RV-Archive.digest.vol-ox
February 18, 2004 - February 25, 2004
> I am in the furniture manufacturing business. My company does a lot of
> leather business. I am producing seats right now for friends but will
soon launch
> the business of aircraft seats.
>
> I can help you with leather. We stock about 350 leathers but I am using
only
> one pattern for my RV seats ... very durable and has about 55 colors to
> choose from.
>
> Let me know if you are interested. I will send you some samples.
>
> Len Leggette, RV-8A
> Greensboro, NC N910LL
> 196 hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DAVAWALKER(at)aol.com |
Ed, Thanks for the response. May have already done this, can't remember.
Dale Walker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | RV-List Picture of Turbo Subaru 2.2 in a RV-4 |
Part of the Subaru engine thread......Subaru interested RV-ers might like to see
this Subaru engine in a RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? |
FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> >How do they rate compared to the Subaru 2.5 XT head to head? That would be
> >interesting.
>
> 160HP standard engine with combustion having to generate power for valves,
> lifters, rockers, haul the other 3 cyl. around for the ride vs. 180 which is
> rediculously smooth, no valves, no lifters, no rockers rotors turning at
> 2000 RPMS with the crank turns at 6K. Hum, you do the math.
I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but just so there's no confusion you
will get better SFC with the Subaru than a rotary. There are really only two
drawbacks to the rotary, both inherent in the design and thus unavoidable.
First, because of how they breathe they have lower BSFC than piston engines
(i.e. more fuel burned to make the same amount of power). Second, the exhaust
is inherently louder, and a relatively complex exhaust system is required to
both produce decent power and keep the noise sane. That adds weight, cost, and
heat inside the cowling.
This is not a criticism of the rotary. I think it is in priniciple the best
choice for an auto conversion. I wish Eggenfellner would apply his obvious
skill and engineering acumen to the rotary.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
>
> An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
>
> Jim Ayers
I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one, regardless
of the number of seats.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> -->
>
> > FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
> >
> > An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
> >
> > Jim Ayers
>
> I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one,
> regardless of the number of seats.
>
> Alex Peterson
I stand corrected - it is required if the plane is equipped to carry
more than one person. An exception is perhaps during the test flight
phase of flight:
(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, Rotary, engines |
> SNIP <
There are so many of these rotaries flying out there, the "hope" is taken
out of the sentence. It should read "It works out".
This certainly isn't for everyone, it is for me and money was the only issue
in the decision. It worked in with simplicity of install, reliability,
maintainance, replacement cost. It turned into a pretty easy decision for
me.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
I agree with Dana, the rotary engine definitely works but at the same time I will
be the first to admit that, at this time, it or any other alternative engine
is the wrong choice for at least 95% of aircraft builders. If you don't have
a burning desire to do it, forget it. If resale value is a primary concern,
forget it.
If the idea just turns you on, do it!
Tracy Crook
13B Rotary powered RV-4 1350+ hrs of Hmmm.......
20B powered RV-8, still hangar flying..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching gear legs |
Mike;
For my -6A, I shaped a couple of 2x6s to match the underside of the
fuselage, spaced them about 12" apart with 2x6 crosspieces, added a sheet of
1/4" ply to form sort of a cradle, a sheet of scrap carpet for cushioning,
and then used bottle jacks under the 2x6s to lift the whole works. I put
some blocking in place (milk crates, scrap 2x6s, etc) to create a solid base
and then lowered the "cradle" to have a firm platform to climb into the
cockpit (many times!) to install the infamous -6A center section bolt set.
Your -7A should be a good deal simpler than this but the cradle - bottle
jack system should work to get the initial lift.
Jim Oke
RV-3
RV-6A
Winnipeg, MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RV-List: Attaching gear legs
>
> Any good ideas on how to lift the fuselage to attach my 9A gear? I have
an engine hoist but I don't think it will lift high enough. And I don't
really have a good situation for an overhead hoist either (9 foot garage
ceiling).
>
> Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
Be sure & check the latest regarding ELT's. Some new rules as of 1-1-04 but not
sure who was affected.
DP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
Okay Mike, step up and let us know what's the case. Do all experimental
have to have ELT's or can we use the new improve personal locators?
Thanks Chuck
PGLong(at)aol.com
> >
> > I know ELT's are required for Civil Aircraft. Does this also apply to
> > Experimental?
> >
> > Pat Long
>
> All experimentals don't have to have them and also all standard category
> planes don't either. There are some exceptions..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kysh <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotary engines (was: engines, engines....) |
> I'd go with the new Renesis rotary engine (230 HP normally aspirated)
> or the 20B 3 rotor (270 HP).
Is there any significant weight difference between the 13B and the Renesis?
What's the difference in weight for the 20B? (And where the heck did you
get one? Car conversion people on the RX-7 lists seem to have trouble
finding them for conversion)
-Kysh
Who would love to see a 3-rotor -8. RV or RX is up to the reader.
--
| 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying |
| CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr |
| 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang |
| Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ |
| KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham |
| Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Listers,
There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
considered opinions and biases.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A final details
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill VonDane <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | New Strobe solution... |
rv8list(at)yahoogroups.com, vansairforce
Ok, I know a lot of you have been waiting for this... My new AVI-PAK strobe
power pack is in production now, and should be ready to ship in a couple
weeks, and I am taking pre-orders now!
http://www.creativair.com/ex-stb/index.htm
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
AC43.13 2A has the formula for calculating antenna drag/load.
Chapter 3
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotary engines (was: engines, engines....) |
> I'd go with the new Renesis rotary engine (230 HP normally aspirated)
> or the 20B 3 rotor (270 HP).
Is there any significant weight difference between the 13B and the Renesis?
What's the difference in weight for the 20B? (And where the heck did you
get one? Car conversion people on the RX-7 lists seem to have trouble
finding them for conversion)
-Kysh
Who would love to see a 3-rotor -8. RV or RX is up to the reader.
The Renesis is about 10 pounds lighter than the earlier 13Bs which end up weighing
about the same as an O - 320 Lyc. with all systems needed to fly. This will
of course depend on how weight conscious you are when planning your installation
(and there is a lot of that to do).
The 20B is 67 pounds heavier than earlier 13B. 20B "long block" weighs 247 lbs.
2nd & 3rd gen 13B weighs 180, Renesis is about 170. I'll know more precisely
when my engine builder Bruce Turrentine delivers mine next month. That's about
the only way to get one (built from parts) until Mazda catches up with demand.
Crate motors will be available when they do. I'd still opt to have mine
built because there are some custom things I want done inside and the price
is about the same anyway. I got my 20B the same way.
Tracy Crook
"Sooner or later, you'll fly a rotary" : )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob n' Lu Olds" <oldsfolks(at)aol.com> |
I had some corrosion on skins and I used Scotchbrite pads and an aluminum etch
and scrubbed until it was removed. I used a vinyl wash self etching primer from
NAPA to prime all my inside parts. The exterior priming wasn't done until ready
to paint.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <benandginny(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Strobe solution... |
Bill,
I noticed on your web site that it says the strobes must be under some type
of cover. How about just the RV clear wing tip? Or is a small glass dome
needed for some reason. I have your NAV LEDs & VonDanes Landing Lights and
would like to keep the strobe profile low so I can mount them in the space
in front of the NAV lights. I planned on just drilling the 1 inch hole and
stickin' them in.
Ben Cunningham
RV7
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com>
; ; "vansairforce"
Subject: RV-List: New Strobe solution...
>
> Ok, I know a lot of you have been waiting for this... My new AVI-PAK
strobe
> power pack is in production now, and should be ready to ship in a couple
> weeks, and I am taking pre-orders now!
>
> http://www.creativair.com/ex-stb/index.htm
>
> -Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Strobe solution... |
This is the solution you want... The lexan cover that comes with the wing
tip is enough... This is exactly how I have then installed in my -8A:
http://www.creativair.com/ex75-nav/3.jpg
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <benandginny(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: New Strobe solution...
Bill,
I noticed on your web site that it says the strobes must be under some type
of cover. How about just the RV clear wing tip? Or is a small glass dome
needed for some reason. I have your NAV LEDs & VonDanes Landing Lights and
would like to keep the strobe profile low so I can mount them in the space
in front of the NAV lights. I planned on just drilling the 1 inch hole and
stickin' them in.
Ben Cunningham
RV7
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com>
; ; "vansairforce"
Subject: RV-List: New Strobe solution...
>
> Ok, I know a lot of you have been waiting for this... My new AVI-PAK
strobe
> power pack is in production now, and should be ready to ship in a couple
> weeks, and I am taking pre-orders now!
>
> http://www.creativair.com/ex-stb/index.htm
>
> -Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Making the right kit choice |
Hi All,
I'm looking for some advice. I currently
have a Glasair 1FT that I bought already built.
After being around the experimental crowd for awhile,
I'm considering building an airplane (whoda thunk?!) :-)
I don't think fiberglass is an option for me due to
the fumes and my allergies, and I choose not to
build tube and fabric, or wood. I think a metal plane
is the way for me. Out of all the choices, I think the
RV planes are at the top of my list. I've been looking at
the RV-7A and RV-9A, but I think they have some of the
same limitations as my Glasair - namely lack of
baggage space and/or easy access to the baggage space.
So the RV-10 looks very attractive to me.
The basic question I have, is the RV-10 (quickbuild)
a little ambitious for a first time builder?
Best guess, it looks like the RV-10 would be about
$30k more than the -7 or -9 (quick build options, and
engine). Is this about right?
Or should I start with something a little
simpler, like a Zodiac XL?
Thanks,
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
>
>AC43.13 2A has the formula for calculating antenna drag/load.
>
>Chapter 3
>
>W
>
The formula in AC43.13-2A appears to be designed for antennae with a
streamline shape, not a whip antenna.
Looking at Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, it seems that we can
probably assume a drag coefficient (Cd) of approximately 0.5 for a
whip antenna (test data in figure 13 on page 3-9). Drag is equal to
the dynamic pressure times frontal area times the Cd. Dynamic
pressure (lb per square foot) at sea level equals the speed in mph
squared, divided by 391 (from Hoerner, eqn. 16 on page 1-10). So, if
we figure out the frontal area of the antenna in square inches, we
get:
drag = speed squared times frontal area times Cd divided by 56,304
drag in pounds,
speed in mph
frontal area in square inches
I don't have an antenna to measure, so I'll just make some numbers up
for illustration. If we have an antenna 20 inches long, with a
diameter of 3/16 inch, we get a frontal area of 20 * 0.1875 = 3.75
square inches. At 200 mph the drag would be: 200 x 200 x 3.75 x 0.5
/ 56,304 = 1.3 lb. Power required = speed x force. 200 mph x 5280
ft/mile x 3600 sec/hour = 293 ft/sec. So, the power in ft-lb/sec =
293 x 1.3 = 381. One hp = 550 ft-lb/sec, so it takes 381/550 = 0.69
hp to drag that antenna around. If our prop efficiency is about 0.8,
that means we need 0.69/0.8 = 0.87 engine horse power to drag that
antenna.
Looking at it another way, if your top speed was 200 mph without the
antenna, and you had a 180 hp engine, and a prop efficiency of 0.8,
then your total drag was about 180 x 0.8 x 550/293 = 270 lb. So
adding that antenna would increase the drag about 1.3/270 = 0.0048,
or about 0.5%. One antenna doesn't make a big difference, but if
they start breeding like rabbits they would have a measurable effect.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
It depends on what you want, how soon you want it and how much you can
afford. As far as I am concerned, the RV10 just has a bit larger
parts. It will require more money and more labor, but you will have to
learn exactly the same skills as building any other of the RVs.
If the RV10 had been available when I started I might have chosen it
rather than my RV9A, although in reality the 9A will do what I need 95%
of the time.
My $0.02.
Dick Tasker, RV9A
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>Hi All,
> I'm looking for some advice. I currently
>have a Glasair 1FT that I bought already built.
>After being around the experimental crowd for awhile,
>I'm considering building an airplane (whoda thunk?!) :-)
>
> I don't think fiberglass is an option for me due to
>the fumes and my allergies, and I choose not to
>build tube and fabric, or wood. I think a metal plane
>is the way for me. Out of all the choices, I think the
>RV planes are at the top of my list. I've been looking at
>the RV-7A and RV-9A, but I think they have some of the
>same limitations as my Glasair - namely lack of
>baggage space and/or easy access to the baggage space.
>So the RV-10 looks very attractive to me.
>
> The basic question I have, is the RV-10 (quickbuild)
>a little ambitious for a first time builder?
>
> Best guess, it looks like the RV-10 would be about
>$30k more than the -7 or -9 (quick build options, and
>engine). Is this about right?
>
> Or should I start with something a little
>simpler, like a Zodiac XL?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Dj
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Attaching gear legs |
The fuse is on a rolling cart (carpeted) about 18" off the floor. Very convenient
for wiring, etc. I'm about done with that and have been considering various
options. The wings and engine are not yet installed but the engine mount,
with a relatively light fuselage, is a very attractive lift point.
I'm inclined to attach the engine mount to a ceiling mounted come-along and support
the tail cone with the cradle, which I will move progressively rearward as
the font is lifted. Once I have the mains sufficiently high to insert into
the fixtures I will lower the assembly, secure the mains and finish with the nose
wheel.
If I don't drop the damn thing or encounter any major calamity, I'll report back
to the group.
Cheers,
Mike Holland
A 9A in the oven.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
Kevin,
Thanks for the explanation of how to calculate antenna drag. That was
exactly the kind of information I was hoping someone on the list would share.
Dan RV-7A (almost finished)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Dj, you would be hard pressed to find a better kitplane than an RV,
regardless of model. But, having finished an 8A, I can tell you it's a HUGE task
that
takes dedication, discipline and many hours of work. In my case it was mostly
enjoyable, though there were some sleepless nights worrying about the problem
of the day.
I reckon nonone except you can answer the question of whether you can finish
such a project. If you do decide on an RV though, my advice is to build a
quickbuild 9A or 7A. I don't really know much about building a 10, but I do know
it's bigger and most likely more complicated, and certainly more expensive.
From what I've heard and read, the 9A is pretty simple to build (that may be my
next project). It doesn't require jigging the empennage, nor the fuselage (am I
right here 9a builders?).
Walt Shipley RV-8A N314TS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Hi Dj,
My personal feeling is that the RV 10 is as good a place to start as any. To
me these kits are almost like signing up for AME 101. The Vans instructions
start with the simpler concepts of sheet metal fabrication and gradually
lead you through to being the owner and maintainer of substantial aircraft
that is
solidly placed on the leading edge of the OBAM (Owner Built And Maintained)
aircraft movement.
The learning curve seems steep at first. However with great support from
Vans, the various email lists, forums, EAA groups (the RAA in Canada) and
the hidden resource of fellow builders in the local area things come
together.
The ups and downs of building an aircraft are soon (well, in my case 7 years
{[;-)) left behind at a cruising speed that most certified can't touch, and
at a price that is far less that the certified marketplace can ever hope to
compete with.
If four place non aerobatic suits your needs start there. It is up to you to
think it out and buy the airframe that will provide the biggest and longest
lasting grin.
My "slow build" RV6-A is in the final stages of wiring and The fun and
frustrations have helped me develop a warped sense of humor and some
patience. With a whole group of new faces and friends thrown in for free I
think I'm safe in suggesting these RV kits are one hell of a deal.
I expect that my wife and I and about 80 to 100 pounds of gear will travel
cross country quite well in the RV 6A. That of course includes the hand
bag!!! (;-]!
I don't think your far off the mark in your cost estimates.
I don't think the Zodiac line or any other kit type or kind is really that
much if at all any simpler in the long run.
You might want to examine the re-sale values of the various finished kits
and include your findings in the data that leads you to that final choice. I
think the RV 10 will find a good price when done.
Good flights and greased landings,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: RV-List: Making the right kit choice
>
> Hi All,
> I'm looking for some advice. I currently
> have a Glasair 1FT that I bought already built.
> After being around the experimental crowd for awhile,
> I'm considering building an airplane (whoda thunk?!) :-)
>
> I don't think fiberglass is an option for me due to
> the fumes and my allergies, and I choose not to
> build tube and fabric, or wood. I think a metal plane
> is the way for me. Out of all the choices, I think the
> RV planes are at the top of my list. I've been looking at
> the RV-7A and RV-9A, but I think they have some of the
> same limitations as my Glasair - namely lack of
> baggage space and/or easy access to the baggage space.
> So the RV-10 looks very attractive to me.
>
> The basic question I have, is the RV-10 (quickbuild)
> a little ambitious for a first time builder?
>
> Best guess, it looks like the RV-10 would be about
> $30k more than the -7 or -9 (quick build options, and
> engine). Is this about right?
>
> Or should I start with something a little
> simpler, like a Zodiac XL?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
In a message dated 2/18/04 8:27:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com writes:
>
> Dj, you would be hard pressed to find a better kitplane than an RV,
> regardless of model. But, having finished an 8A, I can tell you it's a HUGE
> task that
> takes dedication, discipline and many hours of work. In my case it was
> mostly
> enjoyable, though there were some sleepless nights worrying about the
> problem
> of the day.
>
> I reckon nonone except you can answer the question of whether you can finish
>
> such a project. If you do decide on an RV though, my advice is to build a
> quickbuild 9A or 7A. I don't really know much about building a 10, but I do
> know
> it's bigger and most likely more complicated, and certainly more expensive.
> From what I've heard and read, the 9A is pretty simple to build (that may be
> my
> next project). It doesn't require jigging the empennage, nor the fuselage
> (am I
> right here 9a builders?).
>
> Walt Shipley RV-8A N314TS
>
>
Dj,
I agree 100% with Walt. You're right about requiring no fuselage jigs, and I
hear some builders don't even use wing jigs. Even though the 7A and 9A are
simple to build, they still require a lot of time and there are still
frustrations. I didn't go the quick build way because of the lead time (at the
time).
But, I have found that Van's matched hole technology is nearly perfect. This
certainly makes the plane go together quicker and straighter than before, but
there are still some hard areas to get through. For me, doing the metal work
was very enjoyable and went fairly well. The matched holes and the
step-by-step instructions keep that part of the job moving along smoothly. That
took
about 2 years. I'm retired and work on it about 5 hours on an average day.
I'm slower than Vans average builder, I know. Doing the canopy, firewall
forward, and instrument panel has taken about 1 year even with the firewall forward
kit. That will be the same for a quick build, too. Having said that, I'm not
sure if the quick build will save you as much time as you may think. It may
have saved me about 30 percent of the time I have spent. And that is really
hard to estimate because I'm sure I learned a lot of metal skills by not going
the quick build route.
The RV-10 looks like it may be easier around the canopy area than the -7 or
-9, although I don't know that for sure -- guys?
I tell people that I finally know what the hardest part of the plane is to
build. They always say, "What?" And I say, "The part I'm involved in right
now!" There's really a lot of truth to that. It seems like it all takes about
all the talent I can come up with. But, so far, I have managed to get through
every stage, and it is really beautiful. (Not just my opinion!) And I'm
pretty sure it will fly this Spring.
Jump in -- Van's is great to deal with and they are fine airplanes.
My $.02!
Dan RV-7A (Almost done)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Richard Tasker wrote:
> It depends on what you want, how soon you want it and how much you can
> afford. As far as I am concerned, the RV10 just has a bit larger
> parts. It will require more money and more labor, but you will have to
> learn exactly the same skills as building any other of the RVs.
Hmmm - well, "what I want" is always the hardest question
to answer, isn't it? *grin* Followed by, well, okay, now that
I think I know what I want, how much can I really afford?
Time-wise, I am not in any position to build right now, but
hope to be within the year. In that time, I'm hoping to make
the choice of what to build, and when the time is right I can
then make the choice when to start building.
Basic thought is to buy the RV-? in pieces over
the next few years, and continue flying the Glasair in the
meantime. Once the airframe is far enough along, sell
the Glasair to afford the engine. At least that sounds good
on (virtual) paper... :-)
> If the RV10 had been available when I started I might have chosen it
> rather than my RV9A, although in reality the 9A will do what I need 95%
> of the time.
That's one of the things going through my mind as well.
I think the 9A would be great for local flights, which is
the majority of my flying (and about $30k cheaper), but how
practical would it be to take 2 people and baggage on a week long trip?
I don't think I can do it with my Glasair, and it appears that
the RV-9A has about the same amount of baggage space.
I'll be spending a significant amount of time examining the
various RV choices at Sun-n-Fun this year hoping to
answer that question (among others).
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
RVEIGHTA(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Dj, you would be hard pressed to find a better kitplane than an RV,
> regardless of model. But, having finished an 8A, I can tell you it's a HUGE task
that
> takes dedication, discipline and many hours of work. In my case it was mostly
> enjoyable, though there were some sleepless nights worrying about the problem
> of the day.
Well, then I guess I am just as mentally warped as the
next builder, since that sounds like fun to me! *grin*
Seriously, though, it is a bit worrying. I keep looking
at the picture on the Van's site with the quickbuild RV-7A
parts laid out with the completed airplane in the background,
and all I can think is, "Damn, that's a lot of pieces!!!".
I'm going to sign up for a class or two, maybe do the
rudder starting kit, just to see if it is something I would
really enjoy. Of course, that's only the airframe.
Then there is the engine and FWF, avionics and wiring, etc etc.
But I'm preaching to the choir here... :-)
> I reckon nonone except you can answer the question of whether you can finish
> such a project. If you do decide on an RV though, my advice is to build a
> quickbuild 9A or 7A. I don't really know much about building a 10, but I do know
> it's bigger and most likely more complicated, and certainly more expensive.
>>From what I've heard and read, the 9A is pretty simple to build (that may be
my
> next project). It doesn't require jigging the empennage, nor the fuselage (am
I
> right here 9a builders?).
Whichever I pick, it would be the quickbuild for the
wings and fuselage. The 10 is somewhat more complicated
inside the fuselage due to the extra seats, but I think the
rest of it is on par with the 7 and 9 (right?). It is definitely
more expensive, which is a huge part of the vacillating between
the 9A and the 10 for me. For the extra $30k, I could have some
darn nice goodies in that 9A or a lot of 100LL!! :-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Dana Overall wrote:
>
> DJ, just to add absolutely nothing to the process.....................many
> people call the pre-punched kits.............snap together airplanes. I
> proudly call myself an "assembler". We leave the builder label to the 3,4
> and 6 builders (at least that's what we say in public to keep em happy:-)
Well, then I will call myself an assembler! *grin*
I used to love Legos when I was a kid, so snap together sounds
great to me! :-)
> Seriously, you won't find an easier kit to "build" than the pre-punched RV
> series. Buy you some tools, order the emp then skip happily down the yellow
> brick road!! (Man, I've been doing way too many tax returns)
Do they have the rudder starting kit for the 10?
I think they have it for the 7 and 9. That's a cheap
way to make sure I am up to the task.
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
From my own experience (or lack thereof), before I started my project I
attended a EAA SportAir RV Assembly workshop. I found it well worth the
time and money.
Glenn in Arizona -9A wings, fuselage ordered.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Making the right kit choice
>
> Dana Overall wrote:
>
> >
> > DJ, just to add absolutely nothing to the
process.....................many
> > people call the pre-punched kits.............snap together airplanes. I
> > proudly call myself an "assembler". We leave the builder label to the
3,4
> > and 6 builders (at least that's what we say in public to keep em
happy:-)
>
> Well, then I will call myself an assembler! *grin*
> I used to love Legos when I was a kid, so snap together sounds
> great to me! :-)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
What you need to do is find someone near you (or near enough to fly your
Glasair to) that is building an RV7 or RV9 with the matched hole
construction and look at their plane and talk to them (maybe buck a few
rivets if they need the help). The RV10 is essentially the same, just
larger. And, yes, Van's is shipping empennage kits for the RV10,
although the empennage kit for the RV10 actually includes the rear
section of the fuselage if I remember correctly.
If you are actually at Dartmouth (based on your email address) there are
several builders in NH that would be happy to talk to you I am sure. If
you want to see a really nice completed RV9A, Gary Newsted is near
Nashua (close by air to you).
I think that you will find that there is more baggage room than you
think and, depending on your combined weights, you can probably fill the
space to the top without exceeding the weight allowance (unless you pack
very heavy bags!)
Good Luck!
Dick Tasker
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>Richard Tasker wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>It depends on what you want, how soon you want it and how much you can
>>afford. As far as I am concerned, the RV10 just has a bit larger
>>parts. It will require more money and more labor, but you will have to
>>learn exactly the same skills as building any other of the RVs.
>>
>>
>
> Hmmm - well, "what I want" is always the hardest question
>to answer, isn't it? *grin* Followed by, well, okay, now that
>I think I know what I want, how much can I really afford?
