RV-Archive.digest.vol-qd
November 26, 2004 - December 05, 2004
lighted vacuum
D.G. (new in 2001/$690) Best price over $200 for either one. Contact me
off list if
interested. davemader(at)bresnan.net
Dave Mader
2nd slow build 6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stanley Blanton" <stanb(at)door.net> |
| Subject: | titanium tie down bolts |
Try mcmaster.com (pn # 3103T31) for a forged titanium lifting eye bolt.
3/8 -16 thread
Stan Blanton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MnwPeeps(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | A "project" RV6A |
I have a slightly damaged 6A that may require a little more time and hustle
to repair than I'm interested in spending. I might well consider an offer here,
for what might be considered a relatively minor "project." Full IFR, great
plane - needs prop, spinner, nose gear, and likely an engine look-see. located
near Portsmouth, NH. Write for details - I may be not near a phone for a few
days. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Capacitive sending unit |
I'm just about to order the wing kit for the 9 and need to make the fuel sending
unit decision. I am intrigued by the capacitive unit and would like to hear
from anyone who's used it. Among the questions I have are; is it measuring the
fuel in the tank regardless of the fuel's position in the tank, i.e., if you
have 10 gallons will it register that in a climb, descent, bank, etc? Were
there any installation problems? Have there been problems getting gauges that
work with it? Has it proven reliable? Would you use it if you were to do it
over again?
Bill Chenoweth
Albion, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
Bill,
I have Van's capacitance senders in my RV-6 and really like them compared to
the floats. It is much more linear than the floats and less affected by
attitude, but not perfectly so. A lot will depend on the fuel gauging
system and its method of calibration. For example, if you use the ACS 2002
engine monitor, you can calibrate for both level flight and 3-point
attitude. The logic is controlled by engine RPM. Anything over 1500 RPM
and it thinks it's in flight. I have the floats on the RV-7 calibrated by
the ACS 2002 and the most fuel that ever shows is 14 gallons in a 21-gallon
tank. Obviously, the geometry of the tank will not allow calibration above
about 14 gallons with the float senders. Both systems are probably equally
accurate at the low end of the scale, however. I would give the edge to the
capacitance system only because there are no moveable parts, should last a
long time. You will have to get the adaptors that convert farads to volts.
Van's has them but check with the vendor of your fuel gauge system first,
they may have their own.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net>
Subject: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
> I'm just about to order the wing kit for the 9 and need to make the fuel
> sending unit decision. I am intrigued by the capacitive unit and would
> like to hear from anyone who's used it. Among the questions I have are;
> is it measuring the fuel in the tank regardless of the fuel's position in
> the tank, i.e., if you have 10 gallons will it register that in a climb,
> descent, bank, etc? Were there any installation problems? Have there
> been problems getting gauges that work with it? Has it proven reliable?
> Would you use it if you were to do it over again?
> Bill Chenoweth
> Albion, Maine
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Lister Comments - Please Support The Lists |
Dear Listers,
Wow! People have been including some very nice comments along with their
Contributions lately! I've included another set of below and will send
another set in a couple of days.
Guys, I really appreciate your kind words and support. In the last few
days, the contributions have really started to come in and its looking like
support this year may slightly surpass last year's. There's still a few
days left in this year's Fund Raiser, so if you've been waiting until the
last minute to make your Contribution, now's the time!
Make Your Contribution Today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
----------------- More of What Listers Are Saying... --------------------
Every morning 5:30 am, coffee and the "List". It's how I start my day.
Robert G.
The list is still my favorite aviation magazine.
Roger H.
Great resource, without the distraction of pop ups and ads!
Douglas D.
I look forward to my daily list reading almost as much as my coffee!
Hal K.
Great service!
Aaron G.
I have made some great friends, because of it!
Bob D.
Great resource!!
Richard S.
I learn something of value every time I read the messages.
Stan S.
Great list!
Thomas E.
Now that I am close to completion of my [homebuilt], I look back
and wonder how I could ever have made it this far without [the Lists].
Jeff O.
Outstanding site and administration.
Anthony S.
Great forum for our projects.
Darrel M.
I have become a List Addict!
George M.
A very helpful resource for me.
Dennis K.
Great for staying up on the latest.
Forrest L.
Valuable benefit for the users.
George A.
Great tool for all [builders].
Tony M.
Can't tell you how much I appreciate the archives.
Ken B.
I really enjoy the sharing of information and the "discussions" that come up.
Ross S.
[The List] reminds us home builders that help is just a few clicks away.
Danny W.
A great resource!
Christopher S.
Always a pleasure to support this list!
Richard W.
Thanks for helping all of us build better aircraft.
John P.
Great list(s)for data, info and making friends.
John S.
[The] List has helped me much with my building process.
Raimo T.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: to tie or not to tie, that IS the |
question . . .
More than some of us ever wanted to know about ties. (Forwarded from the
aeroelectric-list.) It might be in bed now!!
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
> IMHO, the only advantage of zip-ties is reduced time for installation. I
> don't recommend using them in the engine compartment, they get brittle
with
> time and can let loose without warning.
