't do a Targa strip.
I'm not sure what you mean by the 3/16 holes........I don't have any holes that
big in mine.
Gary -9A tipper
From: "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca>
Subject: RV-List: Targa Strip
Re - Tip Up canopy Targa Strip I'm looking for some opinions on any of the
ways I plan on finishing my canopy.
I am almost ready to attach my canopy bubble to the frame. I found I needed four
tabs accros the front to hold it down evenly. I made the tabs out of scrap 040
and will hold each one down with two LP4-3 pop rivets. Any one see any problems
with that plan?
I do not have the front holes drilled in the Plexi on the side frames. The Plexi
seems to not have any bulging qualities there so I want to drill the last hole
on each side. Problem is I've read too many times where that's the spot that
RV6 builders have had their canopies crack. What shound I do? Mine look like
they won't be making the Plexi change at all.
And do I make these holes 3/16 after countersinking? So big for movement?
Targa Strip - to do or not to do. I've decided to do one for two reasons. First,
they have to be better at keeping the rain out when the aircraft is parked outside
in the rain. I live in Vancouver so that one is a no brainer. Second, I'm
assuming that they can be sealed better in flight as well.
Who has links on pictures to some examples? I am currious as to how thick they
end up and how they end at the lower edges.
I am going to try an use the window as a mold by taping it up with masking tape,
liberal mold release agent, then I'll do 3 or 4 layers of staggered cloth. I
will peel it off for edge finishing, then install onto freshly roughed up plexi.
I will epoxy it down and use every second hole in the canopy frame. I plan
on using the soft alum 1/8 canopy rivets along the rear edge of the main canopy
Plexi. I'll leave out every second one to be done with the targa strip.
The front fiberglass fairing - did most guys do this right on the Plexi without
the mold release? or is this one done as a separate piece too?
HELP!
I need direction!
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary" <rv9er(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Targa Strip (and tip-up stuff) |
Norman,
PS............. I wouldn't use masking tape for mold release. The paper agsorbs
the resin and sticks. Use duct tape or clear package sealing tape.......or
even Saran Wrap.
Gary
I am going to try an use the window as a mold by taping it up with masking tape,
liberal mold release agent, then I'll do 3 or 4 layers of staggered cloth. I
................
HELP!
I need direction!
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | perfeng(at)3rivers.net |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
Hey JR,
I do agree with you when you look at the price of a Superior and a few of the
others but, I was going with the prices I've seen from Lycoming. I haven't
hung the chevy on the ship yet and with some of the the new "aftermarket
Lycoming" suppliers starting to kick butt in the suggested price department...I
may not. Either way I will still try to develop it.
If it wasn't for the pressure from those of us that are trying to find
a "reasonable alternative" to the gawd awful prices...(Yes, I have a problem
with a stock 200 HP engine costing as much as a 700HP race engine)then there
would be no competition and hence, what we were faced with in the past...pay
their price at any cost!
As far as some of the vehicles you mentioned well, it's too bad that the OEM's
use consumers to evaluate test bed vehicles. Good suspension bad engines and
vice versa...go figure.
By the way...what was the cert number and engine type used on the first engine
powered experimental aircraft...? Sorry! Couldn't resist.
Jim Duckett, RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Neil Henderson" <Neil.Mo51(at)btopenworld.com> |
Think your self lucky and you don't live in Europe. I paid 17.5% VAT (Value Added
Tax) on my RV9A kit as well horrendous overseas shipping costs. Fortunately
aircraft parts are exempt from import duty else the cost would have been even
higher. In some other European countries the VAT is around 20%.
Have a nice day.
Neil Henderson (RV9 Finishing) England
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Stainless Steel Wool |
Your friendly Amway dealer would have it. They sell a SS scouring pad
Cheers!! Henry Hore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Spencer" <scottaspencer(at)att.net> |
Does anyone have any experience with the O-320H model and also on the cost (I know
it will vary depending on Jug etc) of doing a rebuild yourself. By this I
mean owner does disassembly, cleaning and reassembly but everything gets shipped
out for inspection and work at regular shops.