>Time-wise, I am not in any position to build right now, but
>hope to be within the year. In that time, I'm hoping to make
>the choice of what to build, and when the time is right I can
>then make the choice when to start building.
>
> Basic thought is to buy the RV-? in pieces over
>the next few years, and continue flying the Glasair in the
>meantime. Once the airframe is far enough along, sell
>the Glasair to afford the engine. At least that sounds good
>on (virtual) paper... :-)
>
>
>
>
>>If the RV10 had been available when I started I might have chosen it
>>rather than my RV9A, although in reality the 9A will do what I need 95%
>>of the time.
>>
>>
>
>
> That's one of the things going through my mind as well.
>I think the 9A would be great for local flights, which is
>the majority of my flying (and about $30k cheaper), but how
>practical would it be to take 2 people and baggage on a week long trip?
>I don't think I can do it with my Glasair, and it appears that
>the RV-9A has about the same amount of baggage space.
>I'll be spending a significant amount of time examining the
>various RV choices at Sun-n-Fun this year hoping to
>answer that question (among others).
>
>-Dj
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Making the right kit choice |
Dj,
The baggage compartment of the 6/7/9 (A) has enough space to hold two of the
"roll - on" travel bags of the type that initally flight attendants used.
I have used such bags over the years to easily cover weeklong trips and this
included trips where I was wearing suits etc.
You can probably put three in there at about 25-30 lbs each. So if coverage
for a weekend is what you seek then I would not worry.
James
[SNIP]
>
> That's one of the things going through my mind as well.
> I think the 9A would be great for local flights, which is
> the majority of my flying (and about $30k cheaper), but how
> practical would it be to take 2 people and baggage on a week long trip?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob n' Lu Olds" <oldsfolks(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Transponder Checks |
This string has been as educational as a great big book would be. Thanks to all,and
especially Mike for all this free training.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191x
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bruno <rv4(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | AIRCRAFT BATTERY |
Hello listers
For the last 2 years in my RV-4,I've been using a GILL
G-25S sealed recombinant battery and the last few flights I did with this
battery were very troublesomes.I had to hand-propped the a/c a few times
and got stucked a couple a times at remote airports.
I had the battery checked today and with a full charge
(13 volts) as soon as a load (150 Amps) is applied, the voltage dropped to
about 8.5-9 volts.
My question is: Are there any of you on the list using
this type of battery and if yes, did you have any problems with it?
I've checked the charging system,the starter (Skytec) and
everything is fine.
The battery has only about 50 hrs of used and has never
been outside in the cold.(A/C is in storage for the winter)
Also what type of battery would you recommend for someone doing basic
aerobatic and inverted flying?
The battery dimension are : 7"W X 5"D X 6" H and are very important due to
installation constraints.
The battery is mounted under the radio console in front of the fwd stick.
Thanks you for your imputs
You may replied off list if you wished
Bruno Dionne
C-GDBH RV-4
rv4(at)videotron.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
If you have fire shield on your fuel lines, you also need fire shield on
your oil lines. Both will burn. Both need protection from the hot exhaust
gases.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fireshield
>
> Listers,
>
> There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
> firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
>
> My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
> is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
> or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
> considered opinions and biases.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Dudley
> -6A final details
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leesafur(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip antennas |
In a message dated 2/17/2004 4:36:45 PM Central Standard Time,
alexpeterson(at)usjet.net writes:
Lee, is it a com antenna? If so, even by Bob Archer's admission, it
isn't very good. One of the -7A's in town has one, and he going to
switch to a whip on the fuse.
Alex thanks for the response. Yes, it is a com. and its sounding like I wont
be using it. I'm just looking for that sleek look got any ideas?
BTW. I think I seen your plane at aviation days. Had my 2 year old daughter
with and now all she talks about is planes!
Lee
Anoka, MN
RV-3 Wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leesafur(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip antennas |
In a message dated 2/17/2004 9:55:16 PM Central Standard Time,
LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com writes:
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV Right wingtip COM antenna Modified from the wingtip NAV antenna
Hi Jim
Can you tell me how you had to modify it and how well it works?
Lee
Anoka, MN
RV-3 Wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | photos of front baffle seals |
I'm looking for photos of front baffle seals...that is, the baffle wall at
the top front center of the engine and its transition to the cowl inlets.
I've been trying to get a single piece of airseal to work along the whole
"arch" there, and while it "works" it's not perfect. I'd like to see how
people have done it with single or multiple strips if possible.
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Hi Richard,
Standard Practice is to put fire-sleeve on both the fuel and oil lines. You can
do this yourself, and it's well worth it should you ever have a fire under the
cowl.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
http://www.steinair.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:12 -0500
>
>Listers,
>
>There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
>firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
>
>My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
>is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
>or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
>considered opinions and biases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Dudley
>-6A final details
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Wing tip antennas |
Hi All,
I had one of Bob Archer's NAV antenna's in the right wingtip of my RV-3. I
removed the NAV/COM radio. I installed a COM radio and a GPS. So much for why
I didn't need the NAV capability.
The NAV antenna (and the COM antenna) has a basic "S" shape. The base of the
"S" mounts to the lower surface of metal wing skin in the wingtip. The top
end of the "S" is about 12" long for a NAV antenna.
The top of the "S" on a COM antenna is about 10" long.
Got snips? :-)
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 02/18/2004 8:41:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Leesafur(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 2/17/2004 9:55:16 PM Central Standard Time,
LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com writes:
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV Right wingtip COM antenna Modified from the wingtip NAV antenna
Hi Jim
Can you tell me how you had to modify it and how well it works?
Lee
Anoka, MN
RV-3 Wing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
We utilized Fireshield for piece of mind
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "rv-list(at)matronics.com"
>Subject: RV-List: Fireshield
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:12 -0500
>
>
>Listers,
>
>There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
>firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
>
>My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
>is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
>or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
>considered opinions and biases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Dudley
>-6A final details
>
>
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
| From: | <EricHe(at)FlexSolPackaging.com> |
Is anyone currently flying with one of Vans Cheapo TAS gauges? I'm installing a
Dynon but really must have an AS gauge as well. Would love to not spend $500.00
on a stupid TAS gauge to go with the Dynon and the Whizbang 5000 GPS. Any comments
on the other flight gauges based on first hand flight experiences.
Thanks in advance
Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> cruise setting than existing installs.
Dana:
I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
feature of the rotary, as I said.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Glenn Brasch wrote:
>
>>From my own experience (or lack thereof), before I started my project I
> attended a EAA SportAir RV Assembly workshop. I found it well worth the
> time and money.
> Glenn in Arizona -9A wings, fuselage ordered.
I was hoping they were going to have one at Sun-n-Fun, but
unfortunately not. I'm not sure yet if I will be able to
make it to Oshkosh this year.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photos of front baffle seals |
Hi Dan,
I think that you are referring to the semi-circular baffle that is
concentric with the crankshaft. In order to accommodate the circular
shape. (I'm assuming that the -6 and -7 are similar in that area. I have
used several segments of the rubberized material overlapping each other.
I did not see how to make a single piece of material conform over that
whole curved area.
I'll be glad to take photographs of that area If that is what you would
like.
I have had the cowl on and off many times since I installed the seal. It
seems to work.
Let me know if we're talking about the same area and if you want me to
send you pictures.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>
> I'm looking for photos of front baffle seals...that is, the baffle wall at
> the top front center of the engine and its transition to the cowl inlets.
>
> I've been trying to get a single piece of airseal to work along the whole
> "arch" there, and while it "works" it's not perfect. I'd like to see how
> people have done it with single or multiple strips if possible.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | ELT Antenna Placement |
Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
Snip>
Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when mounted there,
there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For that reason
I am
seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it is
in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
End snip>
Incidentally, SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) is a measure of how well the antenna
is matched to the 50 ohm feedline, and is a good indicator of the antenna's
ability to take power from the transmitter and radiate it.
Actually, I question whether the turtle deck is the best place either, due to
the likelihood of the airplane ending up on its top. I am going to mount the
ELT in the baggage compartment where it can be easily removed to used as a
portable if necessary (it has a separate portable antenna). But, I would like
to have the antenna where it is most likely to help in case the ELT has to do
its own thing after a crash. I think that a short cable to the antenna would
be less vulnerable than a long run to the tail or tailcone. What about the
antenna in the baggage compartment? Would it be an eye poker?
Thanks,
Dan RV-7A N766DH (almost finished)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwpetrus(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
Mine has worked fine.
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
> What you need to do is find someone near you (or near enough to fly your
> Glasair to) that is building an RV7 or RV9 with the matched hole
> construction and look at their plane and talk to them (maybe buck a few
> rivets if they need the help). The RV10 is essentially the same, just
> larger. And, yes, Van's is shipping empennage kits for the RV10,
> although the empennage kit for the RV10 actually includes the rear
> section of the fuselage if I remember correctly.
I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the
building process without spending thousands of dollars on
the empennage kit. I thought it was just part of the rudder.
I can't seem to find it on the Van's site today, however,
so maybe I was imagining it.
> If you are actually at Dartmouth (based on your email address) there are
> several builders in NH that would be happy to talk to you I am sure. If
> you want to see a really nice completed RV9A, Gary Newsted is near
> Nashua (close by air to you).
I am at Dartmouth, and that is an excellent suggestion.
If nothing else it would make for a nice excuse to go flying,
and Nashua is about 30-35 mins away by Glasair.
I'll be at Sun-n-Fun, so will get a chance to see a *lot* of
examples there! :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Wing tip antennas |
>
> Alex thanks for the response. Yes, it is a com. and its
> sounding like I wont
> be using it. I'm just looking for that sleek look got any ideas?
>
Lee, Bob Archer said the best com antenna he's ever tested is his
antenna that goes into the top of the vertical stabilizer. It does
require making a modified tip fairing for the vertical stab and rudder,
though. Look his number up in the RV Yeller pages and give him a call.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 441 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: photos of front baffle seals |
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Doesn't using a single strip of airseal prevent you from removing
individual baffle sections in the future? For repair, or whatever? I
thought the point of using several smaller strips was to allow for easier
installation, better fit and maintenance. No? On the other hand I see
the appeal of a single longer strip where possible...
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 baffles too...
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
>
> Dan Checkoway wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm looking for photos of front baffle seals...that is, the baffle wall
>> at
>> the top front center of the engine and its transition to the cowl
>> inlets.
>>
>> I've been trying to get a single piece of airseal to work along the
>> whole
>> "arch" there, and while it "works" it's not perfect. I'd like to see
>> how
>> people have done it with single or multiple strips if possible.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> )_( Dan
>> RV-7 N714D
>> http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
You are completely right on this, but, doesn't the fuel charge in a
Lycoming perform an adjunct role in cooling? If this is true, doesn't
that increase the fuel burn for a given power output compared to a
liquid cooled engine that doesn't?
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, still working on wings
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
> will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> choicesfor once? |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn any more fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
>Dana:
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
The actual aircraft data shows otherwise. What you care about is
fuel consumption at a chosen airspeed, not necessarily specific fuel
consumption. Other factors need to be considered.
If you take a look at the numbers that Tracy Crook is getting from
his airplane, (with EFI) you will see that the fuel consumption versus
speed is no different than the same airplane running a Lycoming. Also, you
can run MoGas instead of 100LL.
I suspect that the lack of a valve train in a rotary may make up
for the combustion chamber shortcomings. Especially at altitude, the HP
robbed by a valve train can be a significant fraction of the total. You are
turning higher RPM but producing much less HP.
Tracy is using the stock RV cowling. Thus, it is likely that Tracy
has not fully optimized the cowling to take advantage of the water cooling.
With a better optimized cowling, it is quite possible that he could reduce
the cooling drag and decrease fuel consumption significantly, perhaps
exceeding the numbers of a Lycoming.
Oil consumption is similar to a two-stroke. If you retain the oil
injection pump, (or fashion a substitute) the oil consumption can be quite
modest.
Regardless, you can buy a LOT of oil (and gas) with the $20,000
that you will save over a Lycoming.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
I assume the drag effect would be even less for an antenna in a bent-whip configuration,
as it would present less frontal area and the bent portion would present
an eliptical rather than round cross-section to the slipstream, much like
the nose gear leg of the modern (non-tailwheel) RV. Keep in mind also that the
whip antennas we use are tapered at the tip. OTOH, they have a somewhat large,
draggy ceramic cone insulator at their base, which is a big negative, aerodynamically.
I've been really happy so far with my comm and 144MHz antennas relocated to the
wingtips using Nuckolls' blueprints in the 'Connection for rolling my own antennas.
Performance seems largely equal to the belly-mounted whips they relplaced,
and absolutely zero-drag. Slight weight penalty for the longer runs of RG-400.
-Bill B -6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>
>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>>
>>
>
>Dana:
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>
Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
(BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
between changes. No, that's not a joke.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
Dynon is coming out with a temperature probe in order to compute TAS,
which should be for sale within a month or two. Get one of these, get
TAS from your Dynon, then buy a standard ASI for much less than $500. I
have a 2 1/2 inch ASI next to the Dynon for backup, which cost $145.
Jeff Point
RV-6 getting very close
Milwaukee WI
EricHe(at)FlexSolPackaging.com wrote:
>
>Is anyone currently flying with one of Vans Cheapo TAS gauges? I'm installing
a Dynon but really must have an AS gauge as well. Would love to not spend $500.00
on a stupid TAS gauge to go with the Dynon and the Whizbang 5000 GPS. Any
comments on the other flight gauges based on first hand flight experiences.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Fuel Burn
---------
Some here are conflating two unrelated things. A rotary indisputably uses more
fuel to produce the same power as a piston engine (when both are operating
optimally). However, there are many factors that affect how much fuel you will
burn at a given airspeed, most of them having nothing to do with the engine,
but having to do with how much power is required to fly at that speed.
If it's possible to have, for example, significantly lower cooling drag with a
rotary than with a Lycoming (and it probably is), that will offset the lower
efficiency of the rotary. You might even come out ahead. It's very worthwhile
to try to optimize the radiator and ducting of a liquid-cooled installation,
otherwise you're giving up one of the main advantages of a liquid-cooled
engine.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that a rotary engine has a higer BSFC than a piston
does, just as a spark-ignition engine has a higher BSFC than a diesel.
Fuel as Coolant
---------------
Yes, a Lycoming uses fuel as a coolant when it is run rich, such as during
climb. (Yes, I know fuel always acts as a coolant to some degree. Let's not
quibble.) Under those conditions, it probably has an even higher BSFC than a
rotary. All the liquid-cooled engines have the advantage that they don't need
fuel cooling at high power settings (or not as much as a Lycoming). So block
fuel consumption will be lower, other things being equal, with a liquid-cooled
engine. That's the main reason that a Subaru-engined airplane is so fuel
efficient, despite having small combustion chambers, which generally increases
BSFC.
My Opinion
----------
I'm not criticizing rotaries. I like 'em, and I've always liked 'em. I think
the Mazda-based rotaries are an excellent alternative to a Lycoming for an RV
builder -- in theory, probably the best alternative. I'm just trying to
clarify a point and ensure that an incorrect idea doesn't become "common
knowledge."
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
The requirements for an ELT are listed in FAR 91.207. Paragraph (f) gives
the exemptions. There are 11 of them. Too many to list right here.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:23:30 -0600
>
>
> > FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
> >
> > An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
> >
> > Jim Ayers
>
>I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one, regardless
>of the number of seats.
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
>www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
> >
> >
> >>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> >>cruise setting than existing installs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Dana:
> >
> >I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> >"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
shape
> >with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
CONSUMPTION..."
> >(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> >recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
it
> >will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> >feature of the rotary, as I said.
> >
> >Tedd McHenry
> >Surrey, BC
> >
> Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
> them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
> powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
> anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
> dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>
> (BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
> it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
> between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>
> Charlie
Actually, if you do an oil premix in the fuel for a flying rotary to
lubricate the apex seals, you may well find that you have to *DRAIN* (which
is what I believe Charlie meant) oil between changes. The reason, we have
discovered is that any "surplus" oil in the fuel mixture gets scraped off
the combustion walls by the oil rings and deposited in the sump. I have
flown 220 hours with a rotary and never added oil between oil changes. Now
the automobile installation was designed to inject crankcase oil into the
engine, so if you were unaware that the auto rotary was designed to use oil
out of the crankcase that could clearly be consider "higher than normal
usage" (compared to most car engines). The difference in fuel efficiency
between the rotary and reciprocating engine is most pronounced at low to
medium rpms this is where the design of the combustion chamber and the large
wall surface area are most unfavorable to the combustion process in either
rotary or piston engines. However, at higher rpms the differences
diminishes so that at least for air cooled aircraft engines and water cooled
rotaries the fuel consumption is very close with perhaps an advantage to the
rotary as you can not damage the a naturally aspired rotary engine by over
leaning. The new Renesis engine was redesigned to reduce this deficiency
and has increased the low - mid rpm fuel efficiency by a reported 20% - but
that change (due to a exhaust port relocation) does not apparently translate
to much difference at the higher rpms.
My personal opinion based on my observation is that powerwise, fuel
consumption wise and weight wise, the twin rotary 13B and the 320/360 model
Lycomings are essentially a wash. However, in the cost and reliability area
the rotary has decided advantages - if you're willing to roll your own
installation.
Certainly a lot of work and not everyone's cup of tea. Also, if you want a
controllable pitch prop then with the rotary as with most auto engine
conversions you are essentially limited to electric controlled props.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
> I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
> for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the
> building process without spending thousands of dollars on
> the empennage kit. I thought it was just part of the rudder.
> I can't seem to find it on the Van's site today, however,
> so maybe I was imagining it.
From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/parts.txt
RV TRAINING PROJECT CONTROL SURFACE PROJ $32.00
This is what you build at the SportAir RV Assembly workshop.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> choicesfor once? |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
once?
At 06:27 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
Tedd, this is commonly accepted by logicians as an 'arguement from
authority', sorta like "because I said so".
>I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs.
"over-leaning"? Exactly what does this mean?
>But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
And of the Lycoming. Higher than what? Details, details.
One very sizeable attraction of the Mazda engine in an RV is the
cost. Lower initial, and very lower overhaul. I suspect also greater
reliability in that they don't quit in the air. These engines don't blow
up, they just get where they won't start.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
Dan:
I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
showed pretty good performance there.
--
Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
>the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
>
>Snip>
>Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
>the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
>measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when mounted there,
>there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
>operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For that reason
I am
>seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it is
>in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
>End snip>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Electric aileron trim + autopilot |
Hi,
I've got the electric aileron trim option,
and I would like to install a Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot Autopilot.
Is the electric aileron trim needed or desired
with an autopilot?
Any conflicts to watch out for?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
OK. (!.207 is a lengthly paragraph so let me see if I can't pull out just
the important parts to this.
Firstly, this reg on ELT's applies to ALL U.S. registered aircraft but there
are exceptions. It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
type ELT or approved personal type ELT. In this case "approved" means that
it meets the newer TSO that took effect around 1995. If your aircraft was
built before June 21, 1995 you may have, and still use, that older TSO-C91
ELTs.
The exceptions to this rule are: Turbojet powered aircraft; Scheduled Air
Carrier aircraft; Aircraft conducting training within 50 NM radius of the
airport from which it took off; aircraft conducting test flights for design
proving; brand new aircraft incident to maufacturing, prep and delivery;
crop dusting; research and development aircraft; aircraft used to showing
compliance, crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
aircraft equipped to carry only one person; aircraft with an inoperative ELT
provided a placard is added to the instrument panel showing "ELT not
Installed", a logbook entry has been made showing the removal of the ELT,
and it amy be flown for not more than 90 days after the initial removal: and
after Jan 1, 2004 aircraft with a payload of more than 18,000 lbs.
So, that means there are only a few of these exceptions that could apply to
amateur-built aircraft.
If its new and being delivered, has only one seat, being used for training,
or if the ELT is broke.
Again, take a look at 91.297 for full details.
Mike Robertson
>From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:54:24 -0600
>
>
>Okay Mike, step up and let us know what's the case. Do all experimental
>have to have ELT's or can we use the new improve personal locators?
>
> Thanks Chuck
>
>PGLong(at)aol.com
> > >
> > > I know ELT's are required for Civil Aircraft. Does this also apply to
> > > Experimental?
> > >
> > > Pat Long
>
> >
> > All experimentals don't have to have them and also all standard category
> > planes don't either. There are some exceptions..
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, mrobert569(at)hotmail.com
writes:
> It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior technology if
they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kysh <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
As Tedd McHenry was saying:
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
Sorry, but I 'really' hate the term 'accepted engineering fact'. Change that
to 'General theory some engineer pulled out of their rear' or 'Bob's notion'.
I mean, by whom is it accepted? Clearly it's accepted by you that rotaries burn
more fuel in all conditions than piston engines. It certainly doesn't make it a
fact.
Need I remind you that the Mazda rotary LeMans car drank so much less fuel than
its piston counterparts it was considered uncompetitive and banned from the
the class?
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added).
Yes, during IDLE the fuel consumption of a rotary tends to be necessarily
higher than that of a piston. Considering current rotaries.
-Kysh
--
| 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying |
| CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr |
| 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang |
| Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ |
| KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham |
| Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
I'll be willing to bet that your quoted source is over 10 years old. They
have been working hard to bring the BSFC of the rotary down to the
reciprocating engine. Mazda would not have brought the rotary back into
their car line if it hadn't improved. Although they have always touted the
rotary as a 4 cycle engine, it is more a 2 cycle engine that needs oil for
lube in the fuel that is burned. You can get it into the fuel by injection
or mixing. Advantages to both.
I do know from experience that my wife drove our RX4 almost 200 miles
without any oil and would have continued if she was able to re-start it for
even a longer distance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have
choicesfor once?
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
it
> will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? |
Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
installed; and
(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from
a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
can be made.
No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane
being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within
a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
operations began;
(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
testing;
(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development
purposes;
(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
subject to the following:
(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial
number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
initially removed from the aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>
> The requirements for an ELT are listed in FAR 91.207. Paragraph (f) gives
> the exemptions. There are 11 of them. Too many to list right here.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:23:30 -0600
> >
> >
> > > FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
> > >
> > > An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
> > >
> > > Jim Ayers
> >
> >I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one, regardless
> >of the number of seats.
> >
> >Alex Peterson
> >Maple Grove, MN
> >RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
> >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> >
> >
>
> Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
| From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
on 2/19/04 10:26 AM, thomas a. sargent at sarg314(at)earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Dan:
> I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
> I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
> to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
> need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
> tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
> is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
>
It is easy to overgeneralize about antennas and feedlines; a complex
business. First, SWR does not tell us anything about how an antenna
performs. It is possible and common to have an excellent antenna with high
SWR. It is also possible and common to have very low SWR and a poorly
performing antenna. High SWR can cause line loss in coax, but it is not a
huge effect until the SWR gets very high.
A field strength meter might be a better choice than an SWR meter when
trying to evaluate an antenna. I have seen many ELT antenna installations
in RV's that, no doubt, had low feedline SWR but very directional patterns
with little radiation in some directions.
Having said all this, SWR meters have their uses, particularly with the
common 1/4 wave antenna. It can indicate gross problems and it can tell you
if your antenna is cut to about the right length for the simple mounting
solution of an antenna on a flat unobstructed ground plain.
Larry Pardue N5LP
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>>From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/parts.txt
>
> RV TRAINING PROJECT CONTROL SURFACE PROJ $32.00
>
> This is what you build at the SportAir RV Assembly workshop.
>
Thanks!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric aileron trim + autopilot |
I'm planning on using both - I have an S-Tec 30 and elec ail trim. The trim will
help the AP work less. Not familiar with the AP that you're using.....
My AP is physically connected to one of the aileron bellcranks and is clutched...the
trim is spring attached to the other bellcrank.
I helped another builder with a trim system - which is almost identical to what
I'm going to use.
Want pictures? Contact me directly - I'll see if the other builder will consent
to my publishing photos of his install.
Ralph Capen
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: RV-List: Electric aileron trim + autopilot
Hi,
I've got the electric aileron trim option,
and I would like to install a Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot Autopilot.
Is the electric aileron trim needed or desired
with an autopilot?
Any conflicts to watch out for?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
In a message dated 2/19/04 11:26:14 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
>
>
> I assume the drag effect would be even less for an antenna in a bent-whip
> configuration, as it would present less frontal area and the bent portion would
> present an eliptical rather than round cross-section to the slipstream, much
> like the nose gear leg of the modern (non-tailwheel) RV. Keep in mind also
> that the whip antennas we use are tapered at the tip. OTOH, they have a
> somewhat large, draggy ceramic cone insulator at their base, which is a big
> negative, aerodynamically.