>
> This is mostly a materials issue. Like bolts, you can purchase
> cable ties in a wide variety of materials and qualities . . . and
> like bolts, you cannot deduce the any secrets of fabrication by
> simply looking at it.
>
> Not all plastics are equal but most all plastics are relatively
> cheap . . . so it's not difficult to purchase cable ties fabricated
> from known materials selected for their suitability to the task.
> If one wishes to acquire the Cadillac of cable ties made from the
> same stuff as the wire insulation of choice, you can purchase
> Tefzel ties from lots of places not the least of which is our
> friends a Steinair. See:
>
> http://www.steinair.com/cableties.htm
>
> Any supplier worth his salt will KNOW where his inventory comes
> from, what it's made of and MAY be able to advise for or against
> the use of any particular product in certain applications. When
> you buy that big jar of 1000 cable ties at Harbor Freight for $9.95,
> what you see is what you get and you cannot deduce much from simply
> seeing.
>
> For ties that you do not wish to look and or touch for a very
> long time, it's worth your time and effort to purchase ties
> by name brand manufacturers where the material and it's features
> are cited. Looking for UV, ozone, and/or hydrocarbon resistant
> products. These are NOT the generic nylon cable wraps offered by
> the vast majority of consumer oriented suppliers including
> Walmart and Harbor Freight.
>
>
> Tensioning zip-ties is also problematic. If you overtension, they WILL eat
> the insulation with enough vibration/time.
>
> There are at least two underlying issues here. Insulation is hard
> to "eat" . . . but certain insulations like Teflon are soft enough
> to flow under continuous pressure exceeding its compression strength
> combined with heating cycles.
>
> I have also seen wire-ties eat into engine mounts and aluminum when
> installed improperly
>
> There have been suggestions in this thread concerning abrasion of
> metal tubes like engine mounts due to the improper use of cable ties.
> I'll suggest that ANY form of wire attachment can become a problem
> for metals IF the attachment is loose enough to allow motion -AND-
> you add dust and grit to the space between the metal surface and
> whatever is riding against it.
>
> I had a power steering hose simply lay against a brake line in
> my '57 Chevy for a bunch of years and lost brakes when a hole
> blew out in a section of the brake line thinned out by continuous
> motion of a rubber hose lubricated with gritty grease. This didn't
> even involve a wire tie, "Adel" clamp or any such technology. These
> kinds of things CAN and DO happen and it has nothing to do with
> the type of retention technology and a LOT to do with craftsmanship.
>
>
> If you undertension, wire-ties they don't hold well. They have a tendency
> to slightly loosen after initial installation. To cure the above problems,
> you might consider a wire tie install tool.
>
> There are cable tie installation tools that feature adjustable
> and repeatable tensioning and cutoff adjustments. Many factories
> use them (including Raytheon Aircraft) and they've proven useful.
> They're not cheap. I've never bothered to own one. The range of
> acceptable tensions for wire ties is large and it's not hard to
> apply them by hand in a way that offers long service life.
>
>
> Wire-ties also have an affinity for human skin. You'll find this out down
> the road when you reach up behind your panel to do something and shortly
> thereafter donate a small amount of blood to the nylon god.
>
> This is not so much an issue with the tie but how the tail is cut
off.
> Avoid using the classic diagonal wire cutter (dikes) . . . they
> part the material by driving two symmetrical wedges together and
> the finished cut protrudes from the tie buckle and is sharp. Use
> flush cutters like:
>
> http://www.action-electronics.com/cutters.htm
>
> http://www.home-jewelry-business-success-tips.com/wire-cutter.html
>
> http://www.techbuys.net/to-201.html
>
> . . . and trim the tail off squarely and flush with the buckle
> and you'll not have to bleed on the project at any time in the
> future.
>
> For shear beauty (and no cuts on your hands) nothing can beat tying your
> wires together the old fashioned way. See the aeroelectric site for the
> technique. Yes, it's time consuming! and requires a certain amount of
> learned skill.
>
> Probably no more effort than required to learn the use
> of a cable-tie installation tool. However, there's
> nothing 'magic' about the techniques suggested in:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
>
>
> the choice of MATERIALS is still just as critical. You
> wouldn't want to tie up your wire bundles with kit
> string.
>
> Adels work great. They also weigh more and are time consuming to install.
> I'd use them to use larger wiring harnesses and for all wiring attachment
> in the engine compartment unless no other option exists.
>
> We're talking about two related but different tasks. The cable tie
> is used in many places to simply hold the bundle of wires together.
> The MS21919 (Adel) series clamps . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/adel.html
>
> . . . are certainly adequate to many applications. This doesn't
> mean that other materials and technologies are not recommended.
> Proper use of any technology is dependent upon understanding
> it's limitations.
>
>
> On occasion, a bundle of wires needs to be support on the airframe
> either for the purpose of simply holding the bundle in place -or-
> to prevent the bundle from coming into adverse contact with
> parts of the airplane.
>
> Like all things on an aircraft, each situation will require a balance of
> needs and limitations...