Thanks
RV9A
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | for sale O 320 E3D |
Rollie & Rod, if the message below refers to the prop bushings on the
crankshaft flange, not to worry. Those can be easily changed to 7/16". I had
a big surprise when I de-cacooned my O-320! Van's engine listing in the
manual shows the -E2D as having 3/8" bushings, so I ordered my Sensenich
prop accordingly. Then when it came to hang the prop---Damn!-- those are
7/16" bushings! The overhaul shop sent me 3/8" ones, with instructions how
to change them: basically using a 1/2" drive socket of size to fit over the
bushing flange at rear, and then using a bolt, washers and nut to force it
out. Then reversing the process to install the new bushing. "No Problema"!
They told me that some Pipers with that engine had 7/16" bushings, so I must
have received one of those! "cest la vie"-----Cheers!!----Happy
holidays!!----Henry Hore
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rquinn1(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: for sale O 320 E3D
>
> Terry, I looked in my Vans catalog and you are right the bolt size is in
the
> model number you sent, however it is a 3/8" and I need a 7/16". I also
need
> a spinner kit. If Bruce does decide to break up the set I will be
> interested.
> We are getting along great. Thanks for asking.
> Rollie & Rod
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright(at)adelphia.net> |
I spent about $6k doing a rebuild as you describe on an 0-320 D2J.
There is plenty on the H model 0-320 in the archives. Some people like it,
some people hate it. You won't find consensus on this issue. You'll just
need to evaluate the info and make an informed decision.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Spencer" <scottaspencer(at)att.net>
Subject: RV-List: Engines
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the O-320H model and also on the cost
(I know it will vary depending on Jug etc) of doing a rebuild yourself. By
this I mean owner does disassembly, cleaning and reassembly but everything
gets shipped out for inspection and work at regular shops.
>
> Thanks
> RV9A
> Scott
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
> By the way...what was the cert number and engine type used on the first
engine
> powered experimental aircraft...? Sorry! Couldn't resist.
>
> Jim Duckett, RV-7A
Ah yes, the Wrights again. The risk factor that the Wrights accepted while
developing their Flyer far exceeded the risk of bolting an auto derivative
engine onto a proven airframe. By all rights they should have both been
killed. Orville nearly was. Wilbur perhaps died before he could be.
I'm not sure that many of us would want to accept that particular risk
profile while flying for sport and recreation. But for those who want to
take such risks to advance the state of the art, you have my total respect.
Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kenneth Beene" <kbeene(at)citilink.com> |
> > Does anyone have any experience with the O-320H model and
> also on the cost
> Scott,
I have my overhaul cost for the O-320 E3D on my web pages at
http://www.mninter.net/~kbeene/overhaul_cost.html
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
> I'm not sure that many of us would want to accept that particular risk
> profile while flying for sport and recreation. But for those who want to
> take such risks to advance the state of the art, you have my total respect.
>
> Curt
Nice troll, Curt. Good luck.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv6tc" <rv6tc(at)earthlink.net> |
Charlie,
Seems like the RV list guys (myself included) don't always seem to get the
subtleties of humor mixed in with a posting. Remember Primer/tailwheel
wars, the whole "how do you mount a fuel pump" fiasco and then of course,
the "Daisy" chain.
I, for one enjoy it, though. It takes my mind of the humiliating lack of
progress of my project.
Keith Hughes
RV6 (stalled)
Denver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie and Tupper England" <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: alternative engines and Van's opinion (apology)
>
> I'm slowly learning that kidding around through email just doesn't work
that
> well. I would hate to cause any hard feelings or shift the focus of a
useful
> discussion to other areas.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight of Hooker Harnesses for RV-8/A? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Does anybody know how much a set of Hooker harnesses for an RV-8/A
weighs? I'm just curious if anyone has weighed them or if there's a
published weight number for them.
If anyone has this info for a Rocket or RV-4 it's probably close enough
to me an idea....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modeling Clay |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Ernest,
Maybe this thread has already been beaten to death, but I just finished
my second upper instersection fairing yesterday. I couldn't find
oil-based modeling clay and bought some water-based clay at Michaels.