>
> I've been really happy so far with my comm and 144MHz antennas relocated to
> the wingtips using Nuckolls' blueprints in the 'Connection for rolling my own
> antennas. Performance seems largely equal to the belly-mounted whips they
> relplaced, and absolutely zero-drag. Slight weight penalty for the longer
> runs of RG-400.
>
> -Bill B -6A
>
>
Bill,
That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls' blueprints?
Dan K9WEK
N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Duhh... I did indeed mean to say that oil must be *drained* between changes.
Charlie
Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>
> > >
>
>
>>>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Dana:
>>>
>>>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>>>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
>>>
>>>
>shape
>
>
>>>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
>>>
>>>
>CONSUMPTION..."
>
>
>>>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>>>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
>>>
>>>
>it
>
>
>>>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>>>feature of the rotary, as I said.
>>>
>>>Tedd McHenry
>>>Surrey, BC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
>>them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
>>powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
>>anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
>>dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>>
>>(BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
>>it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
>>between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
>
>
>Actually, if you do an oil premix in the fuel for a flying rotary to
>lubricate the apex seals, you may well find that you have to *DRAIN* (which
>is what I believe Charlie meant) oil between changes. The reason, we have
>discovered is that any "surplus" oil in the fuel mixture gets scraped off
>the combustion walls by the oil rings and deposited in the sump. I have
>flown 220 hours with a rotary and never added oil between oil changes. Now
>the automobile installation was designed to inject crankcase oil into the
>engine, so if you were unaware that the auto rotary was designed to use oil
>out of the crankcase that could clearly be consider "higher than normal
>usage" (compared to most car engines). The difference in fuel efficiency
>between the rotary and reciprocating engine is most pronounced at low to
>medium rpms this is where the design of the combustion chamber and the large
>wall surface area are most unfavorable to the combustion process in either
>rotary or piston engines. However, at higher rpms the differences
>diminishes so that at least for air cooled aircraft engines and water cooled
>rotaries the fuel consumption is very close with perhaps an advantage to the
>rotary as you can not damage the a naturally aspired rotary engine by over
>leaning. The new Renesis engine was redesigned to reduce this deficiency
>and has increased the low - mid rpm fuel efficiency by a reported 20% - but
>that change (due to a exhaust port relocation) does not apparently translate
>to much difference at the higher rpms.
>
>My personal opinion based on my observation is that powerwise, fuel
>consumption wise and weight wise, the twin rotary 13B and the 320/360 model
>Lycomings are essentially a wash. However, in the cost and reliability area
>the rotary has decided advantages - if you're willing to roll your own
>installation.
>Certainly a lot of work and not everyone's cup of tea. Also, if you want a
>controllable pitch prop then with the rotary as with most auto engine
>conversions you are essentially limited to electric controlled props.
>
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>Matthews, NC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Making the right kit choice |
| From: | "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
There is a kit that is a section of an airfoil for ~$30. It isn't
prepunched and therefore not representative of today's kits but it does
allow you get "get your hands dirty". In addition the instructions are
poor. If that doesn't intimidate you, you'll have the basic skills to
build the kit - construction is easier but a LOT more rivets.
Bob Rv10 #105
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill [mailto:deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Making the right kit choice
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> -->
>
> What you need to do is find someone near you (or near enough to fly
> your
> Glasair to) that is building an RV7 or RV9 with the matched hole
> construction and look at their plane and talk to them (maybe buck a
few
> rivets if they need the help). The RV10 is essentially the same, just
> larger. And, yes, Van's is shipping empennage kits for the RV10,
> although the empennage kit for the RV10 actually includes the rear
> section of the fuselage if I remember correctly.
I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the building
process without spending thousands of dollars on the empennage kit. I
thought it was just part of the rudder. I can't seem to find it on the
Van's site today, however, so maybe I was imagining it.
> If you are actually at Dartmouth (based on your email address) there
> are
> several builders in NH that would be happy to talk to you I am sure.
If
> you want to see a really nice completed RV9A, Gary Newsted is near
> Nashua (close by air to you).
I am at Dartmouth, and that is an excellent suggestion. If
nothing else it would make for a nice excuse to go flying, and Nashua is
about 30-35 mins away by Glasair. I'll be at Sun-n-Fun, so will get a
chance to see a *lot* of examples there! :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
=
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Cours <rv-j(at)moriarti.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
I recently went through the process of deciding between the Zodiac XL
and the RV, so it's been very interesting reading the responses to this
thread. Here's my two bits.
First off, if you think you're likely to spend a lot of time comparing
the plane you've built with the Glasair you no longer own, then it seems
to me you have a couple choices. One is to build a plane with
performance numbers in about the same range as the Glasair. The other is
to build something with a completely different mission profile, say a
STOL or biplane design. In either case, the XL would be close enough to
the Glasair's mission profile, but far enough away from its performance
numbers, that it's not likely to do well in that kind of comparison, and
it'd be a shame to spend that much time working on a project if you're
not going to be happy with the end product.
On the other hand, if you think you're more likely to say "I don't care
if it's not as fast as that old Glasair, I built it and got exactly what
I wanted and I think that's great!", then your range of options is a bit
wider.
Now, on to the XL versus the RV.
When you're talking about the control surface thing for a few hundred,
you might be thinking of the Zodiac's rudder kit, for about $300. Zenith
also offers a rudder class for the same price, where you go to their
factory and build the rudder with Nick and Sebastian looking over your
shoulder. They pre-prime the parts for you, using a product called
Cortec, so it's mostly drill, deburr, and assemble.
When it comes to ease of construction, I'd have to give the nod to the
XL over the RV, even the pre-punched RV-7A. The XL is not a pre-punched
kit, but I think the overall structure is simpler: flying rudder instead
of vertical stabilizer, flying horizontal stabilizer, etc. Also, the
XL's blind rivets mean you don't have to worry about dimpling,
countersinking, or bucking, and the order of assembly is a lot less
critical.
The XL also edges out the RV when it comes to cost, mostly for tools
(you don't really need a compressor and pneumatic equipment to build
one), engine (Rotax or Jabiru versus Lycoming/Sub/Rotary), and hourly
operating expenses (mostly due to lower fuel burn). The flip side is
that resale values for RVs appear to be higher than for XLs, at least
when I went browsing through Trade-a-Plane.
For performance, the RV is generally the winner, with its wider speed
range. (One exception may be in endurance, since the XL has optional
extended range tanks that will let it stay aloft for something crazy
like 10 hours. I don't know whether or not something equivalent exists
for the RV, but I don't plan on flying mine across the Pacific...)
The RV also seems to have a larger range of after-market mods available
for it. It seems like every time I turn around I see someone with an
engine package, lights, composite instrument panel, canopy change, or
whatever else that's designed to fit an RV. I didn't see that for the XL.
For me, the decision came down to a few things. One is that the RV
includes rollover protection in the cockpit, while I didn't see
something similar for the XL. I took that as a difference in design
philosophy. Another was purely aesthetic: I just prefer the look of the
7A over the XL. (I described it to someone by saying that I want a plane
that, every time I see it, is going to whisper to me, "Come on! Let's go
fly!". I, personally, didn't get that from the XL. YMMV of course.)
Also, there are quite a few RV builders around me, so there are many
places to get answers to my questions. And finally, to me the 7A just
felt like a more "solid" airplane.
Good luck with your choice, whatever you decide on!
- Jeff C., working on the vertical stabilizer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
In a message dated 2/19/04 12:28:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sarg314(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>
> Dan:
> I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
> I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
> to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
> need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
> tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
> is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
>
> My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
> great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
> back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
> spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
> tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
> wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
> showed pretty good performance there.
> --
> Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
>
>
Tom,
That's right its severely lacking. The SWR was off scale, essentially
infinite. They may hear you a quarter of a mile away, although as I stated earlier,
its hard to do this kind of testing on 121.5!
What I did was put the antenna on a small piece of aluminum (about 1 1/4 by 3
inches) so I could clamp it to different places and get a quick SWR reading.
I clamped it horizontally to the rear bulkhead without the horizontal or
vertical installed, but with the antenna pointing aft about 3 inches above the
deck there. That's probably a much better situation than with the tail
installed. The antenna showed very high SWR with no sign of a resonance (drop
in SWR)
within at least 30 MHz of 121.5. When I clamped to the deck going vertical, I
got a minimum right at 121.5 of about 1.5:1, which is pretty good. I would
assume that would be about the same on the turtle deck, but I didn't want to
make a hole there just yet!
Dan K9WEK
N766DH RV-7A (working on wheel fairings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing tip antennas |
| From: | "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst(at)ucol.ac.nz> |
> Yes, it is a com. and its sounding like I wont
> be using it. I'm just looking for that sleek look got any ideas?
I'm wondering about an antenna in the trailing edge of one of the gear
leg fairings. That would be about 3" away from the metal of the leg.
Has anyone tried that?
Frank
Learn real skills for the real world - Apply online
at http://www.ucol.ac.nz or call 0800 GO UCOL
(0800 46 8265) or txt free 3388 for more information
and make a good move to UCOL Universal College of
Learning.
Enrol with a public institute and be certain of your
future
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh writes:
> Bill,
> That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls'
> blueprints?
> Dan K9WEK
> N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
They are in the antenna chapter of the AeroElectric Connection, Bob's bible of airplane electrical design, for sale through his website, which I think is www.aeroelectricconnection.com
You should have this book before you design and wire your plane (I wish I had!)
in my opinion.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip antennas |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:50:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, F.vanderHulst(at)ucol.ac.nz
writes:
> I'm wondering about an antenna in the trailing edge of one of the gear
> leg fairings. That would be about 3" away from the metal of
> the leg.
>
> Has anyone tried that?
>
> Frank
Check archives. I think it couples huge amounts of power innto the gaer leg with
unpredictable results.
-BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
In a message dated 2/19/04 1:39:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com writes:
> It is easy to overgeneralize about antennas and feedlines; a complex
> business. First, SWR does not tell us anything about how an antenna
> performs. It is possible and common to have an excellent antenna with high
> SWR. It is also possible and common to have very low SWR and a poorly
> performing antenna. High SWR can cause line loss in coax, but it is not a
> huge effect until the SWR gets very high.
>
> A field strength meter might be a better choice than an SWR meter when
> trying to evaluate an antenna. I have seen many ELT antenna installations
> in RV's that, no doubt, had low feedline SWR but very directional patterns
> with little radiation in some directions.
>
> Having said all this, SWR meters have their uses, particularly with the
> common 1/4 wave antenna. It can indicate gross problems and it can tell you
> if your antenna is cut to about the right length for the simple mounting
> solution of an antenna on a flat unobstructed ground plain.
>
>
> Larry Pardue N5LP
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
Hi Larry,
What we are dealing with here can turn into an argument like religion or
politics, and I don't want that!
I agree with you that SWR is not the final word on antenna performance. A
field strength reading would be better except for the attention it would get!
If you install a factory designed antenna clear of other objects, and measure a
reasonable SWR you can be pretty sure it will be effective.
The ELT antenna I am testing here is a simple 1/4 wave vertical that should
have a radiation resistance of about 37 ohms if cut to the right length and
installed perpendicular and in the clear. In fact, it does. Now, when you place
it out of the clear and within only a few inches of a large metal surface it
is no longer a simple 1/4 wave vertical with a radiation resistance of about
37 ohms, as verified by the SWR reading. The transmitter was designed to feed
its power into a 50 ohm load as evidenced by the RG-58 feedline that came with
it, which has been standard RF practice for the last 50 years, or so. When
you arbitrarily mismatch the load to the transmitter the chances are pretty
remote that it will radiate effectively.
Dan K9WEK
N766DH RV-7A ( working on wheel fairings)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Superior IO-360 FF Servo |
Listers...
I have a Superior IO-360 I'm hooking up in my -6a, and I would like to
collaborate with someone who is doing same, this one has the forward facing sump
and
snorkel, etc.
If you will email your phone # and call you, so we might be able to compare
notes.
Thanks,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
jerry2dt(at)aol.com
503 925 1517
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
These plans are a relatively crude sketch of the antenna that Bob Archer
sells. If you do decide to roll your own, make sure that you check it
for proper tuning. The dimensions on the sketches are not detailed
enough to duplicate Bob Archers design exactly. I know this because I
was toying with the idea of building my own but then decided to buy
instead and compared dimensions. It is a pretty simple design, but you
must check the electrical performance after construction and trim as
necessary.
Dick Tasker
SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh writes:
>
>
>
>>Bill,
>>That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls'
>>blueprints?
>>Dan K9WEK
>>N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
>>
>>
>
>They are in the antenna chapter of the AeroElectric Connection, Bob's bible of airplane electrical design, for sale through his website, which I think is www.aeroelectricconnection.com
>
>You should have this book before you design and wire your plane (I wish I had!)
in my opinion.
>
>-Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Charley,
Did you mean *subtract* oil between changes? Most of us *add* oil between
changes!
Dan
In a message dated 2/19/04 11:31:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cengland(at)netdoor.com writes:
> Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
> them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
> powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
> anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
> dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>
> (BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
> it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
> between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
kempthornes choicesfor once? wrote:
once?
>>
>>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>
> Tedd, this is commonly accepted by logicians as an 'arguement from
> authority', sorta like "because I said so".
Oh, you mean an "Appeal to Authority." This is explained quite well at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
It looks similar, but an Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the
claimed authority is in itself questionable. The Bosch manual, being 10
years old and still in widespread use, has probably "stood the test of
time" as it were (yes, that's sort of an "Appeal to Tradition").
Still, Tedd provided a reference to a document on the subject that
supports his hypothesis. So far, to the contrary, we've had one-off
examples of Rotary-powered RV's and Lycoming powered RV's using the
"same" amount of fuel to go the "same" distance. This could be a case
of "Confusing Cause and Effect", which is explained quite well at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
Tedd pointed out that decreased cooling drag was a significant
possibility in Rotary engines. If that was the case, then a rotary
powered RV flying alongside a similar RV with a Lycoming powerplant may
need to produce less power to maintain the same speed. This could in
turn explain some of the similarities in fuel flow rates that people are
seeing in practise. And it would still support Tedd's assertion that
BSFC for a rotary is higher than for a recip.
In other words? You're both right.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
Do they have a TSO number on them. If so then they can probably qualify.
If not then they could only be use in conjunction with an ELT.
Mike Robertson
>From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
>
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>mrobert569(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
> > It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> > type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
>
>So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior
>technology if they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
>
>-Bill B
>
>
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
________________________________________________________________________________
Short answer - no. You need an anti-collision light system that meets the
field of coverage and candlepower standards in the regs (the Aircraft Spruce
catalog has a nice summary.) See the archives for a lot of discussion on
whether the current or older standards apply and then make your own call,
keeping in mind the disposition of the DAR/Inspector who will ultimately
certify your plane. No one seems to argue the field of coverage which
typically requires either 2 fwd & aft facing tip stobes, 2 fwd facing tips
plus tail stobe or both top and bottom fuselage mounted strobes or rotating
beacons. I can't imagine choosing beacons over strobes on a new installation
but you could.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
> Years and years ago when I was taking my flight training,
> they told us not to use strobe lights while on the ground,
> but to use the red rotating beacon instead. They said the
> strobes were too distracting to other
> pilots. Is this still the accepted practice?
>
> The real question is, do I need a red rotating beacon in
> addition to my strobes? If so, where are people mounting them?
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in
> Franklin,
> Tennessee)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
The FAA just recently permitted their use in aircraft after 121.5 frequency was
added. Most are marine units and do NOT have the "G" switch. YOu can use them
in your airplane in addition to your present ELT but not to replace the ELT.
This will change in about 2008 when the satilites stop checking the 121.5 Several
advantages, fewer false triggerings by RF. The EPIRB sends a registered
signal so it is IDed on the first pass and help can be sent within aboiut 20-30
minutes. ELTs must wait for the 2nd pass and will take up to 4 hours. They
are much more expensive even when required on commercial vessels. The one below
even has a built in GPS and sends out the exact position rather than havwe to
search many squard miles. Also will transmitt much longer. Some even will transmitt
on demand from another transmitter. These are well though out devices,
not like the knee-jerk device mandated by Congress when Neal Boggs crashed in
Alaska.
Home > Safety Equipment > Distress Signaling > ACR GlobalFix
406 EPIRB w/ Internal GPS
ACR
GlobalFix 406 EPIRB
AKA GeoFix, Geo Fix
Model # 2742 Cat.1 (RLB-35 CAT I)
Model # 2744 Cat.2 (RLB-35 CAT II)
The ACR GlobalFix 406 MHz EPIRB w/ Internal GPS provides instant recognition
of who and where you are when activated. The GlobalFix is the state
of the art of EPIRBs, and in our opinion is the EPIRB to buy and venture offshore
with. With its built in GPS, it broadcasts your registered, unique distress
code as well as your latitude and longitude, allowing for much faster satellite
fixes. GEOSAR satellites instantly know who you are, and where you are within
a 100-foot radius. This unit also broadcasts on homing frequency 121.5 MHz.
The ballasted unit floats, antenna up, and has a strobe built in to the top
of the housing. Its five-year lithium battery will operate continuously in most
conditions for at least 48 hours.
a.. Built-in strobe for enhanced location in poor visibility conditions
a.. Single, three-position switch for easy test of battery, EPIRB and
GPS operation. Steady green LED indicates unit has passed full functional EPIRB
test. Flashing red LED indicates unit is "ON"
a.. GPS has Header Test Feature and Self Test feature built-in, or
can be fully tested at ACR Authorized Service Stations
a.. Can be manually activated; self-buoyant - no external float collar
to lose
a.. Lanyard coil retained with all around cover for non-tangling deployment
a.. High impact plastic case designed to withstand exposure to UV rays,
oil, sea water and raft packing
a.. Field programmable - built-in vessel code can be reprogrammed by
any Authorized Service Center worldwide (Maritime/Serialized/Radio Call Sign/MID
Protocols, Country Code, etc.)
a.. 5-year limited warranty / replacement life lithium battery
a.. Size (including antenna): 17.5 x 6.25 x 5.5 in. (44.5 x 15.4 x
14.0 cm)
a.. Weight: 4.5 lbs. (2.0 kg)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>
> Do they have a TSO number on them. If so then they can probably qualify.
> If not then they could only be use in conjunction with an ELT.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
> >Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >mrobert569(at)hotmail.com writes:
> >
> > > It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> > > type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
> >
> >So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior
> >technology if they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
> >
> >-Bill B
> >
> >
>
> Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Okay, I'll come clean. I do not know the theoretical reason that rotaries have
a higher BSFC. I expect Tracy Crook does, but I don't. I only know that it is
as indisputably true as the fact that higher compression leads to lower BSFC, a
phenomenon which I can explain.
I will do some research and attempt to come up with a proper explanation.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
> burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer several
more.
Tedd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel flow - Lasar vs Mags |
I took some data yesterday, and it can be found at my web link below,
then click Fuel Flow Data. The short story is that for low power cruise
settings (22", 2350rpm), the fuel savings using Lasar ignition is about
0.4 gph. Alternatively, it can be stated that for the same fuel burn,
about 4 knots increase in speed can be had using Lasar ignition. There
are many ways to slice this, so read the graphs and text carefully.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 441 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: >Re:ELT Antenna Placement |
On my RV-4 I put the ELT antenna on top of the fuselage just aft of the
canopy skirt. My thinking was; the antenna is in the best location when the plane
is upright and not rubbed off if the plane gets upside down ,the tail fin keeps
it off the ground. It is a compromise but I think the odds are best for the
ELT to be hollering " Come Get Me" !!
Bob Olds RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
Jeff Cours wrote:
>
> I recently went through the process of deciding between the Zodiac XL
> and the RV, so it's been very interesting reading the responses to this
> thread. Here's my two bits.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the excellent insight into comparing these
2 kits. My original intent in mentioning the XL was simply to
build a "simpler" kit than the RVs, then sell it and
use the experience to build the RV I really want.
However, based on yours and all the rest of the responses,
as well as my own doubts, it doesn't make much sense to do this.
It would make more sense to go for the RV and just take my time and
learn as I go.
So, the big question (which probably only I can answer),
is the -10 worth the ~$30k more than the -9A. I'd really like
a four place plane, but have to question my limited budget
over $60k for a basic -9A versus $90k for a basic -10.
The -9A will "probably" handle most of my needs, but I don't
want to be kicking myself a few years down the road by not
getting the -10. Well, I have time to think about it. :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>
>>At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
>>burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
>>
>>
>
>I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
>different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
>explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer several
>more.
>
>Tedd
>
Tedd,
When you get a chance to see Tracy Crook's RV-4, you will know, without
any shadow of doubt, that lower drag (of any sort) cannot possibly
explain equal fuel burn at equal speed when he flies with a 180hp Lyc
powered -4. (Sorry Tracy...)
:-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GMC" <gmcnutt(at)uniserve.com> |
| Subject: | ELT Antenna Placement |
All this seems very simple. Check the ELT owners manual.
If the ELT is a legal requirement, then technically it will only meet that
FAA FAR 91.207 requirement when installed in accordance with the
manufacturers instructions. If the instructions are not followed performance
may not comply with TSO-C91a requirements. The manufacturer tells you what
the limitations are for the antennae and it's placement.
On my ACK E-01 ELT it would not meet the manufacturers requirements when
mounted in the baggage area or under the empennage fairing - period. And yes
I have also seen many ELT installations that are pretty but not legal.
A good ELT installation can be heard for 150 miles at jet altitudes, why
settle for a installation with unknown sub-standard performance because of
cosmetics. You can live with sub standard performance from your comm. radio
however you might not live with sub standard performance from your ELT.
As for drag from the ELT antennae. Aerial pictures of my aircraft show the
thin wire antennae bends back about 45 degrees in flight, and it takes about
five ounces of pressure to duplicate that bend on the ground.
George in Langley
----------------------------------
Dan:
I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
showed pretty good performance there.
--
Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
>the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
>
>Snip>
>Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
>the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
>measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when
mounted there,
>there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
>operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For
that reason I am
>seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it
is
>in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
>End snip>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> >
> >>At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
> >>burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
> >>
> >I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
> >different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
> >explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer
several
> >more.
> >
> >Tedd
> >
>
> Tedd,
>
> When you get a chance to see Tracy Crook's RV-4, you will know, without
> any shadow of doubt, that lower drag (of any sort) cannot possibly
> explain equal fuel burn at equal speed when he flies with a 180hp Lyc
> powered -4. (Sorry Tracy...)
>
> :-)
>
> Charlie
No appology required Charlie : ) If Laura had not named my -4 RVotter, I
was tempted to name it Dirty Bird.
I spent today instaling a more streamlined muffler under the plane in an
attempt to get back the 4 mph that the Spintech muffler costs me. Gotta do
something to clean it up for the next Sun 100. The Lyc drivers (in Category
8) will be gunning for me after getting beat by raw HP last year. It
definitely was not superior aerodynamics.
But on the fuel burn issue, even with a less-than-clean airplane, I still
get 29 - 30 mpg at economy cruise (175 mph @ 6 gph at 14,500 ft). We won't
talk about fuel burn at 'war emergency power' at 500 ft!
Tracy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
<<<<<<<<<<<
The formula in AC43.13-2A appears to be designed for antennae with a
streamline shape, not a whip antenna. >>>>>>>>>>
Kevin, although I absolutely do not disagree with you on your method, and it
appears to be similar to that listed in AC43.13 2A I would point out a
couple of things.
I think both methods come up sorta close, but the one in 43.13 2A is way
more conservative. If you read the sub note they say it is reduced by 90%
for the streamline shape, so all one has to do is factor the 90% back into
the .000327 factor to .00327 for it to apply to a round antenna.
The other difference in this formula is it uses sq ft. rather than sq in,,,
so using your values I came up with 3.4 lbs of drag which makes this a far
more conservative number in terms of designing an installation location.
That said, the only reason I'm saying anything is that AC 43.13 2A is the
FAA official acceptable methods etc. for aircraft alterations, whereas Fluid
Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, although probably more accurate is not considered
to be acceptable by the FAA.
Altough this doesn't apply to an experimental directly in that major
alterations aren't really tracked by the FAA like they are in Standard
aircraft, it is important to know when and why we are deviating from the
industry standards.
The other important thing to note in both formulas is that speed is
exponential, and the frontal area factor also sky rockets as the rod
diameter goes up. No matter what whip antennas come out as far superior to
fiberglass units.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "greg" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | dimpled backwards |
Hi all
Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the HS814
& HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then reverse
or should I be ordering new parts already?
Thanks
Greg RV8 - one day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
>
><<<<<<<<<<<
>The formula in AC43.13-2A appears to be designed for antennae with a
>streamline shape, not a whip antenna. >>>>>>>>>>
>
>Kevin, although I absolutely do not disagree with you on your method, and it
>appears to be similar to that listed in AC43.13 2A I would point out a
>couple of things.
>
>I think both methods come up sorta close, but the one in 43.13 2A is way
>more conservative. If you read the sub note they say it is reduced by 90%
>for the streamline shape, so all one has to do is factor the 90% back into
>the .000327 factor to .00327 for it to apply to a round antenna.
>
>The other difference in this formula is it uses sq ft. rather than sq in,,,
>so using your values I came up with 3.4 lbs of drag which makes this a far
>more conservative number in terms of designing an installation location.
>
>That said, the only reason I'm saying anything is that AC 43.13 2A is the
>FAA official acceptable methods etc. for aircraft alterations, whereas Fluid
>Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, although probably more accurate is not considered
>to be acceptable by the FAA.
>
>Altough this doesn't apply to an experimental directly in that major
>alterations aren't really tracked by the FAA like they are in Standard
>aircraft, it is important to know when and why we are deviating from the
>industry standards.
>
>The other important thing to note in both formulas is that speed is
>exponential, and the frontal area factor also sky rockets as the rod
>diameter goes up. No matter what whip antennas come out as far superior to
>fiberglass units.
>
>W
Wheeler,
You are correct in that the AC43.13-2A method is designed to be
conservative when used to design antenna mounts. So it will by
design come up with a drag value that is higher than the real value.
That is exactly the right thing to do if you are designing an antenna
mount. Far better to err on the too strong side, than not strong
enough.
But I interpreted the original question as wanting to know how the
drag really is, to help understand the performance penalty of putting
an antenna on the outside. In this case you need an approach that
comes closer to the truth. The approach I outlined is only
approximate, and it could easily be off by 25% or so, but it is more
accurate than the AC43.13-2A method. The Cd value will change with
Reynolds number, and I didn't take the time to calculate that. The
0.5 value I used for Cd appeared to be a good average value as long
as the Reynolds number is high enough so the flow around the antenna
goes from laminar to turbulent, which it certainly would.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster(at)flion.com> |
| Subject: | dimpled backwards |
You might want to order parts, because you'll know the mistake was made.
However, you should be ok if you reverse the dimples - providing that you
use some scrap sheet and sandwich the spars between the HS810/814 and the
scrap sheet. Of course, that sheet will now somewhat defeat the purpose of
using flush rivets there, but I don't think a small variance (the width of
your backing sheet) would affect attachment of the HS too much. Might be
easier in the long run to get the new parts...
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - not getting much done :-(
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of greg
Subject: RV-List: dimpled backwards
Hi all
Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
HS814 & HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
Thanks
Greg RV8 - one day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | dimpled backwards |
Been there, done that. I did this on a few holes for the vertical stab. I then
tried to "reverse the dimple," but that left a small circular crack in the alclad
and this was not an area to accept compromise. I ordered a replacement part
and have not lost any sleep.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wings
>
> You might want to order parts, because you'll know the mistake was made.
> However, you should be ok if you reverse the dimples - providing that you
> use some scrap sheet and sandwich the spars between the HS810/814 and the
> scrap sheet. Of course, that sheet will now somewhat defeat the purpose of
> using flush rivets there, but I don't think a small variance (the width of
> your backing sheet) would affect attachment of the HS too much. Might be
> easier in the long run to get the new parts...
>
> Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - not getting much done :-(
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of greg
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: dimpled backwards
>
>
> Hi all
> Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
> HS814 & HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8 - one day
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: dimpled backwards |
Greg,
Bet you won't make that mistake again! I would call Van's and ask them.
Many times there are workarounds which are perfectly acceptable. I would not
reverse the dimples and reuse the same holes. You may be able to make new holes
nearby. Of course, a new part is the perfect solution. Everyone makes these
mistakes, and many times you can still use the same parts, but in the case of
a critical structure, ask Van's.
Dan RV-7A almost done
In a message dated 2/20/04 5:43:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
greg(at)itmack.com writes:
>
>
> Hi all
> Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
> HS814 &HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8 - one day
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Esten Spears" <ewspears(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04) |
We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather permitting" If
you think you can make it, Please email ewspears(at)comcast.net We will send you
an invitation with arrival instructions.
Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Rotaries and airplanes |
I've been reading for a while and want to throw some more (premix) fuel on
the fire.
I've always been a big fan of rotaries. My first one was an early RX-7 that
I abused mercilessly. It had the 12A engine. I used to autocross it a lot.
Often when I didn't have time to shift, I just stayed on the gas.
Frequently taking it 1000, 2000, even 3000 rpm over redline. That little
motor never protested.
My next RX7 was still a first generation car, but it was one of the GSL-SE
cars with the 13b engine from the forthcoming gen 2 car. What great fun.
That car too was flogged mercilessly and never protested.
Like others have stated, when a rotary "blows up" it continues to run and
make power, it just won't restart after its shut off.
I blew the apex seals on one rotor towards the end of the cars life. The
car would start on 1 rotor then after a few seconds (then minutes) it would
fire on the 2nd rotor. Huge clouds of smoke and I was off to the races,
literally. Despite the fact that, the only failure prone part in the engine
had failed, it continued to run fine once it fired on both rotors.
Eventually the 2nd rotor wouldn't start at all and I sold the car. Either
way, that engine is a honey. I cant imagine a case where a rotary would
quit in flight. (ok thats unreasonable but I'm trying to make a point.)
Another "engineering fact" Because the rotors are iron (or steel) and the
rotor housing is aluminum, when the engine overheats, the tolerances between
the rotor and the housing actually INCREASE. This is key, because a rotary
essentially can not sieze if it overheats. It will continue to take its
ocupants to their destination. Then when a restart is attempted after the
engine is cooled, it won't start. There is much annecdotal evidence of
(stupid) people running their RX-7s out of coolant and continuing to drive.
Only to be surprised some hours later when it won't restart.
With that said, would I put a rotary in an RV? Probably not for 2 reasons:
1) I don't have the skill/will to engineer a complete installation. Most
instances where rotaries fail in flight have nothing to do with the core
powerplant. Its because some supporting system was poorly engineered or
executed. It will be a great day when a turnkey (a la Jan Eggenfelner) 20B
firewall forward kit is developed for the RVs.
2) I'm 36 yrs old and this will not be the last airplane I own. RVs have
fantastic resale value. Anything other than a Lyc significantly hurts
resale. (at least thats the way it is now)
If someone came out with a FWF and resale was solid it would be a great
choice for me.
By the way, I'm also a HUGE fan of Subarus. Great cars, great engines.
(let me tell you about my new 300 hp turbocharged Sub. Woo hoo ) But I
think the normally aspirated 4 cyl subs are at the smaller end for use in an
RV.
Hope this helps stirr it up.
Best regards,
Don Mei
"All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create
the states; the states created the federal government!"---Ronald Reagan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotaries and airplanes |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Rotaries and airplanes
>
> I've been reading for a while and want to throw some more (premix) fuel on
> the fire.
>
> I've always been a big fan of rotaries. My first one was an early RX-7
that
> I abused mercilessly. It had the 12A engine. I used to autocross it a
lot.
> Often when I didn't have time to shift, I just stayed on the gas.
> Frequently taking it 1000, 2000, even 3000 rpm over redline. That
little
> motor never protested.
>
> My next RX7 was still a first generation car, but it was one of the GSL-SE
> cars with the 13b engine from the forthcoming gen 2 car. What great fun.
> That car too was flogged mercilessly and never protested.
>
> Like others have stated, when a rotary "blows up" it continues to run and
> make power, it just won't restart after its shut off.
>
> I blew the apex seals on one rotor towards the end of the cars life. The
> car would start on 1 rotor then after a few seconds (then minutes) it
would
> fire on the 2nd rotor. Huge clouds of smoke and I was off to the races,
> literally. Despite the fact that, the only failure prone part in the
engine
> had failed, it continued to run fine once it fired on both rotors.
>
> Eventually the 2nd rotor wouldn't start at all and I sold the car. Either
> way, that engine is a honey. I cant imagine a case where a rotary would
> quit in flight. (ok thats unreasonable but I'm trying to make a point.)
>
> Another "engineering fact" Because the rotors are iron (or steel) and the
> rotor housing is aluminum, when the engine overheats, the tolerances
between
> the rotor and the housing actually INCREASE. This is key, because a
rotary
> essentially can not sieze if it overheats. It will continue to take its
> ocupants to their destination. Then when a restart is attempted after the
> engine is cooled, it won't start. There is much annecdotal evidence of
> (stupid) people running their RX-7s out of coolant and continuing to
drive.
> Only to be surprised some hours later when it won't restart.
>
> With that said, would I put a rotary in an RV? Probably not for 2
reasons:
>
> 1) I don't have the skill/will to engineer a complete installation. Most
> instances where rotaries fail in flight have nothing to do with the core
> powerplant. Its because some supporting system was poorly engineered or
> executed. It will be a great day when a turnkey (a la Jan Eggenfelner)
20B
> firewall forward kit is developed for the RVs.
>
> 2) I'm 36 yrs old and this will not be the last airplane I own. RVs have
> fantastic resale value. Anything other than a Lyc significantly hurts
> resale. (at least thats the way it is now)
>
> If someone came out with a FWF and resale was solid it would be a great
> choice for me.
>
> By the way, I'm also a HUGE fan of Subarus. Great cars, great engines.
> (let me tell you about my new 300 hp turbocharged Sub. Woo hoo ) But I
> think the normally aspirated 4 cyl subs are at the smaller end for use in
an
> RV.
>
> Hope this helps stirr it up.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don Mei
As I flier of a rotary powered RV-6A, I agree with your assessment. One of
the principal benefits (in my opinion) is the inherent reliability of the
rotary engine, fewer parts (no camshaft, valves, valve springs/keepers,
connecting rods, cylinder heads, rocker arms, etc) = fewer failures.
Following reliability is the robust nature of the engine. The engine is
essentially bullet proof, once running ruined seals, cooked engines,
ingested foreign objects, whatever - if fuel and spark is maintained the
engine will normally continue to run (even if with reduced power) sufficient
to keep an RV airborne. I also agree that you may not be able to restart it
without a rebuilt, but it got you to a safe landing and that is what counts.
The engine will not seize due to over heating for the reasons you stated and
has been "demonstrated" by two pilots who encounter severe overheating due
to loss of coolant. The engines were cooked but continued to produce power
and got both pilots safely to an airport landing.
I also agree that a "do it yourself" conversion of any auto engine is a
major project and is not for everyone. However, as our body of knowledge
continues to be developed of the "best practices to use" and as more vendors
offer components, such a rotary project is not as daunting as it once was.
While the basic engine is simple and needs little (if anything) done to it
for aircraft use, you still must design and fabricate a suitable set of
subsystems such as fuel, induction, ignition, gear reduction, etc. that is
well designed and reliable. Probably for 95% of homebuilders, a new(if you
can afford it) or rebuilt Lycoming (or clone) is the smart way to go. But,
if you enjoy a challenge and have the time and patience then doing your own
conversion will keep you challenged. I love just flying, but must admit
that I love "tinkering and tweaking" equally well. Each to his own.
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on the
13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to check
that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th through
May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans they
may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun and
enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This is
our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for your
intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Esten Spears" <ewspears(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch |
(fd04)
Sorry I forgot to include the date, It's March 6th
----- Original Message -----
From: Esten Spears
Subject: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04)
We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather permitting" If
you think you can make it, Please email ewspears(at)comcast.net We will send you
an invitation with arrival instructions.
Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
Another one! And here I thought I was unique.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BRUCE GRAY
Subject: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on
the
13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to
check
that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th
through
May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans
they
may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun
and
enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This
is
our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for
your
intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Keith T Uhls <keithuhls(at)juno.com> |
Listers,
I will be in Myrtle Beach on March 7th. Do we have anyone on the list who
is building, would like to come out and check it out.
Keith Uhls
RV-7- Finish Kit
N7KU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob U." <rv3(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
>
> But on the fuel burn issue, even with a less-than-clean airplane, I still
>get 29 - 30 mpg at economy cruise (175 mph @ 6 gph at 14,500 ft). We won't
>talk about fuel burn at 'war emergency power' at 500 ft!
>
>Tracy
>
============================================
FWIW...
FAR 91.211
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - |
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
> > burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
>
>I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
>different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
>explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer several
>more.
Most folks run the stock RV cowl when they install a rotary. These
installations are where the rotary fuel consumption data have come from.
Because they are running the stock cowl, there is likely not much reduction
in cooling drag on these particular aircraft. If there is, because of some
possible reduced airflow through the cowl, it is likely to be a minor
improvement.
As I suggested earlier, it is likely that the lack of valve train,
the high continuos RPM (no low RPM operation like a car,) and the above sea
level environment, makes the rotary fuel consumption more competitive with
the Lycoming piston engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> choicesfor once? |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
>
>(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
>
>(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
>including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
>provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
>at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
>
>(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
>required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
>oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Are you suggesting that the folks posting to this thread are
showing the symptoms of anoxia? :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Prior <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
Kysh wrote:
> As Bob U. was saying:
>>FWIW...
>>FAR 91.211
>>
>>(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
>>required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
>>oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
>
> Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like the point was that if you needed to be at 14,500
and breathing supplemental oxygen to get the performance out of the
rotary, that you weren't comparing apples to apples anymore. But maybe not.
One last kick at the can...
That the rotary offers equivalent or "close enough" performance to a
Lycoming isn't in question, btw. How it achieves it is what was being
debated. The rotary, with it's inherently higher BSFC (this can be
proved on a dyno for any rotary and recip of equivalent horsepower),
must offer other advantages that nobody has documented here adequately.
But if it's burning the same amount of gas as the Lycoming, it's putting
out less power, plain and simple. More of that power may be usable due
to reductions in cooling drag or for some other reason, which yields the
same performance (in terms of airspeed). The added benefit is that you
should be running at a lower power setting, and hence have more
"emergency power" available when/if you want/need it.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
Hey, Its a good name. And isn't 2 better than 1?. It is ironic that the
first and last are the same. Are you my long lost brother? Just Jok'in. From
your e-mail address do you have a glassair aircraft or are you a RV driver?
Where you located and if close enough come to our fly-in that I've posted
everywhere possible. Bruce
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:58:03 -0500
>
>
>Another one! And here I thought I was unique.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BRUCE GRAY
>To: RV-List(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
>
>
>A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
>RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on
>the
>13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to
>check
>that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th
>through
>May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
>newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans
>they
>may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun
>and
>enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This
>is
>our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for
>your
>intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
>
>Bruce
>
>
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "greg" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dimpled backwards |
Thanks all,
You wouldn't believe it but I actually checked twice before doing it the
wrong way. I guess 3rd time lucky. I checked with Van's and they said it
should be ok to reverse them, but I like your idea of making new holes
nearby.
I would go ahead and just order new ones but I live in Australia and after
waiting for a couple of weeks I'd probably find the new spars damaged by the
freight company.
>
> Greg,
> Bet you won't make that mistake again! I would call Van's and ask them.
> Many times there are workarounds which are perfectly acceptable. I would
not
> reverse the dimples and reuse the same holes. You may be able to make new
holes
> nearby. Of course, a new part is the perfect solution. Everyone makes
these
> mistakes, and many times you can still use the same parts, but in the case
of
> a critical structure, ask Van's.
> Dan RV-7A almost done
>
> In a message dated 2/20/04 5:43:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> greg(at)itmack.com writes:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi all
> > Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where
the
> > HS814 &HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> > reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Greg RV8 - one day
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
| From: | Michael Stephan <mstephan(at)shr.net> |
I believe that epirbs are for maritime use only. Upon activation the coast
guard is notified as the search and rescue resource. the PLB (person
locator beacon) does the same thing and the SAR resource is the Air Force
Rescue Coordination Center. Also, I think the PLB is less expensive.
--
Michael Stephan
> From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>
>
> So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior technology
> if they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
>
> -Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: dimpled backwards |
In a message dated 2/20/04 4:15:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
greg(at)itmack.com writes:
>
>
> Thanks all,
>
> You wouldn't believe it but I actually checked twice before doing it the
> wrong way. I guess 3rd time lucky. I checked with Van's and they said it
> should be ok to reverse them, but I like your idea of making new holes
> nearby.
>
> I would go ahead and just order new ones but I live in Australia and after
> waiting for a couple of weeks I'd probably find the new spars damaged by the
> freight company.
>
>
> >
> >Greg,
>
Greg,
How many holes are involved? Is it just the center area where the vertical
spar will attach? If so, I don't think I would worry about it. The bolts will
carry the load there anyway.
Dan
RV-7A in Indiana, USofA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing |
Subject: engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing
I agree with Tedd that the dyno BSFC of a lycoming will beat a rotary unless it
is one of the newer RX8 engines.
Tracy in "dirty bird" and I have flown at various altitudes from 4500 to 10500
and at varying cruise speeds. My 6A with a 160 lycoming, Sam James cowl and plenum,
Sensenich 80 inch metal prop, etc , etc was one of the cleaner 6A's IMHO.
Having flown 666nm from FL37 to Memphis on numerous occasions, you could do
it in 4:10 and have about 45 minutes fuel reserve it there was only light crosswinds.
Tracy and I did not do block to block testing but instead relied on our Grand Rapids
EIS for rate. At my normal cruise at about 190 mph TAS, the lycoming would
burn about 7% less fuel than the rotary. When we would thottle back to 170
mph, the fuel burns were the same. Was it more drag on the 4? The fact that
the fuel came together at lower speed might indicate that. Was it the fact that
the rotary will run smoothly at leaner fuel to air ratios at the lower power
and therefore make better bsfc. Take your pick cause we don't have enough info
to decide!! The rotary was burning auto fuel which is normally more difference
in cost than the bsfc between the two engines. Do not believe that the fuel
burn is a major deciding issue as much as are you willing to roll your own until
Tracy or ?? someone offers a fwf package at a reasonable price. As stated
earlier, there is no question that you can roll your own cheaper than you can
do a rebuilt lycoming.
Bernie Kerr, 6A sold, 9A rotary close ( I should be in the hangar working instead
of writing this note, but can't keep quiet in a good discussion)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RV: ELT Required?? |
Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT would
not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
flight testing? Just a thought.
Marty in Brentwood, TN
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
installed; and
(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from
a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
can be made.
No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane
being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within
a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
operations began;
(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
testing;
(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development
purposes;
(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
subject to the following:
(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial
number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
initially removed from the aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: RV: ELT Required?? |
You are correct! You are limited to a single seat and a limited test area.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>
> Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
would
> not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
> flight testing? Just a thought.
>
> Marty in Brentwood, TN
>
>
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
>
>
> Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
>
> e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
> (1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
> was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
> installed; and
> (2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter
from
> a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
> can be made.
> No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an
airplane
> being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
> (f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
> (1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
> (2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
> (3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely
within
> a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
> operations began;
> (4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
> testing;
> (5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
> manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
> (6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
> application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
> (7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and
development
> purposes;
> (8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
> training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
> (9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
> (10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
> temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
> subject to the following:
> (i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
> an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model,
serial
> number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
> view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
> (ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
> initially removed from the aircraft.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV: ELT Required?? |
Just guessing but I would bet that it would be hard to get the paperwork
done to even do
phase 1 without one???
Jerry
Cy Galley wrote:
>
>You are correct! You are limited to a single seat and a limited test area.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
>>
>>
>would
>
>
>>not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
>>flight testing? Just a thought.
>>
>>Marty in Brentwood, TN
>>
>>
>>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
>>
>>
>>Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
>>
>>e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
>>(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
>>was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
>>installed; and
>>(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter
>>
>>
>from
>
>
>>a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
>>can be made.
>>No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an
>>
>>
>airplane
>
>
>>being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
>>(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
>>(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
>>(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
>>(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely
>>
>>
>within
>
>
>>a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
>>operations began;
>>(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
>>testing;
>>(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
>>manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
>>(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
>>application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
>>(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and
>>
>>
>development
>
>
>>purposes;
>>(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
>>training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
>>(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
>>(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
>>temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
>>subject to the following:
>>(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
>>an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model,
>>
>>
>serial
>
>
>>number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
>>view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
>>(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
>>initially removed from the aircraft.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch |
(fd04)
Easton:
With regrets, please scratch Dick Sipp from your list.
Just learned our airpark's workday is that date.
Thanks
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Esten Spears" <ewspears(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch
(fd04)
>
> We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather
permitting" If you think you can make it, Please email ewspears(at)comcast.net
We will send you an invitation with arrival instructions.
> Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala,
FL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Subject: RV-List: March 6 and Food
Come to APV for some Mexican food.
Now this is an idea I can sink my teeth into.
thx Tom, hope to see ya then, God willing and the creek don't rise
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV: ELT Required?? |
You probably could make a case that way but........
Mike R.
>From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:33:21 -0600
>
>
>Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT would
>not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
>flight testing? Just a thought.
>
>Marty in Brentwood, TN
>
>
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
>
>
>Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
>
>e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
>(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
>was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
>installed; and
>(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter
>from
>a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
>can be made.
>No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane
>being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
>(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
>(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
>(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
>(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within
>a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
>operations began;
>(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
>testing;
>(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
>manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
>(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
>application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
>(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development
>purposes;
>(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
>training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
>(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
>(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
>temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
>subject to the following:
>(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
>an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model,
>serial
>number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
>view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
>(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
>initially removed from the aircraft.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>
>
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | SNF Hotel Question |
Hi,
For those of you that have been to Sun 'n Fun, and
know the area, I've got two hotel choices - one
in Lakeland for about 150 USD/night, and one in
Tampa for about 70 USD/night. Is it worth the
extra money to stay in Lakeland, or is driving
to Tampa daily not too big of a deal? I'll
be there for about 7 days.
Thanks for any advice!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: RV: ELT Required?? |
It might be written into your Operating limitations that you have to have an
ELT even during testing. This piece of paper takes precedence over the
FARs. Further the inspector might want to see the install before he signs
it off as you don't want to pay him for a return trip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>
> You probably could make a case that way but........
>
> Mike R.
>
>
> >From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
> >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:33:21 -0600
> >
> >
> >Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
would
> >not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
> >flight testing? Just a thought.
> >
> >Marty in Brentwood, TN
> >
> >
> >From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >
> >
> >Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been
rescinded.
> >
> >e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
> >(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
> >was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
> >installed; and
> >(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter
> >from
> >a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where
they
> >can be made.
> >No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an
airplane
> >being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
> >(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
> >(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
> >(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air
carriers;
> >(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely
within
> >a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
> >operations began;
> >(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
> >testing;
> >(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
> >manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
> >(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
> >application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
> >(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and
development
> >purposes;
> >(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
> >training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
> >(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
> >(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
> >temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
> >subject to the following:
> >(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records
contain
> >an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model,
> >serial
> >number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
> >view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
> >(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT
is
> >initially removed from the aircraft.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >
> >
>
> Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Jordan" <mkejrj(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SNF Hotel Question |
MICKEY,
TRY THE HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS IN BRANDON .IT IS ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES CLOSER
TO LAKELAND,THE AAA RATE IS AROUND EIGHTY BUCKS AND A BUNCH OF EAA GUYS STAY
THERE.
DICK JORDAN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: RV-List: SNF Hotel Question
>
> Hi,
>
> For those of you that have been to Sun 'n Fun, and
> know the area, I've got two hotel choices - one
> in Lakeland for about 150 USD/night, and one in
> Tampa for about 70 USD/night. Is it worth the
> extra money to stay in Lakeland, or is driving
> to Tampa daily not too big of a deal? I'll
> be there for about 7 days.
>
> Thanks for any advice!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: SNF Hotel Question |
Mickey, driving to Tampa area is no big deal. We stay at Busch Gardens area
or Brandon for about $80. Have fun
Doug Preston
RV8
N127EK
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Best Florda place to stay: was SNF Hotel Question |
A safer (to me) and an easy option is to base out of Melbourne Florida (there
are like 3 to 5 other small airports around there too but I prefer MLB for
transient stays). Great place to fly to and from SNF because you always have the
sun at your BACK which is important when you are trying to merge with the
Lake Parker *Traffic Pattern* or avoid overtaking the departing slower traffic
also departing in mass at the end of each day. Great GA area on the North side.
Ramp is free if you buy some gas any time you are there. We just told 'em
one little fill up and that was more than enough for the 3 days we were there.
Lot's of RV'rs and experimental in general hangar there too so if you have an
unlikely problem you'll get a lot of help from the local retiree RV crowd.
Now the REALLY great news. Brevard County has a LOT of great casual
restaraunts - especially Barbecue, fresh sea food and mex tex. Something for
everyone. It also has a LOT of different hotels and motels to choose from and
locations from right there at the airport area to up and down the beaches. If
you
are a military retiree, Patrick AFB is just up the road 20 minutes. If you want
to take a break from flying, you can easily take a nice day fishing trip out
of Port Canaveral or tour Kennedy Space Center. All of that is in the same
county and no more than about a 45 minute drive at the most from each other.