Works just fine....didn't add any oil, didn't cover it with anything. I
did put duct tape over my gear leg fairing and on the bottom of the
wing/fuse area where the fairing would be laid up (before putting the
clay on), both to keep the fiberglass from sticking to the metal and to
make cleanup of the clay easier. But I just laid the glass up right on
the clay and it came off easily. The little bit of clay left sticking to
the inside of the fairing can be scraped off and if you want it
*absolutely* clean, just rinse it out with water (the sooner the better
because it does eventually dry hard and then of course it would be much
more difficult). I reused the same clay for all the fairings I did too.
Now with respect to the overall task of being doubled over under the
fuse/wing forming the clay, lying in the dirt, applying several layers of
glass, etc.....I sympathize with ya....it really sucks. The sanding and
filling part after the fairing is done isn't much more fun. Which
reminds me, by the way....if you take a little extra time when doing the
layup to butt-joint the pieces of cloth and then stagger the joints with
the next layer for strength, you'll get a much smoother finished fairing
that will sand/fill quicker. I did one fairing by overlapping pieces of
cloth at each joint, and butt-jointed the pieces on the second fairing.
Worth the trouble IMHO to do the latter when it comes to sanding the
stuff.
I'll be glad with fiberglass work is done (is it ever?).
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass....still....
-----------------------------------------------------
From: "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: RV-List: Modeling Clay
First question: I have decided to make my own intersection fairings.
Instead of the oil-based modeling clay mentioned by Vans and the archives
for the molds, has anyone tried the normal (water-based) modeling clay
that
is readily available - and cheap? First, I am considering mixing a
food-grade oil into the clay, replacing the water - stirring well in
small
batches for each fairing. Second, I am considering laying up the
water-based clay, then rubbing a coating of oil on the surface for no
sticking. Would one of these methods work?? Working with fiber-glass is
a
little bit of hell on Earth.
Second question: I would like to repair a few riveting dings. Would
resin
mixed with flox - or milled fiber work after really roughing up the skin?
I
understand that it would dry very hard. Although sanding may be really
tough, I only have very few of these so this wouldn't be a problem. It
would be great to hide these very few errors with something that won't
shrink, crack, fall off, etc. Thanks.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
Finish Kit 85% Complete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: MT-Propeller |
Hi Jim,
I also got an email from Martin about flying the MT propeller in rain. He
said they are designed for it and they had one example that was 22 years old
and still flying. He listed several big dollar certified ships using their
props so I no longer think rain is a problem for an MT propeller.
For those new to avaition or who just don't understand what we are talking
about;
Rain droplets are a factor to a propeller blade in flight. Each blade has
portions well above 500 mph in cruise flight. A drop of water has a small
mass which must be deflected by the blade. Aluminum blades handle water OK
but not forever. High milage float planes usually suffer water damage to the
blades. Recreational flyers have no problems. Wood props don't take rain
well at all. I would love to hear some comments from RVers flying wood props
in rain regulairily. Wood props without the plastic or metal leading edge
strips cannot be flown in rain.
I'm only interested in a prop that can handle rain and I also require a
constant speed unit. I would love to save some weight with a composite prop
but it must be able to handle rain.
The MT 3 blade CS with the newer blade design weighs 44 lbs compared to the
2 blade Hartzell CS at 50 lbs. Almost not worth the huge extra money for the
MT unless some one can tell me it's 10 mph faster. I don't care too much
about climb, just cruise. The Wirlwind 150 is trying to be around 30 lbs.
Now they're talking, I'll buck up for one of those if enough flight reports
substantiate performance. Lucky for me I have approx one more year before I
buy my prop. If my job and career are still happening then I will buy the
best.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
> Hi Norm,
>
> I just got back from Germany.
> The Pacific Northwest doesn't know squat about rain, compared to Germany.
:-)
> And it's a lot colder in Germany, also.
>
> Jim Ayers
> RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A engine Warnke FP wood prop
> Electric CS MT Propeller ready to be balanced
>
>
> > How long do you expect the blades to last? I fly in the Pacific
Northwest
> > where we get alot of rain. The primary duty of my ship is cross-country
so
> > I
> > expect to fly in rain more than the fair weather local jaunt crowd.
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRWillJR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
In a message dated 12/8/2002 1:20:06 AM Central Standard Time,
perfeng(at)3rivers.net writes:
> By the way...what was the cert number and engine type used on the first
> engine
> powered experimental aircraft...? Sorry! Couldn't resist.