Not a member of the chamber of commerce but lived and worked there for 12
years so I've got half a clue. :-)
lucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lycoming 360 propeller flight test data |
Hi All,
I finally have the performance data available for the Hartzell 2 blade CS
propeller, and the MT aluminum 2 blade CS propeller.
Go to the "Lycoming 360 Propeller" page on www.lessdrag.com and scroll down.
I also have pictures of the vertical stabilizer fairings for Bob Archer's VS
COM antenna on my RV-3 and for the RV-4 VS.
Go to the "Products" page on www.lessdrag.com and scroll down.
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesforonce? |
David Taylor wrote:
>
> This thread has really intrigued me. First off I'd like to recognize how
>civil you guys are being. It's good to see people disagree tactfully. I've
>been on several lists that get really ugly so it makes me proud to be a part
>of this family.
>
> I've done quite a bit of web surfing based on this discussion just to see
>what comes up (self education). The following information is based on what
>I've seen on the web and is definitely not fact. Please keep this in mind.
>
> It appears, from my research, that the rotary engine is better as an
>aviation engine than a car engine. I have a friend at work that is really
>into cars and we got into this discusstion. He asked how many RX-7s I see
>driving around. Honestly I haven't seen many at all. Also he showed me an
>auto trader search of RX-7s 93 and greater near our area (31088). I was
>amazed that many of the cars on the first 2 pages had new engines
>installed.(Go to http://www.autotrader.com and search for used Mazda RX-7s
>200 miles from the 31088 area code).
>
> On the flip side, every single article I've read on aviation has praised
>the rotary engine. Tracy's RV-4 and Ed Anderson's RV-6 are both proof of how
>well it can work. I'm confident Dana will have the same results. I guess the
>question is: Is there anything that makes it more reliable as an aircraft
>engine as opposed to a car engine? I've read that the tube that lubricated
>that apex seal isn't needed due to the oil added to the fuel. Surely this
>isn't all there is to it.
>
> Also from what I've read it seems that turbocharging this engine seems to
>be a bad idea. Please keep in mind this is not my personal opinion. I've
>gathered this information from surfing the web and we all know that this
>information may or may not be accurate.
>
> Personally I am going with a Lycoming. It has nothing to do with the
>engine necessarily being any better but I know if I go to my local A&P or IA
>he will be able to help/advise me on this engine. I intend on being the one
>to maintain my aircraft and I have access to an IA who is very knowledgable
>of the Lycoming that I can learn from (yes I am still learning). That being
>said I would not discount putting a rotary in a future aircraft should I
>decide to build another. I think it's great that people who have the talent
>and the knowledge are experimenting with aviation. Remember that there was a
>first to break the sound barrier. Now it's an everyday occurrence (I know I
>live within 5miles of an Air Force Base :) ).
>
>
> -David Taylor
> Warner Robins, GA
> RV-6A Wings (prosealing
>the tanks yuch) N207DT reserved
>
Hi David,
I believe that you can find your answer about the '93+ engine issue by
prowling around the archives of the RX-7 newsgroups. The engine responds
very well to performance 'enhancements' & a high percentage of owners
seem to be modern incarnations of the guys who bought GTO's, Chevelle
SS396's etc. & proceeded to add monster carbs, cams, headers & such &
head straight for the drag strip for a weekend of abuse. The difference
with the '93's is that they are turbo'd & turbos will destroy ANY engine
if you overdo it. The advantage of the rotary, even in the auto
environment, is that it still gets you home after you break an apex seal
(equivalent to a piston ring) from detonation. With an overboosted
piston engine, you put a hole in a piston or two.
To get a proper perspective on the "93 RX-7's problems vs other cars,
look for another 'hot rod' model car that sees a lot of aftermarket mods.
Most of the early RX-7s disappeared into salvage yards because once city
driving had clogged the rotor seals with carbon, the owners couldn't
find mechanics who were brave enough to look inside the engine.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dane Sheahen" <dane(at)mutualace.com> |
My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
checked it against what approach control had me at.
This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb to
about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
Could something else be wrong ?
Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
Dane Sheahen
RV8a N838RV 150hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <cweyant(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Flow Systems |
RV9A. Want to install a fuel flow system. Needs to be around $300 or so. Which
one? And where do I install the transducer? Not much room as far as I can see.
Seems the ones I've checked out want the transducer on the vaccum side of the
fuel pump. With the fuel pump on the inside of the firewall in the nine, and
the fuel line running down the center of the cockpit floor to the fuel selecter
valve, I don't see anywhere to install a transducer. How have others done
it? (No luck with the archives search.)
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotary, David Taylor responses. long |
Dana Overall wrote:
I've owned, and still do own, Porsches. I hear so many people talk
> about them developing oil leaks. Most of these people are your stop and go
> daily drivers who just like to see that P word on the steering wheel. I, on
> the other hand, take mine to road courses. My oldest son said he never
> would have thought his dad would be sitting in the right seat of his triple
> black Boxster telling him faster, faster as he was doing 121MPH 400' short
> of the double 90s leading to the bridge at Road Atlanta. My next project is
> probably going to be following Sam and the open wheel "The Stalker". Point
> here, drive or fly them where they are designed to function at.
And here is my latest baby:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/stalkerv6
Compared to building an airplane, this is a very basic build. This
should be a great airport car!! =8
O
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SNF Hotel Question |
In a message dated 2/21/2004 2:14:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Hi,
For those of you that have been to Sun 'n Fun, and
know the area, I've got two hotel choices - one
in Lakeland for about 150 USD/night, and one in
Tampa for about 70 USD/night. Is it worth the
extra money to stay in Lakeland, or is driving
to Tampa daily not too big of a deal? I'll
be there for about 7 days.
Thanks for any advice!
--
Mickey Coggins
Mickey:
I lived in the area for about 15 years ... Tampa is close enough to stay ..
short drive but the problem will be the long lines of car traffic trying to get
onto the SNF site. I have waited for hours in those lines before coming off
the interstate.
Good luck !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
208 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jgburns" <jgburns(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotaries and airplanes |
I almost removed the rotary from consideration because of the resale value argument.
When I calculated my probable cost over fifteen years of Lycoming ownership
verses a new Renesis rotary, I put it back into consideration.
Assumptions for my analysis:
100 hours/year average flight time over fifteen years (our family cars average
10 years)
Lycoming 200 HP @ factory redline (2700 RPM)
Van's new: $33,500 + $4800 (FWF kit) + $700 (misc. estimate) $39,000
Top overhaul at 1000 hours (probable somewhere between new and TBO) $8,000 (there's
usually more than the cost of jugs)
Lycoming Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost: $47,000 (not including prop)
Rotary 220 HP NA @ 90% factory redline (rotors spinning at 2565 RPM, prop at 2700
RPM):
New Renesis short block with aircraft modifications: $6,500
PSRU, fuel/ignition controller, and engine mount (delta): $4,500
Oil cooler (Mazda Factory Race Engine Oil Cooler - Racing Beat ): $1,000
Exhaust (professional fab): $1,000
Accessories, intake/fuel system, radiator $1,500
Misc (estimate): $1000
Overhaul at 1000 hours, including PSRU: $3500
ROM: $19,000 (not including prop)
$28,000 difference
Now, add the cost of fuel savings (I estimate $5,000 over 1500 hours, half the
fill-ups with 100LL)
That's a $33,000 total cost of ownership difference (new to new comparison). Note:
I increased several of the rotary numbers to be conservative.
For the last 18 months, I struggled with all the issues I've seen on this list:
[financial savings] verses [resale, propeller limitations (no hydraulic on the
rotary), all the work and decisions, concern that I'll screw up a sub-system
...]
I wish a (proven) FWF package was available. It would probably decrease the total
difference to $28,000, but what a time savings.
The price difference kept my comparative analysis going. While comparing the Superior
experimental aircraft engine to the rotary, a funny thing happened - I
fell in LOVE with Renesis rotary engine. I have a burning desire to put the Renesis
in my 7A, so now I'm working on mitigating risk (screw-ups) by surrounding
myself with other builders who have chosen the same path. I now look forward
to the extra work. I especially look forward to the camaraderie of other alternative
engine aircraft builders and developing life-long friendships as a result
of this new found passion.
Like Tracy said a few days ago, 'It's not for everyone. If you don't have a burning
desire, don't do it.'
Caution to inquiring minds: careful study of the rotary powered option for your
RV may lead to addiction.
I hope to see builders interested in rotary powered flight at Sun 'n Fun for the informal discussions - see: http://www.rotaryaviation.com/events.html
John Burns
7A-QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jamesbaldwin(at)attglobal.net |
| Subject: | Re: engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing |
Walter -
I just thought I would add a comment on your observations -- auto fuel
is generally higher in specific weight (lbs/gallon) than avgas. I have
personally measured as much as a 10% difference in weights per volume.
Since engines burn" weight" and not "volume", there may be some
difference here as well. If one of you was burning avgas and the other
auto fuel, the apples to apples comparison was clouded somewhat. A back
to back test with as many variables being the same is the only positive
way this question can be answered but observations such as yours
certainly narrow the debate. JBB
WALTER KERR wrote:
>
>
>Subject: engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing
>
>
> I agree with Tedd that the dyno BSFC of a lycoming will beat a rotary unless
it is one of the newer RX8 engines.
>
>Tracy in "dirty bird" and I have flown at various altitudes from 4500 to 10500
and at varying cruise speeds. My 6A with a 160 lycoming, Sam James cowl and
plenum, Sensenich 80 inch metal prop, etc , etc was one of the cleaner 6A's IMHO.
Having flown 666nm from FL37 to Memphis on numerous occasions, you could
do it in 4:10 and have about 45 minutes fuel reserve it there was only light crosswinds.
>
>Tracy and I did not do block to block testing but instead relied on our Grand
Rapids EIS for rate. At my normal cruise at about 190 mph TAS, the lycoming would
burn about 7% less fuel than the rotary. When we would thottle back to 170
mph, the fuel burns were the same. Was it more drag on the 4? The fact that
the fuel came together at lower speed might indicate that. Was it the fact that
the rotary will run smoothly at leaner fuel to air ratios at the lower power
and therefore make better bsfc. Take your pick cause we don't have enough info
to decide!! The rotary was burning auto fuel which is normally more difference
in cost than the bsfc between the two engines. Do not believe that the fuel
burn is a major deciding issue as much as are you willing to roll your own
until Tracy or ?? someone offers a fwf package at a reasonable price. As stated
earlier, there is no question that you can roll your own cheaper than you can
do a rebuilt lycoming.
>
>Bernie Kerr, 6A sold, 9A rotary close ( I should be in the hangar working instead
of writing this note, but can't keep quiet in a good discussion)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trampas" <tstern(at)nc.rr.com> |
Dane,
The altimeters work by measuring the air pressure. Most a calibrated to
represent a certain altitude by assuming a certain air temperature for that
altitude. Therefore if the air temperature at the altitude your at is colder
than the assumed calibrated altitude, you altimeter will read lower than you
really are. The inverse is true for hot air temperatures.
Now high pressure front moves in then your altimeter will read lower than
you really are, however if a low pressure front moves in you will read
higher than you really are.
Regards,
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dane Sheahen
Subject: RV-List: ALTIMETER
My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
checked it against what approach control had me at.
This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb to
about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
Could something else be wrong ?
Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
Dane Sheahen
RV8a N838RV 150hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
>
>My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
>first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
>other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
>checked it against what approach control had me at.
>This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
>accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb to
>about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
>
>Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
>Could something else be wrong ?
>Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
>Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
>
>Dane Sheahen
>RV8a N838RV 150hrs
What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
the "truth data"?
Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
the temperature differs from standard temperature.
<http://williams.best.vwh.net/smxgigpdf/smxgig2000.pdf>
<http://www2.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0702.html> - scroll down to
"7-2-3. Altimeter Errors"
<http://www.atlasaviation.com/feature%20articals/featured-article-2004/lies_your_barometric_altimeter_t.htm>
<http://www.bluecoat.org/reports/Long_98_Cold.pdf>
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jgburns" <jgburns(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
I guess Bob might be saying don't forget your oxygen. I live in the beautiful
Rocky Mountains, so I usually take it with me. ... nothing unusual about those
altitudes out here.
John Burns
7A-QB/Rotary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dane Sheahen" <dane(at)mutualace.com> |
Kevin & RV group
My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
Can you Fix them?
Dane Sheahen
RV8a 150hrs
What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
the "truth data"?
Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
the temperature differs from standard temperature.
>
>My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
>first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
>other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
>checked it against what approach control had me at.
>This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
>accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb
to
>about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
>
>Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
>Could something else be wrong ?
>Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
>Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harvey Sigmon" <sighsrv(at)earthlink.net> |
Dana: Just an idea, I experienced a similar situation and the cause was a
static leak behind the instrument panel. The altimeter and airspeed read in
error. Airspeed read high about 12 MPH, Altimeter read high. I think a
static check will find the problem
Harvey Sigmon RV-6A N602RV Flying
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dane Sheahen" <dane(at)mutualace.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: ALTIMETER
>
> Kevin & RV group
>
> My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
> reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the
temperature
> does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further
off
> the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
> Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
> Can you Fix them?
>
> Dane Sheahen
> RV8a 150hrs
>
>
> What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
> against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
> the "truth data"?
>
> Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
> simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
> barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
> colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
> ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
> in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
> altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
> 1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
> ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
> the temperature differs from standard temperature.
>
>
> >
> >My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
> >first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
> >other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
> >checked it against what approach control had me at.
> >This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It
is
> >accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb
> to
> >about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
> >
> >Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
> >Could something else be wrong ?
> >Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
> >Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SNF Hotel Question |
the problem will be the long lines of car traffic trying to get
> onto the SNF site. I have waited for hours in those lines before coming
off
> the interstate.
The secret is to get there early. If you go early you will have no traffic
and get to park right next to the enterence. We keep bottled water and food
in a cooler in the trunk.
I've stayed at a nice place quite a distance from the show, and also close
by. In my opinion closer is better! I got tired of the drive each day and
did not want to stay for the night airshow (which is great) because of the
long late drive afterwards.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
There is a way to adjust them for errors in the altimeter setting,
but that would have the same effect at all altitudes. I don't think
there is any way to fix the problem you seem to be having.
It would be interesting to swap altimeters with one of the other
aircraft for one another formation flight. I'd want to absolutely
confirm you had a bad altimeter before spending the cash for another
one.
Are you absolutely certain that the error varies with altitude rather
than with speed? Some folks have had static source position error
problems, in which case the altimeter could be dead nuts accurate
when you were stopped on the ground, but then it would have an error
as soon as you were flying. Have you made any changes in the static
ports from the last time you had an apparently accurate altimeter?
E.g. changed to a flush mounted static port? Could you have a static
system leak?
Kevin Horton
>
>Kevin & RV group
>
>My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
>reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
>does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
>the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
>Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
>Can you Fix them?
>
>Dane Sheahen
>RV8a 150hrs
>
>
> What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
>against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
>the "truth data"?
>
>Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
>simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
>barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
>colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
>ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
>in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
>altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
>1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
>ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
>the temperature differs from standard temperature.
>
>
>>
>>My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
>>first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
>>other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
>>checked it against what approach control had me at.
>>This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
>>accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb
>to
>>about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
>>
>>Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
>>Could something else be wrong ?
>>Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
> >Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Balch <kbalch(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SNF Hotel Question |
David Burton wrote:
>the problem will be the long lines of car traffic trying to get onto the SNF site.
I have waited for hours in those lines before coming off the interstate.
>
>
We've stayed in Brandon for the past five years or so and have never run
into serious traffic getting to Lakeland in the mornings. The 'secret'
is to leave early. Really early. If you not bitching about how early
it is, you didn't get up early enough... :-) It's actually not that
bad. We leave the hotel around 0600, get some coffee and pull into the
SnF parking lot before 0700. We've yet to be more than half a dozen
rows back from the main entrance.
Regards,
Ken Balch
RV-8 N118KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lisa Compton" <thecomptons(at)bellsouth.net> |
>
> Dana: Just an idea, I experienced a similar situation and the cause was a
> static leak behind the instrument panel.
Had the same problem in my -3 last year. My clue that I had a leak was when
I noticed the vsi jump when I opened a cockpit air vent. Sure enough, I had
a loose fitting behind the panel.
Randy Compton
RV-3 N148CW
Gulf Breeze, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
My first suggestion is to check the altimeter yourself .... go to
http://www.aa.washington.edu/courses/aa441/alt_cal.pdf or
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/instcal/instcal.htm and see who's
really off. It could just be where your static port is located and
functioning.
Linn
Dane Sheahen wrote:
>
>Kevin & RV group
>
>My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
>reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
>does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
>the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
>Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
>Can you Fix them?
>
>Dane Sheahen
>RV8a 150hrs
>
>
> What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
>against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
>the "truth data"?
>
>Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
>simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
>barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
>colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
>ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
>in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
>altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
>1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
>ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
>the temperature differs from standard temperature.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
>>first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
>>other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
>>checked it against what approach control had me at.
>>This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
>>accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb to
about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
>>Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
>>Could something else be wrong ?
>>Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
>>Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Dave,
Be sure there's no water in the static system.
Dan RV-7A to fly this Spring
In a message dated 2/21/04 3:58:32 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dane(at)mutualace.com writes:
>
>
> Kevin &RV group
>
> My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
> reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
> does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
> the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
> Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
> Can you Fix them?
>
> Dane Sheahen
> RV8a 150hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Dane,
You can do the static test yourself. Put a piece of electrical tape over one
static port and use a 5 or 10 ml syringe with the needle cut to about 1/8
inch, and a tiny o-ring to seal it on the other port. Slowly draw a 1000 ft
vacuum and hold it. It should not leak down more than 100 ft in a minute. You
may be able to get the syringe at a drugstore, or from a diabetic, or a junkie.
Just kidding.
Dan RV-7A almost done
In a message dated 2/21/04 3:58:32 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dane(at)mutualace.com writes:
>
>
> Kevin &RV group
>
> My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
> reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
> does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
> the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
> Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
> Can you Fix them?
>
> Dane Sheahen
> RV8a 150hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)direcpc.com> |
I would go back to the avionics shop that did your initial
xponder/static system check and have him revivify the altimeter.
Gary
Dane Sheahen wrote:
>
>Kevin & RV group
>
>My comparison on the altimeter last week was a flight of 5 airplanes all
>reading approximately the same altitude except for mine. So the temperature
>does not seem to be part of the problem. My altimeter just gets further off
>the higher I go and I did not have this problem last winter.
>
>Does anyone else have any experience with Vans altimeters going bad?
>Can you Fix them?
>
>Dane Sheahen
>RV8a 150hrs
>
>
> What are you using as your "truth data" to compare the altimeter
>against, and how do you know the error is in the altimeter and not
>the "truth data"?
>
>Your altimeter might still be OK, and what you are seeing could
>simply be the usual cold temperature errors. The "accuracy" of a
>barometric altitude varies with temperature. If the temperature is
>colder than standard temp (15 deg C or 59 deg F at sea level), a 1000
>ft change in barometric altitude is actually less than 1000 ft change
>in true, "geometric" altitude. In other words, if you set the
>altimeter so it reads zero on the ground, then take-off and climb to
>1,000 ft on the altimeter, you are actually less than 1,000 ft above
>ground. The amount of the error is about 4% for every 10 deg C that
>the temperature differs from standard temperature.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>My question is why would my altimeter become inaccurate over time. The
>>first year in my RV8a the altimeter was dead nuts on. I checked it with
>>other planes I was flying with, I checked it against two GPSs, and I
>>checked it against what approach control had me at.
>>This fall as the cold weather stared to set in I noticed it was off. It is
>>accurate on the ground when I put in the barometric pressure. As I climb
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>about 6500 I am reading 200 ft higher than I am actually flying.
>>
>>Can you fix these altimeters ? ( was bought from Vans)
>>Could something else be wrong ?
>>Has anyone else had this problem with Vans altimeters ?
>>Should I replace it with a TSO model ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)direcpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Systems |
I stuck my transducer between the mechanical pump and the carb. Works great.
Gary
Chuck Weyant wrote:
>
>RV9A. Want to install a fuel flow system. Needs to be around $300 or so. Which
one? And where do I install the transducer? Not much room as far as I can see.
Seems the ones I've checked out want the transducer on the vaccum side of
the fuel pump. With the fuel pump on the inside of the firewall in the nine,
and the fuel line running down the center of the cockpit floor to the fuel selecter
valve, I don't see anywhere to install a transducer. How have others done
it? (No luck with the archives search.)
>Chuck
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV: ELT Required?? |
I brought up the exemption during my AB DAR orientation with my FAA Advisor
and he wants the ELT in the airplane during the test phase. Up until that
time, I was under the impression that you had to have it but did not need it
in the test flight area. Must meet the current TSO so do not get a used one
that does not.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,435 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:52:15 -0600
It might be written into your Operating limitations that you have to have an
ELT even during testing. This piece of paper takes precedence over the
FARs. Further the inspector might want to see the install before he signs
it off as you don't want to pay him for a return trip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>
> You probably could make a case that way but........
>
> Mike R.
>
>
> >From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
> >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:33:21 -0600
> >
> >
> >Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
would
> >not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of
it's
> >flight testing? Just a thought.
> >
> >Marty in Brentwood, TN
> >
> >
> >From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >
> >
> >Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been
rescinded.
> >
> >e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
> >(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of
it
> >was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
> >installed; and
> >(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter
> >from
> >a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where
they
> >can be made.
> >No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an
airplane
> >being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
> >(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
> >(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
> >(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air
carriers;
> >(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely
within
> >a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
> >operations began;
> >(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
> >testing;
> >(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
> >manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
> >(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
> >application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
> >(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and
development
> >purposes;
> >(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
> >training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
> >(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
> >(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
> >temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or
replacement,
> >subject to the following:
> >(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records
contain
> >an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model,
> >serial
> >number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located
in
> >view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
> >(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT
is
> >initially removed from the aircraft.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >
> >
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie & Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Systems |
Chuck Weyant wrote:
>
>RV9A. Want to install a fuel flow system. Needs to be around $300 or so. Which
one? And where do I install the transducer? Not much room as far as I can see.
Seems the ones I've checked out want the transducer on the vaccum side of
the fuel pump. With the fuel pump on the inside of the firewall in the nine,
and the fuel line running down the center of the cockpit floor to the fuel selecter
valve, I don't see anywhere to install a transducer. How have others done
it? (No luck with the archives search.)
>Chuck
>
How about
http://www.matronics.com
(by our list host)
or
http://www.boatfix.com/elec/standgps.asp
& scroll down to the bottom of the page
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <cweyant(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Systems |
Thought the transducer was supposed to be in an area where it won't or the
attached hoses be subject to high temps or excessive vibrations. Engine
compartment seems the wrong area...
Chuck
>
> I stuck my transducer between the mechanical pump and the carb. Works
great.
>
> >RV9A. Want to install a fuel flow system. Needs to be around $300 or so.
Which one? And where do I install the transducer? Not much room as far as I
can see. Seems the ones I've checked out want the transducer on the vaccum
side of the fuel pump. With the fuel pump on the inside of the firewall in
the nine, and the fuel line running down the center of the cockpit floor to
the fuel selecter valve, I don't see anywhere to install a transducer. How
have others done it? (No luck with the archives search.)
> >Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon - Rethink Internal Battery....fixed |
I just got my unit back with the software fix for the "Dreaded Blue Screen"
and the missing characters. I tried to get it to hang up by powering up and
down and never could. I was only able to fly it for a few minutes (see
other post) but it worked fine. It seems to boot up faster. I think Dynon
will be putting out the new software soon. Nick was very prompt in
addressing these issues. They had my unit on Monday, designed the software
fix on Tues and Weds and sent the unit back on Thursday so I could have it
Friday.
Since I am always skeptical of software fixes ( blame Bill Gates) I also
installed a switch on the battery. (Sorry Nick) This was very easy to do.
If I have to replace the battery, I will have to do it again but it was
easier to put the switch on the battery than the unit. My switch is always
on and will only be used in an emergency, i.e. if the software hiccups. The
folks at Dynon think this is unnecessary as they believe they have addressed
the problem. I guess I fit Doug's adage, "If you want to sell it to a
pilot, put a switch on it, if it has a light and a bell, they can't resist!"
Ross
N9PT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
After reinstalling my Dynon EFIS, I took N9PT for a test ride. As I became
airborne, my AOA started screaming at me to "PUSH, PUSH...ANGLE, ANGLE" As
I was in a very shallow climb and pulling 29" x 2650 rpm, I knew this was an
erroneous alarm. After quieting my persistent "co-pilot", I radioed in to
stay in the pattern and land. My airspeed had risen as I had climbed but
didn't change as I cut power and ran through my standard approach. I landed
hot and made my way back to the hanger.
At first, I thought I had made a REALLY dumb mistake and hooked the pitot
static lines up backward. This was not the case, as my instruments worked
fine from the fuselage in. I then tried to blow through the tubing from the
fuse to the pitot tube....nothing. I could suck, put my tongue on the tube
and it would hold suction, not a good thing.
I then went to the Piper blade, heated pitot tube and disconnected the
lines. Both of the lines were plugged at the pitot tube by melted tubing.
I used the stiffer poly tubing, sorry I don't have the exact name but it is
the stiffer of the two you can buy from AS. Since the system worked fine
the last time I flew, this must have occurred on the ground. The only thing
I did after reinstalling the Dynon and installing a cooler to my SD-8
regulator was to test all my electronics. I had the pitot heat on for about
15 sec.
I have never heard of this happening and will be looking for a fix that will
probably involve adding a short section of non-meltable tubing at the pitot
tube for about a foot.
Ross Mickey
N9PT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | SD-8 Regulator Cooling |
I spoke with Tim at B&C for a good period on Friday discussing the potential
of the SD-8 regulator overheating when in continuous use over 3 amps. I
must say, after being on the RV-List for 9 years and following Bob's "All
Electric on a Budget" when building my RV-6A, I was disheartened during the
conversation. He said that he was unaware that Bob was recommending this
alternator be used as a backup with essential buss loads of 8 amps until
fairly recently. After going through all the stages of grieving, I asked
what the fix was. Since the PM, SD-8 regulator needs to shed the excess
loads via heat, the only fix is to cool it. I went to the local custom
computer place and bought a heat sink and cooling fan made by Intel to cool
CPU's. I attached this to the top of the regulator via a aluminum strap and
JB Weld. It is switched to come on when I turn on the SD-8. I have no way
of telling if it going to be a fix or just prolong the fatal event. My hope
is that I will only need it for 30 min or so while I get down after a main
alternator failure.
Ross Mickey
N9PT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | turn and bank power consumption |
I've been having difficulty finding a typical power consumption figure
for an electric turn and bank indicator. If any one has the specs for
an R.C. Allen or a Sigmatek, that would be fine.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
>
>I then went to the Piper blade, heated pitot tube and disconnected the
>lines. Both of the lines were plugged at the pitot tube by melted tubing.
>
>I have never heard of this happening and will be looking for a fix that will
>probably involve adding a short section of non-meltable tubing at the pitot
>tube for about a foot.
I would suggest that you use thin wall stainless tubing for the
extensions. (Stainless has very low thermal conductivity.) Run the
stainless tubing through a clamp that is anchored to a rib or spar just
before you transition to plastic. The clamp will tend to "wick" off any
heat before it travels to the plastic tube.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: turn and bank power consumption |
Tom,
Mine draws about 0.8 amps when the unit is "spinning up". Once up to speed, it
draws 0.3 to 0.4 amps. I have an R.C. Allen unit.
Charlie Kuss
>
>I've been having difficulty finding a typical power consumption figure
>for an electric turn and bank indicator. If any one has the specs for
>an R.C. Allen or a Sigmatek, that would be fine.
>
>Thanks,
>--
>Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Eastham <eastham(at)netapp.com> |
| Subject: | leaky AN fittings |
Hi all,
I am working on my first few flared tubing connections (fuel pick-up
line) and am having some trouble. After trying a few on scrap, I am
producing what look to be nice and clean cuts and flares. I am
squaring the cuts on my scotchbrite wheel, deburring, then flaring
with a well-oiled 37-degree Parker roto-flare tool.
Sadly though, when I connect the pick-up to the bulkhead union and
tighten on the nut/collar as tight as I can by hand, I get a small
leak detectable by plugging one end and blowing into the other. This
is confirmed with soapy water; I get a bubble emerging between the
tubing and the collar.
I have found no documentation of what specs a flare should meet...
what am I looking for? Like I said it looks square and clean.
The size of the flare itself is a little confusing to me -- I've currently
got the flare OD matched to the OD of the male end.
Paul
http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv -- 9A trying to wrap up first wing!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 Regulator Cooling |
> Since the PM, SD-8 regulator needs to shed the excess
>loads via heat, the only fix is to cool it. I went to the local custom
>computer place and bought a heat sink and cooling fan made by Intel to cool
>CPU's. I attached this to the top of the regulator via a aluminum strap and
>JB Weld. It is switched to come on when I turn on the SD-8.
Since most folks mount the regulator to the firewall, a possible
solution would be to flip it over and use the aluminum firewall as the heat
sink. As long as you are well away from a major heat source, this might do
the trick. Be sure to use thermal grease between the regulator top surface
and the firewall.
If you have a stainless steel firewall this trick won't work. You
may be able to move the regulator to the other side of the firewall (or
somewhere else) and attach it to something large and aluminum.
It would not be too hard to test this out once you had it
installed. You would attach some sort of temperature sensor to the
regulator, go for a flight, load up the SD-8 to full load, then watch the
temperature. If the regulator stayed below the maximum allowed (120 F ???)
you are all set.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: leaky AN fittings |
Paul Eastham wrote:
>
>Hi all,
> I am working on my first few flared tubing connections (fuel pick-up
>line) and am having some trouble. After trying a few on scrap, I am
>producing what look to be nice and clean cuts and flares. I am
>squaring the cuts on my scotchbrite wheel, deburring, then flaring
>with a well-oiled 37-degree Parker roto-flare tool.
>
> Sadly though, when I connect the pick-up to the bulkhead union and
>tighten on the nut/collar as tight as I can by hand, I get a small
>leak detectable by plugging one end and blowing into the other. This
>is confirmed with soapy water; I get a bubble emerging between the
>tubing and the collar.
>
Hand tight isn't tight enough. 'Snug' it with a wrench and the leak
will probably disappear.
> I have found no documentation of what specs a flare should meet...
>what am I looking for? Like I said it looks square and clean.
>
Look for cracks at the base of the flare or cracks near the end of the
flare. If you use a fine file to remove any saw marks from the end of
the tubing, you'll minimize cracking. Also, the slower you do the flare
the less cracking.
>The size of the flare itself is a little confusing to me -- I've currently
>got the flare OD matched to the OD of the male end.
>
As long as the tubing flare is longer than the flare in the sleeve and
smaller than the nut, you'll get a good seal.
Linn
>
>
>Paul
>http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv -- 9A trying to wrap up first wing!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Flap motor overload? |
Howdy list!
I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position (Van's
unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still blew- yes
wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding, wires
worn etc. Only thing that is unusual is that the motor seems to be trying
somewhat harder at the fully extended position (flaps up) than it does fully
retracted where it seems to freewheel more easily. Should it be freewheeling easily
at both ends, and shouldn't 5 amps be plenty of fuse for this? I don't
recall where I got the load value, but it's wired with 18ga.
Thanks!
Mark Phillips -6A N51PW - 37.4 hours in 3 weeks! What an awesome machine!
8-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap motor overload? |
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Howdy list!
>
>I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position (Van's
>unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still blew- yes
>wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding, wires
>worn etc. Only thing that is unusual is that the motor seems to be trying
>somewhat harder at the fully extended position (flaps up) than it does fully
>retracted where it seems to freewheel more easily. Should it be freewheeling
easily
>at both ends, and shouldn't 5 amps be plenty of fuse for this? I don't
>recall where I got the load value, but it's wired with 18ga.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Mark Phillips -6A N51PW - 37.4 hours in 3 weeks! What an awesome machine!
>8-)
>
Hmmm. Sounds like failure of the limit switch. Remember that fuses
aren't there to protect the device on the other end ....... they protect
the wire!!!
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flap motor overload? |
| From: | "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst(at)ucol.ac.nz> |
Hi Mark,
Electric motors draw *much* more current when they first start, and when
they are stalled. Check that your flap motor does turn off when the
flaps are all the way up... I assume you have some kind of limit switch
that detects full up and stops the motor?
Frank
I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position
(Van's
unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still
blew- yes
wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding,
wires
worn etc.
Learn real skills for the real world - Apply online
at http://www.ucol.ac.nz or call 0800 GO UCOL
(0800 46 8265) or txt free 3388 for more information
and make a good move to UCOL Universal College of
Learning.
Enrol with a public institute and be certain of your
future
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flap motor overload? |
The stock Van's installations don't have a limit switch (although a few people)
have done it.
My guess is you probably just need to grease it. Those of us fortunate (NOT) to
have taken our flap motor apart multiple times have seen what happens to the
grease in these -6/6A installations.
If it were me I'd first grease up the jackscrew with some good lithium grease.
If it were the motor being low on grease, you'd see the problem throughout the
whole extension/retraction, not just the end. With your sypmtoms, my only guess
would be the jackscrew being dry at one end.
Just my guess! FYI, I also have a 7.5A breaker, but it has never blown. I've
had the opposite problem of my flap motor just quitting several times due to grease
in the commutator/brushes from the motor....
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, (both with 'lectric flaps)
Minneapolis
http://www.steinair.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:04:10 -0500
>
>Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Howdy list!
>>
>>I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position (Van's
>>unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still blew- yes
>>wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding, wires
>>worn etc. Only thing that is unusual is that the motor seems to be trying
>>somewhat harder at the fully extended position (flaps up) than it does fully
>>retracted where it seems to freewheel more easily. Should it be freewheeling
easily
>>at both ends, and shouldn't 5 amps be plenty of fuse for this? I don't
>>recall where I got the load value, but it's wired with 18ga.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Mark Phillips -6A N51PW - 37.4 hours in 3 weeks! What an awesome machine!
>>8-)
>>
>Hmmm. Sounds like failure of the limit switch. Remember that fuses
>aren't there to protect the device on the other end ....... they protect
>the wire!!!
>Linn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Flap motor overload? |
Just an FYI to those who don't have experience with the Van's flap motors and jack
screw assemblies.
There is really NO need for a limit switch on the flaps. They don't "Bottom out"
at full extension or retraction, the motor just keeps spinning. They don't
get loaded up, stopped, or "stalled" when the retraction or extension is complete.
Most of the reasons for limit switches are to allow people to install a switch
to retract the flaps without having to hold the toggle up. Also, some people do
it for an indicator, but there is much better methods for indication than using
limit swichtes. Other than that, there is no real need for limit switches
for motor cutout or shutoff.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
http://www.steinar.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst(at)ucol.ac.nz>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:23:03 +1300
>
>Hi Mark,
>
>Electric motors draw *much* more current when they first start, and when
>they are stalled. Check that your flap motor does turn off when the
>flaps are all the way up... I assume you have some kind of limit switch
>that detects full up and stops the motor?
>
>Frank
>
>
>I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position
>(Van's
>unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still
>blew- yes
>wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding,
>wires
>worn etc.
>Learn real skills for the real world - Apply online
>at http://www.ucol.ac.nz or call 0800 GO UCOL
>(0800 46 8265) or txt free 3388 for more information
>and make a good move to UCOL Universal College of
>Learning.
>
>Enrol with a public institute and be certain of your
>future
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Flap motor overload? |
Mark,
It's been a while since I set mine up, but I think that the actuator is
supposed to spin free at both ends of it's travel - sort of like a
clutch disengaging. That's why Van's didn't set it up with a limit
switch - it's self limiting. If the geometry is such that it's still
trying to move the flaps when they are fully retracted, the motor will
load up and probably blow the fuse. Try lengthening the flap actuating
rods so that the flaps are partially extended. Then run the motor all
the way up 'til it stops moving and spins free. Then readjust the flap
actuating rods to where the flaps are fully retracted. Hope that works
for you.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV-List: Flap motor overload?
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Howdy list!
>
>I've blown the fuse on my flaps when they reach the full up position
(Van's
>unit in my -6A) twice now in 2 days (5 amp first, tried 7.5 & still
blew- yes
>wire is fat enough!) and I can't find anything wrong, linkage binding,
wires
>worn etc. Only thing that is unusual is that the motor seems to be
trying
>somewhat harder at the fully extended position (flaps up) than it does
fully
>retracted where it seems to freewheel more easily. Should it be
freewheeling easily
>at both ends, and shouldn't 5 amps be plenty of fuse for this? I don't
>recall where I got the load value, but it's wired with 18ga.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Mark Phillips -6A N51PW - 37.4 hours in 3 weeks! What an awesome
machine!
>8-)
>
Hmmm. Sounds like failure of the limit switch. Remember that fuses
aren't there to protect the device on the other end ....... they protect
the wire!!!
Linn
=
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)direcpc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Flow Systems |
All I know is that this is where they are installed in certified ships
(says so in the STC instructions). Firesleeve keeps the xducer cool
GZ
Chuck Weyant wrote:
>
>Thought the transducer was supposed to be in an area where it won't or the
>attached hoses be subject to high temps or excessive vibrations. Engine
>compartment seems the wrong area...
>Chuck
>
>
>>I stuck my transducer between the mechanical pump and the carb. Works
>>
>>
>great.
>
>
>>>RV9A. Want to install a fuel flow system. Needs to be around $300 or so.
>>>
>>>
>Which one? And where do I install the transducer? Not much room as far as I
>can see. Seems the ones I've checked out want the transducer on the vaccum
>side of the fuel pump. With the fuel pump on the inside of the firewall in
>the nine, and the fuel line running down the center of the cockpit floor to
>the fuel selecter valve, I don't see anywhere to install a transducer. How
>have others done it? (No luck with the archives search.)
>
>
>>>Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: leaky AN fittings |
Paul,
I've found that when I tighten the flaring tool very much at all, it leaves
an impression of the parting lines of the die on the backside of the flare.
This could cause a leak because the flared surface would distort if you don't
tighten it enough to crush this impression. Just don't tighten the flaring tool
very tight at all. Then tighten the joint to spec before giving it a leak
check.
Dan RV-7A (working on gear leg fairings)
In a message dated 2/22/04 3:34:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
eastham(at)netapp.com writes:
>
>
> Hi all,
> I am working on my first few flared tubing connections (fuel pick-up
> line) and am having some trouble. After trying a few on scrap, I am
> producing what look to be nice and clean cuts and flares. I am
> squaring the cuts on my scotchbrite wheel, deburring, then flaring
> with a well-oiled 37-degree Parker roto-flare tool.
>
> Sadly though, when I connect the pick-up to the bulkhead union and
> tighten on the nut/collar as tight as I can by hand, I get a small
> leak detectable by plugging one end and blowing into the other. This
> is confirmed with soapy water; I get a bubble emerging between the
> tubing and the collar.
>
> I have found no documentation of what specs a flare should meet...
> what am I looking for? Like I said it looks square and clean.
> The size of the flare itself is a little confusing to me -- I've currently
> got the flare OD matched to the OD of the male end.
>
> Paul
> http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv -- 9A trying to wrap up first wing!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | SNF Hotel Question |
Stayed in Tampa area for years and find the drive easy and the savings
appreciated.
Allen Fulmer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Subject: RV-List: SNF Hotel Question
Hi,
For those of you that have been to Sun 'n Fun, and
know the area, I've got two hotel choices - one
in Lakeland for about 150 USD/night, and one in
Tampa for about 70 USD/night. Is it worth the
extra money to stay in Lakeland, or is driving
to Tampa daily not too big of a deal? I'll
be there for about 7 days.
Thanks for any advice!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing
> I would suggest that you use thin wall stainless tubing for the
> extensions. (Stainless has very low thermal conductivity.) Run the
> stainless tubing through a clamp that is anchored to a rib or spar just
> before you transition to plastic. The clamp will tend to "wick" off any
> heat before it travels to the plastic tube.
>
Great suggestion,,,,thanks.
Ross
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
>
> > I would suggest that you use thin wall stainless tubing for the
> > extensions. (Stainless has very low thermal conductivity.) Run the
> > stainless tubing through a clamp that is anchored to a rib or spar just
> > before you transition to plastic. The clamp will tend to "wick" off any
> > heat before it travels to the plastic tube.
> >
>
>
>Great suggestion,,,,thanks.
If you still have trouble, you might try putting a few TO-92 style
heat sinks on the extension tubing. They look like this:
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Aavid/Web%20Photos/322400B00000.jpg
The part number is: HS100-ND
The you can buy them here:
http://www.digikey.com/
>Ross
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: This Saturday's Flyin is ON. |
A perfect neighborhood!
On Feb 23, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Dana Overall wrote:
> large Liquor World at exit 87, right beside
> Hooters.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
Ross...
You are using the heated Piper Blade Pitot/Static? I was planning on doing the
same. Is yours from a Archer, Arrow or other SE Piper? Do you know the Piper
P/N? Other than your melted tubing problem, how does it work? Ok with the Dynon?
I am building wings and was waiting for the Dynon heated pitot. Talked wih them
(Dynon) Sat at the Washington Aviation Conference in Puyallup WA. Their heated
pitot won't be shipping for a couple of months and its a monster (large).
The Piper pitot is much less obtrusive and much less likely to snag an unsuspecting
tie down chain or rope.
Chris Stone
RV 8 wings in OR.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Mickey <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RV-List: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing
After reinstalling my Dynon EFIS, I took N9PT for a test ride. As I became
airborne, my AOA started screaming at me to "PUSH, PUSH...ANGLE, ANGLE" As
I was in a very shallow climb and pulling 29" x 2650 rpm, I knew this was an
erroneous alarm. After quieting my persistent "co-pilot", I radioed in to
stay in the pattern and land. My airspeed had risen as I had climbed but
didn't change as I cut power and ran through my standard approach. I landed
hot and made my way back to the hanger.
At first, I thought I had made a REALLY dumb mistake and hooked the pitot
static lines up backward. This was not the case, as my instruments worked
fine from the fuselage in. I then tried to blow through the tubing from the
fuse to the pitot tube....nothing. I could suck, put my tongue on the tube
and it would hold suction, not a good thing.
I then went to the Piper blade, heated pitot tube and disconnected the
lines. Both of the lines were plugged at the pitot tube by melted tubing.
I used the stiffer poly tubing, sorry I don't have the exact name but it is
the stiffer of the two you can buy from AS. Since the system worked fine
the last time I flew, this must have occurred on the ground. The only thing
I did after reinstalling the Dynon and installing a cooler to my SD-8
regulator was to test all my electronics. I had the pitot heat on for about
15 sec.
I have never heard of this happening and will be looking for a fix that will
probably involve adding a short section of non-meltable tubing at the pitot
tube for about a foot.
Ross Mickey
N9PT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM> |
"'eastham(at)netapp.com'"
| Subject: | Re: leaky AN fittings |
Might try AN fitting seals. Page 104 of the 2002-2003 Aircraft Spruce, they
are with the AN fittings.
Rich Crosley
RV-8, Palmdale, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | FW: URL for Carson City RV Fly-In |
Just a quick message to the community that Doug Reeves has set up a link for
the details for the fly-in at Carson City. If you ever meet this gentlemen
at a fly-in make sure you shake this mans hand and thank him for his
invaluable service he's doing for this sport. Thank you again, Bruce
>From: "Doug Reeves" <doug(at)vansairforce.net>
>Reply-To:
>To: , ,
>, , ,
> , ,
>Subject: URL for Carson City RV Fly-In
>Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:04:33 -0600
>
>Morning all.
>
>I went ahead and made an area on my RV Activities Calendar just for the
>Carson City Fly-In. It's my understanding now that Ken Scott will attend
>in one of the factory planes.
>
>The URL, if you want to start spreading the word, is:
>
>http://www.vansairforce.net/upcomingevents.htm#CarsonCity
>
>I've forwarded this to Bob at Van's, as I believe he intends on adding this
>link to their site's calendar of scheduled events.
>
>
>--
>Best,
> Doug Reeves
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> URL: www.VansAirForce.net
> Contact info: http://www.vansairforce.net/contact.htm
>--
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
I don't know which model or part number. I got it rebuilt from a place in
Florida. That was about 8 years ago. It works fine. I have not done
extensive flight testing to see how accurate the airspeed is. For my
purposes, it is accurate enough.
Ross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Stone" <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing
>
> Ross...
>
> You are using the heated Piper Blade Pitot/Static? I was planning on
doing the same. Is yours from a Archer, Arrow or other SE Piper? Do you
know the Piper P/N? Other than your melted tubing problem, how does it work?
Ok with the Dynon?
>
> I am building wings and was waiting for the Dynon heated pitot. Talked
wih them (Dynon) Sat at the Washington Aviation Conference in Puyallup WA.
Their heated pitot won't be shipping for a couple of months and its a
monster (large). The Piper pitot is much less obtrusive and much less
likely to snag an unsuspecting tie down chain or rope.
>
> Chris Stone
> RV 8 wings in OR.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Mickey <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing
>
>
> After reinstalling my Dynon EFIS, I took N9PT for a test ride. As I
became
> airborne, my AOA started screaming at me to "PUSH, PUSH...ANGLE, ANGLE"
As
> I was in a very shallow climb and pulling 29" x 2650 rpm, I knew this was
an
> erroneous alarm. After quieting my persistent "co-pilot", I radioed in to
> stay in the pattern and land. My airspeed had risen as I had climbed but
> didn't change as I cut power and ran through my standard approach. I
landed
> hot and made my way back to the hanger.
>
> At first, I thought I had made a REALLY dumb mistake and hooked the pitot
> static lines up backward. This was not the case, as my instruments worked
> fine from the fuselage in. I then tried to blow through the tubing from
the
> fuse to the pitot tube....nothing. I could suck, put my tongue on the
tube
> and it would hold suction, not a good thing.
>
> I then went to the Piper blade, heated pitot tube and disconnected the
> lines. Both of the lines were plugged at the pitot tube by melted tubing.
> I used the stiffer poly tubing, sorry I don't have the exact name but it
is
> the stiffer of the two you can buy from AS. Since the system worked fine
> the last time I flew, this must have occurred on the ground. The only
thing
> I did after reinstalling the Dynon and installing a cooler to my SD-8
> regulator was to test all my electronics. I had the pitot heat on for
about
> 15 sec.
>
> I have never heard of this happening and will be looking for a fix that
will
> probably involve adding a short section of non-meltable tubing at the
pitot
> tube for about a foot.
>
> Ross Mickey
> N9PT
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Cours <rv-j(at)moriarti.org> |
| Subject: | racer's question: prop loss in flight |
Hi, everyone -
A fellow on the Pietenpol list just had a nasty incident where his prop
lost a blade in flight. The vibration damaged the engine mount, ripping
apart a couple of the tubes, but they managed to get it shut down before
they completely lost the engine and were able to land.
I remember reading in an old Kitplanes issue (I think) that race planes
often use aircraft cable to secure the engine as a safety measure, to
keep the CG in the right place if a blade loss pulls the engine off the
mount. Is that true? If so, how do you secure the cable to the engine?
Curious,
Jeff C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Cours <rv-j(at)moriarti.org> |
| Subject: | Re: cutting aluminum with a hole saw |
Thanks, everyone, for the advice on cutting the lightening holes -- I
just finished them over the weekend and they turned out very nicely. I
clamped to a 3/4" particle board backing, center-punched the holes,
drilled a #30 pilot hole, then used hole saws that were 1/8"
under-sized, used cutting fluid, exhausted both battery packs for the
cordless screwdriver, and cleaned up with a smooth cut file and 600 grit
sandpaper as necessary. Given the amount of sandpaper I went through on
that thick doubler stock, I guess I need to find a better way to finish
the inside of a lightening hole, maybe one of those Dremel-sized
Scotchbrite wheels or something.
Anyway, after the clean-up, the holes came out 1/16" smaller than spec.
A fly cutter probably would've let me pick up that extra 1/16, but I'm
OK living with optional lightening holes that are a touch smaller than
they could've been.
Keeping a close eye on the classifieds for a used drill press at the
right price,
Jeff C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Schedule for fly-in |
Doug, This will not be formated to well, so I'll just write it as it will
play out. Fri. Apr. 30th-early arrivals. Provide transportation until 7pm.
After Capital Cab Co. is available. May 1st - 9am Breakfast call til
10:30am. Arrivals through-out the morning. Lunch call 11am till 1-2pm?
Welcome announcements. Prize/Trophy entry all afternoon. Static display
viewing through-out the day. May 2nd - 9am - Donutes & Coffee. 9:30-10am
award announcements if not done on saturday afternoon due to early
departures on Sunday morning. 10am- on will be departures.
Our airport managers are going to set up a NOTAM for the
event due to the hopeful heavy traffic. They are also working on giving all
fly-in participants a fuel discount$$ . Someone knows someone at the Pinon
Plaza Resort and is working that avenue for discounts on room rates. I
myself am working on contacting vendors to donate some cool prizes for the
event, and we are in the process of designing T-Shirts for the fly-in. I
would also let everyone know that our city is known for its history. There
are museums,capital buildings, and Historical Virginia City. Lots to do in a
very small amout of time. We are going to have a great time and hope all the
effort pays off with everyone there that can make this fly-in.
Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frederick Oldenburg <foldenburg(at)earthlink.net> |
Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the machined
head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? I'm getting ready to
rivet the HS-609 rear spar stiffeners to the HS-603 rear spar channels on my
RV-7A Empennage. It seems to me that the rivets should be pointing aft - i.e.
the shop heads would be on the aft side, against the reinforcement bars and the
machine heads would be flush against the thinner spar channel material.
Is this correct? Is there a rule of thumb? After surfing other builder's websites,
I've seen it done both ways. Does it matter?
Thanks,
Fred
Fred Oldenburg
N270S (Reserved) RV-7A - Empennage
http://www.rv.oldsack.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Direction |
In a message dated 2/23/04 11:20:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
foldenburg(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the
machined head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? >>
The rule of thumb I have used is that the shop head should be on the side
with the thicker material, or with the shop head down or aft for equal thickness
material. In practice I find that I frequently have to violate these rules
because of access for the rivet gun or squeezer.
PS: There are no dumb questions (but there are some dumb answers and I hope
this isn't one of them).
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, final assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | This Saturday's Flyin is ON. |
Damn, I wish Seattle was closer to KY so I could go ;)
-Will
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Denis Walsh
Subject: Re: RV-List: This Saturday's Flyin is ON.
A perfect neighborhood!
On Feb 23, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Dana Overall wrote:
> large Liquor World at exit 87, right beside
> Hooters.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Direction |
The rule of thumb is that the manufactured head should go on the thinner
material and the shop head should be on the thicker material. This is just
a rule of thumb and not the law. It is to help keep the thinner material
from warping when you drive the rivet. Sometimes for aesthetic reasons you
can turn this around, and occasionally you will find places where it is just
plain difficult to set the rivet unless you break the 'rule'.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederick Oldenburg" <foldenburg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rivet Direction
>
> Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the
machined head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? I'm
getting ready to rivet the HS-609 rear spar stiffeners to the HS-603 rear
spar channels on my RV-7A Empennage. It seems to me that the rivets should
be pointing aft - i.e. the shop heads would be on the aft side, against the
reinforcement bars and the machine heads would be flush against the thinner
spar channel material.
>
> Is this correct? Is there a rule of thumb? After surfing other builder's
websites, I've seen it done both ways. Does it matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
>
> Fred Oldenburg
> N270S (Reserved) RV-7A - Empennage
> http://www.rv.oldsack.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool(at)comcast.net> |
I had asked Van's this question when I first started because I also saw it
being done both ways on that same part. They told me the rule of thumb was
to put the shop head on the side of the thicker material but that it wasn't
a big deal if you put them in the other direction for places of difficult
access or where you'd rather have the factory heads in a visible spot. They
made it sound like the rule of thumb wasn't anything to think too much about
though.
-Will Allen
North Bend,Wa
RV8 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frederick Oldenburg
Subject: RV-List: Rivet Direction
Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the
machined head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? I'm
getting ready to rivet the HS-609 rear spar stiffeners to the HS-603 rear
spar channels on my RV-7A Empennage. It seems to me that the rivets should
be pointing aft - i.e. the shop heads would be on the aft side, against the
reinforcement bars and the machine heads would be flush against the thinner
spar channel material.
Is this correct? Is there a rule of thumb? After surfing other builder's
websites, I've seen it done both ways. Does it matter?
Thanks,
Fred
Fred Oldenburg
N270S (Reserved) RV-7A - Empennage
http://www.rv.oldsack.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com> |
Anybody know how to get in touch with Ed Hicks. He's the photographer from
the UK whose pictures are on the covers of most RV-ators.
Thanks,
Andy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Direction |
The rule of thumb is the machined end of the rivet (already formed end that
doesn't change shape with the squeezing/riveting) should be on the side
having the thinner material. This rule does not apply to countersunk type
rivets.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
Firewall Forward
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frederick Oldenburg" <foldenburg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rivet Direction
>
> Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the
machined head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? I'm
getting ready to rivet the HS-609 rear spar stiffeners to the HS-603 rear
spar channels on my RV-7A Empennage. It seems to me that the rivets should
be pointing aft - i.e. the shop heads would be on the aft side, against the
reinforcement bars and the machine heads would be flush against the thinner
spar channel material.
>
> Is this correct? Is there a rule of thumb? After surfing other builder's
websites, I've seen it done both ways. Does it matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
>
> Fred Oldenburg
> N270S (Reserved) RV-7A - Empennage
> http://www.rv.oldsack.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rivet Direction |
Hi Frederick,
My preference (although I reserve the right to not always follow this ;) is to
place the rivet so that I'm sqeezing the work together as the rivet is being
driven.
Failing that, I place the rivet to give the best access for driving it.
I had a tech counselor out a several weeks ago and I explained the above and he
didn't see any faults.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
Emp
SB Wings on order - 11 week lead time (sigh)
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Frederick Oldenburg wrote:
>
> Ok this may be a dumb question, but how do I determine which side the
> machined head of the rivet should be on? Is there a rule of thumb? I'm
> getting ready to rivet the HS-609 rear spar stiffeners to the HS-603 rear
> spar channels on my RV-7A Empennage. It seems to me that the rivets should be
> pointing aft - i.e. the shop heads would be on the aft side, against the
> reinforcement bars and the machine heads would be flush against the thinner
> spar channel material.
>
> Is this correct? Is there a rule of thumb? After surfing other builder's
> websites, I've seen it done both ways. Does it matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Oil on the Windscreen!! |
Saturday was a glorious day in the Pacific Northwest --
clear skies, about 45 degrees in the morning, and vis
must have been over 100 miles. I had finished flying
off my 25 hours and was going to take up my first
passengers: my wife and then my daughter.
I first flew a 1/2 hour flight to get some climb data
from the EFIS-D10 to do some experimenting with ROC
calculations. I'll report more about that at some
later time. After landing, I met my wife and got her
into the airplane. After takeoff, we realized pretty
quickly that she should have had a bunch more cushions
under her so her vision was somewhat obstructed by
the panel. None-the-less, we climbed up to 5500' and
flew just on the west side of the Cascade mountains.
Just a really beautiful flight if you like mountains.
A small amount of light chop got her attention, but
it was basically an uneventful first passenger flight.
We landed and changed passengers to my daughter. As
I have previously mentioned, she is interested in
getting her license and couldn't wait to get in my
plane. Again, an uneventful takeoff and climbout.
About 2000', I gave her the stick and we immediately
started doing a 3 dimensional rain dance (sorry
Michelle!). She wasn't used to the "touchy" controls
of an RV given that she only has 2-3 hours of stick
time in certified airplanes. We again skirted the
Cascades for awhile and then started heading back to
the airport. About 15 minutes away from the airport,
I noticed some spots on the right side of the wind-
screen. My first thought was we had flown through a
swarm of bugs, but we kept hitting more bugs and the
streaks kept getting longer! OIL! Ok, how bad is
it? Oil pressure/temperature ok. Let's just head
right back to the airport! The streaks kept coming
but rate didn't seem to increase. I did a normal pattern,
landed, and got out of the plane. Yep, the wind-
screen had oil on it. Looked at the left side of
the plane as I got out -- nothing. Went around to
the right side -- yowsers! -- an oil streak from the
front of the cowl all the way to the trailing edge
of the wing. The front of the cowl had oil all over
it as well.
I cleaned the oil off the plane and then took the
cowl off. Both cowl halves have a lot of oil on
them as well as behind the spinner plate and all
over the front of the engine. It is likely to be
either the front seal or the seal in the crankshaft.
(My engine is an O320-E2D with Sensenich fixed pitch.)
I'll take the prop and flywheel off as soon as I get
a chance and see what is going on. I did check the
oil level and could see only a small difference in
the level. I estimate I lost less than a cup total,
but it sure can make a mess.
I talked to another friend who had his engine assembled
by the same IA I did and he said his front seal had
come out as well. He says there is a better adhesive
to use than the one this IA did. Hopefully, this
won't keep me on the ground to long.
Be careful out there!
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM (call sign RV 6 Delta Mike!) grounded.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Alt-Trak Part Deux |
I flew to Midland TX this weekend ~800nm each way. 6.75 down (40 to 55kt.
headwinds) 4.5 back.
The Alt-Trak is WONDERFUL! But...... My earlier post about it not
interfereing with my Dynon magnetometer is false, on northerly headings is
makes a 15 deg swing when I turn the Alt-Trak on and off, so I have to move
the magnetometer. Minor bummer....
The other thing is, after the Alt-Trak has been engaged for a while it has
some EMI in my headset when the intercom is on. If I switch to pilot
isolate it goes away, and I can only hear it with my noise cancelling on,
but it is slightly annoying. Not nearly as annoying as chasing altitudes.
I must confess I cheated on the wire size. The supplied insructions said 20
ga wire for the power line and I has some computer wire that was shielded
with the needed number of 24 ga conductors. The servo said something like
1.2 amps on it so I figured 24 gauge would cut it. I also grounded it to
the airframe behind the panel. All the rest of the panel is grounded to a
grounding lug by the battery, but If that was the problem I would think it
would happen imeadiately rather than after warming up.
So, for the EMI police, is it possible that heavier wire would solve the
problem?
Any thoughts? Are there some easy tricks I might try?
Do not over blow this, it is NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! If I never solve it, I have
no worries, I love my Dynon and I love my Alt-trak, neither one of them are
coming out of my airplane!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
140 hours Dynon time lotsa IMC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Leaky AN Fittings |
Paul asked for the specifications for an AN flaired fitting. I use the
following:
There is one specification which is the width of the flair measured across
the outside of the opening. Lets call this Dimension "A." If the tube outside
diameter is 1/8 inch, Dimension "A" should be 0.224 plus and minus 0.010
inches. If the tube outside diameter is 1/4 inches, Dimension "A" should be 0.359
plus and minus 0.010 inches.
The flair tool should be screwed down until you feel moderate resistance.
This will give you the proper Dimension "A." It is possible to force the flair
tool too hard and exceed Dimension "A." Once you know what Dimension "A"
should be, you will be able to develop just the right touch for tightening the
flairing tool. Don't forget to put a drop of oil on the male cone of the
flairing tool each time you use it.
Pete Hunt
Clearwater, FL (sunny and 78 degrees today)
RV-6, Installing engine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alt-Trak Part Deux |
Just an FYI about the shielded wire.
Since I've been selling a LOT of Dynon harnesses, and given the EMI issues, I decided
to start building the Dynon harnesses out of shielded wire. So, my first
thought to keep cost down was to use Belend computer wire or something similar.
I bought a whole bunch of different shielded wire to study and spoke with
a bunch of Reps at the wire manufactureres.
Basically, for a number of reasons I came to the conclusion that I'd bit the bullet
and buy Mil-Spec tefzel shielded wire (about $2500 worth).
Now I've got a ton of shielded wire on the way, I already have a couple thousand
feet of shielded AWG20, but I also have a 4 wire shielded AWG22 coming for the
remote mag sensor harness.
One of the things about computer cabling vs. Mil-Spec cable that I didn't realize
is the type and density of the shielding. Some of the computer wire has a
braided shield, but it is smaller wire, and lower weave density, the rest has
a foil shield. The experts tell me the Mil-Spec wire has a higher density and
thicker braid for the shield, and the tin or silver coating is much more uniform.
Might be a bunchof crap, but that's what I've been told.
Just my typical 2 cents....
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
http://www.steinair.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:18:51 -0600
>
>I flew to Midland TX this weekend ~800nm each way. 6.75 down (40 to 55kt.
>headwinds) 4.5 back.
>
>The Alt-Trak is WONDERFUL! But...... My earlier post about it not
>interfereing with my Dynon magnetometer is false, on northerly headings is
>makes a 15 deg swing when I turn the Alt-Trak on and off, so I have to move
>the magnetometer. Minor bummer....
>
>The other thing is, after the Alt-Trak has been engaged for a while it has
>some EMI in my headset when the intercom is on. If I switch to pilot
>isolate it goes away, and I can only hear it with my noise cancelling on,
>but it is slightly annoying. Not nearly as annoying as chasing altitudes.
>
>I must confess I cheated on the wire size. The supplied insructions said 20
>ga wire for the power line and I has some computer wire that was shielded
>with the needed number of 24 ga conductors. The servo said something like
>1.2 amps on it so I figured 24 gauge would cut it. I also grounded it to
>the airframe behind the panel. All the rest of the panel is grounded to a
>grounding lug by the battery, but If that was the problem I would think it
>would happen imeadiately rather than after warming up.
>
>So, for the EMI police, is it possible that heavier wire would solve the
>problem?
>Any thoughts? Are there some easy tricks I might try?
>
>Do not over blow this, it is NOT A BIG DEAL!!!! If I never solve it, I have
>no worries, I love my Dynon and I love my Alt-trak, neither one of them are
>coming out of my airplane!
>
>Tailwinds,
>Doug Rozendaal
>
>140 hours Dynon time lotsa IMC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
If you don't like the rigid metal tubing approach, you might want to
consider Teflon PTFE tubing. It is rated to 500 deg. F. See the
McMaster-Carr catalog, page 94, at http://www.mcmaster.com/. Note that
it uses compression fittings, also available from McMaster-Carr.
Incidentally, I have found their web site easy to use and that they are
very easy to deal with. They do not give you shipping costs in advance,
but I have found their costs to be very reasonable and the shipping to be
very prompt. There are other places that are cheaper for many items, but
I like them for hard-to-find industrial-grade items.
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in Franklin,
Tennessee)
(snip)
I then went to the Piper blade, heated pitot tube and disconnected the
lines. Both of the lines were plugged at the pitot tube by melted
tubing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Ozzies, poms and yanks (very off-list) |
j1j2h3(at)juno.com wrote:
> But for those, only those in Maine,
> Connecticut and Vermont are Yankees. But if you get further north than
> that , you're a Canadian (some people use another term, but I won't
> repeat it.)
Don't forget New Hampshire! *grin*
Oh, and the top third of Maine is commonly
known as Southern Occupied Canada
for us Mainers (er, Main-ahs! )
Most everyone up there talks both
Canadian French and English, or just
Canadian French! :-)
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karie Daniel" <karie4(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System |
I'm looking at the installation instructions for the static air system. The
Static Air kit.doc and it looks like this is installed on the bulkhead just
aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. However after looking at some
installs on other builders web sites it appears to be on the bulkhead near
the seat beat anchor, just below the anchors for the static ports.
Is the correct bulkhead the one nearest the seatbelt anchors? It looks like
the document clearly has it on the one forward of that bulkhead.
Thanks,
Karie Daniel
Sammamish, WA.
RV-7A In Progress!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44(at)earthlink.net> |
"Rocket List"
Are there any good mechanics lurking out there who can tell me how to stop
the tach drive on my RV-4 from leaking? There is a seal shown in the manual
but the drive isn't shown and no word on how to replace the seal. I am
trying to get it ready to sell when I fly the Rocket and oil in the tach
isn't a good selling point.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System |
Be careful...I believe they changed the location from the -6 to the -7 by
moving it aft one bulkhead. Call Van's, the only authority on this, to
clarify.
The reason I installed mine aft was because...
On the static kit instructions, the drawings look hand-scribbled. I figured
that was the same kit they shipped to -6 builders back when hand-scribbled
drawings were a rare treat. 8-)
On the RV-7 fuselage drawings (at least on mine, I'm 70379), the static port
location is called out one bulkhead aft, as you noticed. Those drawings are
much higher quality (CAD) and are obviously more recent...well, at least I
assume so. So I took the more recent looking drawing, and the
model-specific drawing (RV-7), to be gospel in my case.
Again, don't take my word for it...if you're unsure, give Van's a call.
(Just had my pitot/static/xpdr check today...14D is IFR certified for a
couple of years...woohoo! And the Dynon's altitude accuracy is amazing, I
must say.)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karie Daniel" <karie4(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System
>
> I'm looking at the installation instructions for the static air system.
The
> Static Air kit.doc and it looks like this is installed on the bulkhead
just
> aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. However after looking at some
> installs on other builders web sites it appears to be on the bulkhead near
> the seat beat anchor, just below the anchors for the static ports.
>
> Is the correct bulkhead the one nearest the seatbelt anchors? It looks
like
> the document clearly has it on the one forward of that bulkhead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karie Daniel
> Sammamish, WA.
> RV-7A In Progress!
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil on the Windscreen!! |
I talked to another friend who had his engine assembled
by the same IA I did and he said his front seal had
come out as well. He says there is a better adhesive
to use than the one this IA did. Hopefully, this
won't keep me on the ground to long.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the front crank plug is to be installed
with force, not with adhesive. I was shown to place the plug in with
the concave side facing out, then basically pound it in with a thick
wood dowel and hammer until it flattened out. I added a bead of red
Loctite for belt -n- suspenders. Several A & P types have viewed this
and told me it was done right.
Jeff Point
RV-6 inspection scheduled 3-6-04
Milwaukee WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil on the Windscreen!! |
I believe he is talking about the seal not the plug
Jerry
Jeff Point wrote:
>
>I talked to another friend who had his engine assembled
>by the same IA I did and he said his front seal had
>come out as well. He says there is a better adhesive
>to use than the one this IA did. Hopefully, this
>won't keep me on the ground to long.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but the front crank plug is to be installed
>with force, not with adhesive. I was shown to place the plug in with
>the concave side facing out, then basically pound it in with a thick
>wood dowel and hammer until it flattened out. I added a bead of red
>Loctite for belt -n- suspenders. Several A & P types have viewed this
>and told me it was done right.
>
>Jeff Point
>RV-6 inspection scheduled 3-6-04
>Milwaukee WI
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JW MILLS" <fly-me(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach drive leak |
Jim,
buy the new seal
disconnected the tach cable at the drive
bend sharp hook bend in a piece of welding rod
reach in and pull the old seal out from the back side
you will destroy it but don't worry about it
be carefull not to score the case while pulling the seal with your new tool
tap the new seal in place and you are good to go
I used the same procedure on a Pitts I just sold. It works fine, just a little
tedious removing the seal.
JW
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Anglin
To: RV List ; Rocket List
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:59 PM
Subject: RV-List: Tach drive leak
Are there any good mechanics lurking out there who can tell me how to stop
the tach drive on my RV-4 from leaking? There is a seal shown in the manual
but the drive isn't shown and no word on how to replace the seal. I am
trying to get it ready to sell when I fly the Rocket and oil in the tach
isn't a good selling point.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Pilla" <mpilla(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Albuquerque Listers? |
Are there any listers in the Albuquerque area? My wife and I are going to
be there this coming Friday afternoon through Sunday afternoon. We have a
fairly full schedule, but it would be nice to see someone else's project.
I'm at the finishing kit stages of my RV-4, #2866.
Thanks.
Michael Pilla
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach drive leak |
I dont know if this will work but it worked great in a different
application.
I used a strong fishing hook to remove a seal. Straighten it out, grab it
with a pair of vice grips, push it in and twist. The barb dug in and made
it easy to remove. Just a thought.
Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
44 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "JW MILLS" <fly-me(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tach drive leak
>
> Jim,
>
> buy the new seal
> disconnected the tach cable at the drive
> bend sharp hook bend in a piece of welding rod
> reach in and pull the old seal out from the back side
> you will destroy it but don't worry about it
> be carefull not to score the case while pulling the seal with your new
tool
> tap the new seal in place and you are good to go
>
> I used the same procedure on a Pitts I just sold. It works fine, just a
little tedious removing the seal.
>
> JW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Anglin
> To: RV List ; Rocket List
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:59 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Tach drive leak
>
>
> Are there any good mechanics lurking out there who can tell me how to
stop
> the tach drive on my RV-4 from leaking? There is a seal shown in the
manual
> but the drive isn't shown and no word on how to replace the seal. I am
> trying to get it ready to sell when I fly the Rocket and oil in the tach
> isn't a good selling point.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)QCBC.ORG> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach drive leak |
Don't know how "good" I am but the seal for the tach drive is in the engine.
The piece that you screw on the drive cable has the seal. It must be
removed and the seal in the engine side of the flange.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or sportpilot(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Tach drive leak
>
> Are there any good mechanics lurking out there who can tell me how to stop
> the tach drive on my RV-4 from leaking? There is a seal shown in the
manual
> but the drive isn't shown and no word on how to replace the seal. I am
> trying to get it ready to sell when I fly the Rocket and oil in the tach
> isn't a good selling point.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bluecavu(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: racer's question: prop loss in flight |
The ones I've seen used about a 1/4" cable that went from some sort of
fitting at the base of one of the mount legs at the firewall where it was swaged
and
then around the crankcase between the cylinders where it used the cable
clamps with the u-bolts and nuts from a hardware store. Some sort of rubber or
plastic tubing to feed the cable through was used to prevent chafing, and the
whole affair was ty-wrapped to the mount legs to keep it neat along it's run. Only
a minimal length of cable was used.
I was strongly considering this after my experience with a Global QCS prop
this last year -after finding cracks at the blade root ends. Check the archives
for more on this prop.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil on the Windscreen!! |
I believe that the crank plug should be inserted with the convex side
pointing forward...that way, when you whack it the metal expands outward and
seats into the surrounding area...if you had the concave side pointing
forward the whack would make the plug essentially a smaller diameter and
would not seal properly...right?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Mader" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> |
| Subject: | Oil on the Windscreen!! |
Doug
Same scenario happened to me with the exact same engine on a flight to
Amarillo.....
(with my wife, naturally). First noticed a few specks of oil on the
windscreen, then
progressively worse. When we landed, we determined it was the front seal
and had
it replaced.
After no more than 50 hrs. the seal went out again.....(the first and
second were both
installed by A&P's). After doing some investigating and making a few
phone
calls, I found out that there are two different seals that will fit the
E2D, and that the best
one is the seal that doesn't use the small diameter spring. You would
naturally think
that this would work better than the other type, since it holds pressure
against the
crank but after replacing with the other type, and 400+ hrs. later.......no
leaks. Sorry,
I can't give you the part #
Dave Mader
2nd slow build 6
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of dmedema(at)att.net
Subject: RV-List: Oil on the Windscreen!!
I talked to another friend who had his engine assembled
by the same IA I did and he said his front seal had
come out as well. He says there is a better adhesive
to use than the one this IA did. Hopefully, this
won't keep me on the ground to long.
Be careful out there!
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM (call sign RV 6 Delta Mike!) grounded.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Diffenbaugh" <diff(at)foothill.net> |
| Subject: | Heated air inlet location |
There appear to be two choices for heater air inlet location - left front
baffle floor or right rear baffle bulkhead. I would prefer to locate it on
the right rear for simplicity, but am wondering if anyone can correlate
cylinder # 3 typically running hot (summertime) with right rear location, or
high oil temps (left rear baffle mounted oil cooler) with left front inlet
location? I have the standard Vans set up with right mounted muff and
bypass valve on firewall. Any other pros and cons would be appreciated.
Scott RV7A 80% complete
Scott Diffenbaugh
diff(at)foothill.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob U." <rv3(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil on the Windscreen!! |
Dave Mader wrote:
>
>Doug
>
>Same scenario happened to me with the exact same engine on a flight to
>Amarillo.....
>(with my wife, naturally). First noticed a few specks of oil on the
>windscreen, then
>progressively worse. When we landed, we determined it was the front seal
>and had
>it replaced.
>After no more than 50 hrs. the seal went out again.....(the first and
>second were both
>installed by A&P's). After doing some investigating and making a few
>phone
>calls, I found out that there are two different seals that will fit the
>E2D, and that the best
>one is the seal that doesn't use the small diameter spring. You would
>naturally think
>that this would work better than the other type, since it holds pressure
>against the
>crank but after replacing with the other type, and 400+ hrs. later.......no
>leaks. Sorry,
>I can't give you the part #
>
>Dave Mader
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An additional note.....
If the crankcase breather system becomes sufficiently restricted, the
seal will fail. This can be caused by ice forming in the vent pipe or
masking tape not removed from it after a paint job.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil on the Windscreen!! |
Concave, convex, maybe it's been too long since high school geometry.
You are correct. What I meant was that the rounded part should face the
front, as you describe.
Jeff
John wrote:
>
>I believe that the crank plug should be inserted with the convex side
>pointing forward...that way, when you whack it the metal expands outward and
>seats into the surrounding area...if you had the concave side pointing
>forward the whack would make the plug essentially a smaller diameter and
>would not seal properly...right?