>
Yeah, Jim, I know where you are coming from. I think those Belted Power guys
have a nice unit and are building some credible hours. I would like to see
more but I think they are making some good progress. I don't see anything
wrong with those Egenolfer (his name is to hard to spell) Subies either and
we may see one of those supercharged Subies making both of us suck exhaust
fumes. You seem to want 200 horses so the angle valve Lycoming is expensive.
I think you could "settle" for a 190ish horse (conservative) Superior unit. I
seen some race car engines that cost nearly as much and they are good for
only a few races--I don't know much about car engines for sure. I am thinking
the firewall forward cost on the Subie and Chevy is going to be 2/3's the
cost or more of the Superior unit and with unproven TBO and reliability.
Extrapolating a TBO will not do.
Well, you and me are building the same airplane, sissy trike gear and all.
What if I make the front gear retractable and let it sit on it's nose like a
Varieze (just kidding--sorta)?
JR, RV7A tilting slider, Aerosport IO-360, large piles of sheetmetal all over
the place
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
> Seems like the RV list guys (myself included) don't always seem to get the
> subtleties of humor mixed in with a posting.
"A jest's prosperity lies in the ear of him that hears it, never in the tongue
of him that makes it"
--William Shakespeare ("Love's Labours Lost")
I've found that humour rarely works in email, unless you're a very good writer,
except with someone you've already met face-to-face. I'm not a good enough
writer, so I avoid it.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Modeling Clay |
In a message dated 12/7/02 12:48:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Knicholas2(at)aol.com writes:
<>
FWIW I tried both Play Dough and commercial water based modeling clay when I
laid up my wheel pant to gear leg fairings. Both were a disaster for me
because of crumbling and no mechanical strength. I finally used oil based
modeling clay with some painted on liquid release agent and it worked just
fine.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical (still)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KAKlewin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nose Gear Leg/Eng Mount |
Well, now Ive done it!!!! Im working on the nose gear leg to my 6A and
thought I had all the surfaces sanded nicely and all oiled up....it slid in
great..perfect. Then I go to take the #$%
& thing out and it wont
budge....so after packing leg with ice, a bottle of oil, WD-40, a heat gun,
and 2 days work the thing is finally out!!!
Now the rub. The nose gear leg, on the lower portion where it makes contact
with the engine mount (there are two "wide" parts..upper and about 7 in below
where it exits the nose gear mount) I have a nice big gouge on the gear leg
about 1/16th in deep...obvious replacement. My question is on the eng
mount...I have a nice gouge on that too on the inside...not sure if a burr
got in there or what, but looks like the way it is put together causes
continuos rubbing at that position (as I replicated trying to get the gear
leg mount out) and is going to dig into the nose gear leg and eventually
cause failure.
So should I go with a new eng mount from vans, get it fixed somehow, or get
a new one from vans and modify it somehow to prevent this in the future??
Since I most likely will go with some new parts...anyone need a 6A nose gear
leg or engine mount (dynafocal)???
Working on the plane is fun...but sometimes I use a lot of $#%
&@# type
words...today was one of those days!!!
Kurt in OKC
Ruining Parts as fast as I can buy them!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Borduas" <eborduas(at)lycos.com> |
>>I've found that humour rarely works in email, unless you're a very good
writer,
>>except with someone you've already met face-to-face. I'm not a good
enough
>>writer, so I avoid it.
The difficulty with expressing emotions is exactly the reason why emoticons
(smilies) came about. E.g: :), :( ;}, and many others.
ERic
-7 | -9?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell(at)rconnect.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternate Engines |
Guys:
I sent the following note to Jan Eggenfelner
and below is his response:
Joe
-----------
"Hi Jan,
I listened with interest on your recent interview.
I am currently building an RV-9A and will need
to select an engine in the next 6-9 months.
There are some un-answered questions or concerns
I have about the Subaru/RV configuration:
I am 63 and I could see a situation in the next
10 years where, because of medical conditions,
I would have to sell the RV-9A. I don't think there
are a lot of people willing to buy a second-hand homebuilt
with an auto engine. In other words, that auto engine
December 03, 2002 - December 08, 2002
RV-Archive.digest.vol-nx