>John
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <benandginny(at)insightbb.com> |
I just spoke with Vans today and my RV7 finish kit is ready to ship. 10 weeks
from the time I ordered. (Not the 16 weeks as advertised). I would like some
info on what tools, products, and just nice things to have, that I can order
now to be ready to go when this kit arrives. Specifically items for the canopy,
fiberglass work etc.
Ben Cunningham
RV7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net> |
| Subject: | Heated air inlet location |
I had a guy in the shop yesterday that got recruited to help in the fist
engine start up of my -8A. Looking it over with a fine eye he questioned me
why I didn't take the cabin heat air off the oil cooler exit air? We'll
Makes sense to me. Maybe next time?
Just one more thought.
Noel
RV-8A going for inspection tomorrow
RV-10 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
Diffenbaugh
Subject: RV-List: Heated air inlet location
There appear to be two choices for heater air inlet location - left front
baffle floor or right rear baffle bulkhead. I would prefer to locate it on
the right rear for simplicity, but am wondering if anyone can correlate
cylinder # 3 typically running hot (summertime) with right rear location, or
high oil temps (left rear baffle mounted oil cooler) with left front inlet
location? I have the standard Vans set up with right mounted muff and
bypass valve on firewall. Any other pros and cons would be appreciated.
Scott RV7A 80% complete
Scott Diffenbaugh
diff(at)foothill.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Heated air inlet location |
> I had a guy in the shop yesterday that got recruited to help
> in the fist engine start up of my -8A. Looking it over with a
> fine eye he questioned me why I didn't take the cabin heat
> air off the oil cooler exit air? We'll Makes sense to me.
> Maybe next time?
>
> Just one more thought.
>
> Noel
>
> RV-8A going for inspection tomorrow
There is a new, unflown, 7A here that does just that. The oil cooler is
mounted on the baffle, and a 2" scat runs from the exit of the cooler to
the muff heater, then to the firewall heater box. My money says the oil
will run too hot in the summer, with the outlet restriction that the
heater stuff presents. We'll stay tuned and I'll report back this
summer.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 442 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
"'Doug Medema'"@matronics.com
Doug,
Couple of comments,
If its the welsh plug in the front, make sure you install it concave out
then flatten it, but before you do this make sure the aft plug has a hole in
it, or it is removed. Full engine oil pressure will move oil out of the
front plug, and has been known to move the plug itself out.
RE the garlock (lip) seal, lycoming has used two methods for retaining this,
one had a 1/16" ridge on the outer perimeter face of the seal that fits into
a groove cut in the case. The other method was two plates that bolted on to
the front of the case. Many cases still have the bosses for the bolt holes
used to attach the plate, but they are cut with the groove for the other
type instead of having the bolt holes cut. Additionally many engine gasket
kits include both types of seals but they shouldn't be swapped.
I also recommend you use the uncut (full circle) type of seal even though
its a bitch to get over the flange. Lots of tape on the flange, two well
polished pry bars and soak the seal in some boiling water for a good 3/5
minutes. Once its over the flange let it recover from the pucker for a few
minutes before getting the spring back in it and inserting it.
Also make sure your crankshaft has no anomallies on the sealing area. Crocus
cloth to fix, if that won't fix it, then yank the crank and have it done
right.
On several engines, including mine, I have taken the time to drill out and
tap the holes to bolt on the retainer plates, as this seems to be the most
secure way to keep that seal in there. But these bolts must be secured and
the prop bolts must clear them.
The other thing is to make sure your case vent is working and ram air is not
pressurizing the case.
RE sealers, neither of these should be glued in, but a non-hardening sealer
should be used to seal them.
And finally, since you are in there make sure you take the time to clean,
inspect and sign off the 5 year lyc crankshaft AD. There's nothing that says
you can't do it early.
W
One additional note, if you can get to them, make sure the front case 3/8"
front bearing bolts through the case are properly tight, I have seen one
instance where the leak was from the split, but came out right at the edge
of the garlock seal.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Heated air inlet location |
In a message dated 2/24/04 12:23:51 PM Central Standard Time,
noel(at)blueskyaviation.net writes:
> why I didn't take the cabin heat air off the oil cooler exit air?
This has come up on the list a few times over the last several years. Seems
that it works OK until it gets cold outside- also consider that you'll want
that heat to stay in the oil if it's really cold outside to keep the H2O out of
it... Taking the heat out of the exhaust pipes is free- it even reduces back
pressure from the dramatic cooling ot the exhaust gasses before they exit the
pipe, resulting in better cylinder scavenging, more power, more speed, less
fuel burn, more(aaaaaarrrrrrghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!)
OK, so I'm exxagerating a little, but the first part is in the archives...
8-)
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
"'RV-List Digest Server'"@matronics.com
| Subject: | RE: Crank plug (from RV-list) |
Well,
I'm thinking I could have said this semantically better, or at least
accurately.
The center of the disc shape should be more forward then the rim until
flattened.
Or, the inside of the cup shape faces rearwards. Unless of course the engine
is in a Long-Ez.
Which is actually convex side facing fwd. duh. And is what I was thinking in
spite of my finger's desire to type something different.
The plug is a welsh plug which is desgined to be shaped into place. This
causes the retention to occur from the swelling action of the plug causing
an interference fit.
Generally a flat dowel about 95% of the plug's diameter is used to install
it.
Cast engine blocks use them a lot, but they are often called freeze plugs,
and have a flange, like the rear Lyc crankshaft plug does.
W
-----Original Message-----
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com [mailto:Fiveonepw(at)aol.com]
Subject: Crank plug (from RV-list)
Howdy Wheeler-
re: "If its the welsh plug in the front, make sure you install it concave
out
then flatten it"
I've been on this list for quite a while and it always seems you know what
you're talking about, but on this thing my ignorance is really bugging me-
I'd never heard of the "flatten out the plug" deal until it came up on the
list a month ago or so and have asked several homebuilders and even a couple
of A&Ps here about it and I have gotten mostly blank stares... The plug in
my crank (E3D) has the dome, facing forward, and is obviously not
"flattened". The crank was yellow-tagged and the engine assembled by an
A&P. I can't recall ever seeing anything about this in the Lycoming
literature either. Is this one of those dark secrets that only members of
the brotherhood of the inner sanctum of Lyc privy to?
Thanks for any info- I'm getting a little nervous about my plug!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
A friend just experienced a failure I haven't seen on the list. After preheating
his RV8 with a torpedo heater directed through the cowl exit ramp, his mixture
control froze solid. It turns out that the control cables Vans supplies for
throttle, mixture, and prop contain something inside that melts then jams the
cable when it cools. I don't know the critical temperature, but it occurred
to me to wonder if others had experienced this who might have a better handle
on how hot those cables can get before they start melting. I'm also wondering
if the aftermath of an in flight fire that you blow/starve out might leave
you in the air with jammed controls. Any thoughts?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
"'RV-List Digest Server'"@matronics.com
| Subject: | RE: Crank plug (from RV-list) |
To answer your second question, yes lycoming data does not seem to indiacte
that it should be flattened, they just use the term install in each case. I
guess you should magically know this. I have been trying to recollect where
I learned it, but its been to many years???
But installing Welsh Plug means to flatten it some. Lycoming officially
calls it an "expansion plug" so they must assume this is all you need to
know to get it.
The fact that yours is still neatly dome shaped probably means that they
used the Lycoming tool which doesn't really flatten it completely, but does
flatten/swell it some. It takes very little distortion to get it to be
tight. This device is NOT meant to hold pressure other than case pressure
since it has no flanged edges, it just needs to stay in place and hold the
sealer in place so the oil goes the other way.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
Any pictures available for the installation? The piper blade seems like a
pretty good idea. Has anyone used something like the 172 heated
pitot? That seems to be very similar to the Gretz design. Do most folk
agree that near the wingtip is acceptable when putting heated pitot on RV
6A that does not currently have one? Thanks.
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Swales contractor to the
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System |
Does the static air kit for the -7 still use the little black T with 4
"barbs" on each of the 3 ends? With instructions to put a short piece (abt
1") of the 1/4" OD tubing (milky white semi-transparent) on the 2 ends to
receive the smaller 3/16" OD "fish tank" clear tubing that comes from each
static port?
That is what was provided in the -6 kit - and the ends of the 1/4" OD tubing
would split after 2 or 3 days of being on the cheap T.
I replaced the cheap T with a Parker (as in Parker Hannifin) black plastic
(poly) T, that the 1/4" OD tubing would slip into and then tighten down the
"cap" to make a tight connection. P/N P4TU4, $2.45, or Van's could buy for
$1.75 each in a lot of 1000 for shipping with kits.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karie Daniel" <karie4(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System
>
> I'm looking at the installation instructions for the static air system.
The
> Static Air kit.doc and it looks like this is installed on the bulkhead
just
> aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. However after looking at some
> installs on other builders web sites it appears to be on the bulkhead near
> the seat beat anchor, just below the anchors for the static ports.
>
> Is the correct bulkhead the one nearest the seatbelt anchors? It looks
like
> the document clearly has it on the one forward of that bulkhead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karie Daniel
> Sammamish, WA.
> RV-7A In Progress!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming for sale |
Who do I need to contact for info. My email address is:
parita(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FrozenControls |
Dave,
That's encouraging! This is really good information. It sounds like the
inner jacket must be nylon. I had to pay for 3 prop cables to get the right one,
but that's another story. What I mean is that I have 2 extra cables to do
some testing on, if it becomes necessary.
To get information on the cables, go directly to ACS products in Arizona.
They were spun off from Aircraft Spruce, and they are where Van's and A/C Spruce
get the cables. If you need cables, like a different length prop cable
(front mounted governor) go directly to ACS Products for it. You can email me
and
I'll look up the info for you. (This is the voice of experience!)
Dan RV-7A (almost done)
In a message dated 2/24/04 3:42:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time, dreel(at)cox.net
writes:
>
> A friend just experienced a failure I haven't seen on the list. After
> preheating his RV8 with a torpedo heater directed through the cowl exit ramp,
his
> mixture control froze solid. It turns out that the control cables Vans
> supplies for throttle, mixture, and prop contain something inside that melts
then
> jams the cable when it cools. I don't know the critical temperature, but it
> occurred to me to wonder if others had experienced this who might have a
> better handle on how hot those cables can get before they start melting. I'm
> also wondering if the aftermath of an in flight fire that you blow/starve out
> might leave you in the air with jammed controls. Any thoughts?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
RV-List
| Subject: | FWF delivery time? |
How is it taking to get the FWF kit after you order it ? Trying to
figure out when to order?
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
> That's encouraging! This is really good information. It
> sounds like the
> inner jacket must be nylon. I had to pay for 3 prop cables
> to get the right one,
> but that's another story. What I mean is that I have 2 extra
> cables to do
> some testing on, if it becomes necessary.
If it is nylon, the melting temps are around 400F. The temps coming out
of one of those torpedo heaters must be something above 1300F, since the
steel glows red. My advice would be to not use one of those blow
torches to pre heat an airplane.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 442 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
Hi,
While installing the phillips screws into the various
nutplates, I got to asking myself if there are aviation
quality Torx screws that could be used instead. Does
anyone know of a supplier for Torx or at a minimum some
other type of hex head screw that won't slip off?
I even used Torx on my workbenches - they are great.
Thanks,
Mickey
PS: In case you don't know what the heck I'm talking
about, here is a photo:
http://rv8.ch/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=workshop&id=DSCN7925
or in case that wraps on your screen:
http://www.rv8.ch/albums/workshop/DSCN7925.jpg
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Calhoun" <roncal(at)earthlink.net> |
Mickey, these were made especially for the rv list. The first batch
heads twisted off, but they replaced all orders with new ones with
smaller torx. And will probably use then everywhere else
when I paint.
You can go direct to them at
http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm
They are listed as 6 lobe drive screws, but are Torx. I suspect it has
something to do with avoiding royalty payments for using the trademarked
name "Torx".
Ron Calhoun
RV-4
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Subject: RV-List: Screws
Hi,
While installing the phillips screws into the various nutplates, I got
to asking myself if there are aviation quality Torx screws that could be
used instead. Does anyone know of a supplier for Torx or at a minimum
some other type of hex head screw that won't slip off?
I even used Torx on my workbenches - they are great.
Thanks,
Mickey
PS: In case you don't know what the heck I'm talking
about, here is a photo:
http://rv8.ch/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=workshop&id=DSCN7925
or in case that wraps on your screen:
http://www.rv8.ch/albums/workshop/DSCN7925.jpg
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
=
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
=
=
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
If you want flat head:
http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm
Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>While installing the phillips screws into the various
>nutplates, I got to asking myself if there are aviation
>quality Torx screws that could be used instead. Does
>anyone know of a supplier for Torx or at a minimum some
>other type of hex head screw that won't slip off?
>
>I even used Torx on my workbenches - they are great.
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey
>
>PS: In case you don't know what the heck I'm talking
>about, here is a photo:
>
>http://rv8.ch/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=workshop&id=DSCN7925
>
>or in case that wraps on your screen:
>
>http://www.rv8.ch/albums/workshop/DSCN7925.jpg
>
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
www.microfasteners.com
Best wishes,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FrozenControls |
Alex,
That sounds like pretty good advice! Even a heat lamp, like a 250 watt red
colored bulb, puts out too much temperature to use to preheat with. Those red
silicone pads are probably a pretty good investment.
Dan RV7-A (almost finished)
In a message dated 2/24/04 6:27:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> If it is nylon, the melting temps are around 400F. The temps coming out
> of one of those torpedo heaters must be something above 1300F, since the
> steel glows red. My advice would be to not use one of those blow
> torches to pre heat an airplane.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 442 hours
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tube Melts Tubing |
> Any pictures available for the installation? The piper blade seems like a
> pretty good idea. Has anyone used something like the 172 heated
> pitot? That seems to be very similar to the Gretz design. Do most folk
> agree that near the wingtip is acceptable when putting heated pitot on RV
> 6A that does not currently have one? Thanks.
>
> Matthew M. Jurotich
An A&P installed his near the wingtip of his 6A and is counseling everyone
around here not to. There is a possibility of scraping the pitot tube on a
bad landing with it out there. I installed mine just outboard of the left
access hole. It is easy to get to and keeps it away from the tip.
Ross Mickey
N9PT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 Finish Kit |
sandpaper, Sandpaper, SANDPAPER! 8-)
I just recently tried a new flavor of paper from Norton called "3X High
Performance." I bought it from Home Depot and paid at least twice as much
as el cheapo paper.
But I gotta say that it works wonders. It really works as advertised and
doesn't load or clog up. Clap it and it's clear. It's almost too good
'cause it's hard to tell when it's appropriate to toss it. From now on I'm
going to overpay for the easier time. Too bad I learned this at the end of
the project...
You might also think about having Van's ship you an extra cutting disc that
they sell for cutting the canopy and stuff. They were cheap if I recall.
If you don't already have epoxy, fiberglass, and filler stuff (i.e.
microbaloons, flox, etc.)...grab some West System 105/205 epoxy -- Spruce
sells kits, which include resin & hardener. For like 10 bucks you can buy
the ratio pumps. The canard guys will laugh at you for using West System,
but screw 'em, it's so easy and works great.
Have fun,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <benandginny(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV7 Finish Kit
>
> I just spoke with Vans today and my RV7 finish kit is ready to ship.
10 weeks from the time I ordered. (Not the 16 weeks as advertised). I would
like some info on what tools, products, and just nice things to have, that I
can order now to be ready to go when this kit arrives. Specifically items
for the canopy, fiberglass work etc.
>
> Ben Cunningham
> RV7
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Davis" <rvpilot(at)access4less.net> |
From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Heated air inlet location
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:55 PM
I had a guy in the shop yesterday that got recruited to help in the fist
engine start up of my -8A. Looking it over with a fine eye he questioned me
why I didn't take the cabin heat air off the oil cooler exit air? We'll
Makes sense to me. Maybe next time?
Just one more thought.
Noel
RV-8A going for inspection tomorrow
RV-10 wings
-Have been using oil cooler exit air for cabin heat for years. Works great and
no CO worries.
Bill
RV-8 N48WD Tiger-Kat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phat Phil <phugoid(at)comcast.net> |
If you want pan head:
http://www.mcmaster.com/param/asp/psearch.asp?FAM=machine&FT_210=51189&FT_101=101210=51189;101=101
Richard Tasker wrote:
>
>If you want flat head:
>
>http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm
>
>Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
>
>Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>While installing the phillips screws into the various
>>nutplates, I got to asking myself if there are aviation
>>quality Torx screws that could be used instead. Does
>>anyone know of a supplier for Torx or at a minimum some
>>other type of hex head screw that won't slip off?
>>
>>I even used Torx on my workbenches - they are great.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Mickey
>>
>>PS: In case you don't know what the heck I'm talking
>>about, here is a photo:
>>
>>http://rv8.ch/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=workshop&id=DSCN7925
>>
>>or in case that wraps on your screen:
>>
>>http://www.rv8.ch/albums/workshop/DSCN7925.jpg
>>
>>
>>--
>>Mickey Coggins
>>http://www.rv8.ch/
>>#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
Mickey,
Microfasteners.com but you have to ask for the 100 degree heads. I have them
for my wing tips and wing fairings.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: RV-List: Screws
>
> Hi,
>
> While installing the phillips screws into the various
> nutplates, I got to asking myself if there are aviation
> quality Torx screws that could be used instead. Does
> anyone know of a supplier for Torx or at a minimum some
> other type of hex head screw that won't slip off?
>
> I even used Torx on my workbenches - they are great.
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> PS: In case you don't know what the heck I'm talking
> about, here is a photo:
>
> http://rv8.ch/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=workshop&id=DSCN7925
>
> or in case that wraps on your screen:
>
> http://www.rv8.ch/albums/workshop/DSCN7925.jpg
>
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
With heat from the oil cooler you will NOT get heat when you throttle back
for a long descent from altitude. The max. oil cooler temp is below 400
degrees;whereas the exhaust temp. is around 900 - 1400 degrees. The higher temp.
is
required for any COLD day or altitude.
Tried it and it didn't work !!
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: >Re:FWF Delivery Time |
Go to vansaircraft.com or phone 503-678-6545 .
Bob Olds
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Mack" <don(at)dmack.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FrozenControls |
A division of the company that I works for makes aircraft cables. You can
see them and email questions at:
http://cablecraft.com/Cablecraft/Gen_Air/
We are working on a "kit cable" web site now. From there you will be able to
custom order the length and type of cable you need.
Don Mack
don(at)dmack.net
www.dmack.net
----- Original Message -----
>
> Dave,
>
> That's encouraging! This is really good information. It sounds like the
> inner jacket must be nylon. I had to pay for 3 prop cables to get the
right one,
> but that's another story. What I mean is that I have 2 extra cables to do
> some testing on, if it becomes necessary.
>
> To get information on the cables, go directly to ACS products in Arizona.
> They were spun off from Aircraft Spruce, and they are where Van's and A/C
Spruce
> get the cables. If you need cables, like a different length prop cable
> (front mounted governor) go directly to ACS Products for it. You can
email me and
> I'll look up the info for you. (This is the voice of experience!)
>
> Dan RV-7A (almost done)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe A Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Condition Inspection Checklist |
Please I'm looking for a Condition Inspection Checklist for my first annual.
I've checked in the archives. The email addresses for the RVr's offering the checklist
were no longer valid. And I couldn't find the checklist in Kevin Horton's
website.
I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a Checklist source.
Thanks
Gabe A Ferrer
RV6 N2GX 105 hours
South Florida
Email: ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night Phone: 561 622 0960
Fax: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/28/04 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Opinions on new Ray Allen stick grips |
Listers,
I asked this question a few months ago, but got no replies. Has anyone installed
the new G300 series of stick grips on their RV? How do you like the hat switch
for controlling the electric trim? These look nice, but I'd like to hear an
opinion from someone who owns one.
TIA
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A wiring
Boca Raton, Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: >Re:FWF Delivery Time |
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Go to vansaircraft.com or phone 503-678-6545 .
>
> Bob Olds
>Charleston,Arkansas
>
>
vansaircraft.com does not say and only their answering machine picks up
after they are closed :-)
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel(at)blueskyaviation.net> |
I have used cable craft before, great service.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Mack
Subject: Re: RV-List: FrozenControls
A division of the company that I works for makes aircraft cables. You can
see them and email questions at:
http://cablecraft.com/Cablecraft/Gen_Air/
We are working on a "kit cable" web site now. From there you will be able to
custom order the length and type of cable you need.
Don Mack
don(at)dmack.net
www.dmack.net
----- Original Message -----
>
> Dave,
>
> That's encouraging! This is really good information. It sounds like the
> inner jacket must be nylon. I had to pay for 3 prop cables to get the
right one,
> but that's another story. What I mean is that I have 2 extra cables to do
> some testing on, if it becomes necessary.
>
> To get information on the cables, go directly to ACS products in Arizona.
> They were spun off from Aircraft Spruce, and they are where Van's and A/C
Spruce
> get the cables. If you need cables, like a different length prop cable
> (front mounted governor) go directly to ACS Products for it. You can
email me and
> I'll look up the info for you. (This is the voice of experience!)
>
> Dan RV-7A (almost done)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | FWF delivery time? |
Immediate shipment.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bobby Hester
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:10 PM
> To: RV7and7A; RV-List
> Subject: RV-List: FWF delivery time?
>
>
> How is it taking to get the FWF kit after you order it ? Trying to
> figure out when to order?
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jgburns" <jgburns(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Sun 'n Fun Rotary Discussion |
Please come by the rotary engine forum tent at Sun 'n Fun 2004 for discussion and
to meet other rotary enthusiasts.
More info on this webpage:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jgburns/Engine/Sun-n-fun-rotary.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karie Daniel" <karie4(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System |
Thanks for all of the replies. As noticed by several other builders, drawing
#28 does point this out clearly to be the more aft bulkhead (closest to the
seatbelt anchor). This doesn't really match up to the unclear one page
document that is included with the static kit but the drawing on the plans
page would be correct. It actually calls it the "suggested" placement for
the static port. You could assume and most probably know already that it
should work in either place though.
Following Vans suggestion and it really seems more of a likely place anyway,
I'll be installing it there. I would say that it would be nice to have a
little blurb on the static kit instructions that references drawing 28 but
that would really be whining.......wouldn't it? :-)
Thanks again everyone,
Karie Daniel
Sammamish, WA
RV-7A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Subject: RE: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Franz Fux"
>
> Just look at drawing # 28, detail E,
> Franz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
> To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV7-List: Installing the Static Air System
>
>
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Mark Taylor"
>
> Karie,
>
> Let us know what Van's says after speaking to them. I already fitted my
> ports, and (like an idiot) opted for the location that came with the
> kit. Looking back and reading these posts, I've a feeling I have messed
> up.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mark Taylor
> CAD Technical Specialist
> (313) 203-4714
>
> >>> karie4(at)comcast.net 02/23/04 11:26PM >>>
> --> RV7-List message posted by: "Karie Daniel"
>
> I'm looking at the installation instructions for the static air system.
> The Static Air kit.doc and it looks like this is installed on the
> bulkhead just aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. However after
> looking at some installs on other builders web sites it appears to the
> on the bulkhead near the seat beat anchor, just below the anchors for
> the static ports.
>
> Is the correct bulkhead the one nearest the seatbelt anchors? It looks
> like the document clearly has it on the one forward of that bulkhead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karie Daniel
> Sammamish, WA.
> RV-7A In Progress!
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Oldenburg" <foldenburg(at)earthlink.net> |
I start dimpling the Horizontal Stab left side skin tonight. The first
few dimples went fine, but then the male part of the die must of slipped
out of the skin between blows with the mallet.
You can see the result here:
http://www.rv.oldsack.com/weblog.php?id=C0_1_1
I'm really sick about this and I'm not quite sure what to do. I guess I
need to order a new skin from Vans. This is not the first screw up I've
had and I'm sure it is not the last.
Any advice here would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Fred
Frederick W. Oldenburg Jr.
RV-7A Standard Kit - Empennage
http://www.rv.oldsack.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Comeaux" <mcomeaux(at)bendnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ruined HS Skin |
Drill it out to 1/8 oops flush rivet? What do you think?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Oldenburg" <foldenburg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Ruined HS Skin
>
> I start dimpling the Horizontal Stab left side skin tonight. The first
> few dimples went fine, but then the male part of the die must of slipped
> out of the skin between blows with the mallet.
>
> You can see the result here:
> http://www.rv.oldsack.com/weblog.php?id=C0_1_1
>
> I'm really sick about this and I'm not quite sure what to do. I guess I
> need to order a new skin from Vans. This is not the first screw up I've
> had and I'm sure it is not the last.
>
> Any advice here would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
> Frederick W. Oldenburg Jr.
> RV-7A Standard Kit - Empennage
February 18, 2004 - February 25, 2004
RV-Archive.digest.vol-ox