>
> Exactly. The situation is further improved with a thoughtful
> analysis of cause and effect for both materials selection and
> techniques applied to their use.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
I would also add that the capacitance system does away with the single
biggest source of leaks on these tanks...the penetration for the sender. The
only place it can leak is around the small BNC connector on the inboard rib
(not likely). The installation is not hard, just takes some time and
patience. The only drawback I can see is the cost of the
instruments....assuming you are not using something fancier than just fuel
level indicators. I understand they will run somewhere around 500
bucks......a lot compared to the old standby stewart warner type. Maybe
someone who has installed them can comment further on the price. Over all I
think they are pretty neat......
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)351-1776 cell
(530)247-0375
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
> Bill,
>
> I have Van's capacitance senders in my RV-6 and really like them compared
to
> the floats. It is much more linear than the floats and less affected by
> attitude, but not perfectly so. A lot will depend on the fuel gauging
> system and its method of calibration. For example, if you use the ACS
2002
> engine monitor, you can calibrate for both level flight and 3-point
> attitude. The logic is controlled by engine RPM. Anything over 1500 RPM
> and it thinks it's in flight. I have the floats on the RV-7 calibrated by
> the ACS 2002 and the most fuel that ever shows is 14 gallons in a
21-gallon
> tank. Obviously, the geometry of the tank will not allow calibration
above
> about 14 gallons with the float senders. Both systems are probably
equally
> accurate at the low end of the scale, however. I would give the edge to
the
> capacitance system only because there are no moveable parts, should last a
> long time. You will have to get the adaptors that convert farads to
volts.
> Van's has them but check with the vendor of your fuel gauge system first,
> they may have their own.
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4
> RV-6
> RV-7
> Vero Beach, FL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
>
> >
> > I'm just about to order the wing kit for the 9 and need to make the fuel
> > sending unit decision. I am intrigued by the capacitive unit and would
> > like to hear from anyone who's used it. Among the questions I have are;
> > is it measuring the fuel in the tank regardless of the fuel's position
in
> > the tank, i.e., if you have 10 gallons will it register that in a climb,
> > descent, bank, etc? Were there any installation problems? Have there
> > been problems getting gauges that work with it? Has it proven reliable?
> > Would you use it if you were to do it over again?
> > Bill Chenoweth
> > Albion, Maine
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
>
>I would also add that the capacitance system does away with the single
>biggest source of leaks on these tanks...the penetration for the sender. The
>only place it can leak is around the small BNC connector on the inboard rib
>(not likely). The installation is not hard, just takes some time and
>patience. The only drawback I can see is the cost of the
>instruments....assuming you are not using something fancier than just fuel
>level indicators. I understand they will run somewhere around 500
>bucks......a lot compared to the old standby stewart warner type. Maybe
>someone who has installed them can comment further on the price. Over all I
>think they are pretty neat......
>Evan Johnson
>www.evansaviationproducts.com
>(530)351-1776 cell
>(530)247-0375
>
>
An alternative capacitive probe is available from a company called
SkySports. It's available as a bendable rod. The most recent catalog I
have lists the probes at $85 ea & a dual gauge with 2 probes is $275.
The web site says that the probes can be configured to work with
existing gauges. I don't have personal experience with them but a
friend used them in his -6 & is happy with them.
http://www.airstuff.com/fuelmon.html
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Thomas Velvick <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 11/26/04 |
O-320 E2A Lycoming Engine 2000 TTSN, first run, disassembled for overhaul.
Crankshaft, Cam and Rods have been overhauled by
<http://www.aircraft-specialties.com/>Aircraft Specialities in Tulsa, Ok.
Crankshaft has standard grind on rod and main bearings, was not turned
down. Crankshaft and rods were also
<http://www.aircraft-specialties.com/mach.html>balanced to help the engine
run smoother while at Aircraft Specialities. Does not include mags or
starter (bendix and heavy old starter) unless you want them for a core, but
does include the carburator. This engine has the hollow crank and can be
set up for constant speed. Dynafocal mount. $6500.00 Contact Tom Velvick
623-979-2519 home 623-261-2906 cell
tomvelvick(at)cox.net
See pictures at:
http://www.eaa538.org/forsale.html
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
> Bill,
>
>.............. I have the floats (senders) on the RV-7 calibrated by
> the ACS 2002 and the most fuel that ever shows is 14 gallons in a
21-gallon
> tank. Obviously, the geometry of the tank will not allow calibration
above
> about 14 gallons with the float senders.
(((((((( What does the ACS2002 acknowledge when you calibrate it
from 14 gallons to 16 gallons by adding two more gallons, and then 16 to 18
and 18 to 20. Does it just keep saying 14 gallons? Something does not
sound right with this.
I am sending copy to Rob Hickman at ACS and hope he responds to the list.
Larry Helming)))))))))))))
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4
> RV-6
> RV-7
> Vero Beach, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
Larry,
Yes, that's correct, the float senders appear to max out at about 14
gallons, probably a little more, but unless the calibration algorithm sees a
full 2-gallon increase it will not register the increment. Because of the
dihedral and the sender being at the root end, the float hits the top way
before the tank is full. I never bothered to talk to Rob about it because
it seemed normal to me but I'll be interested to hear what he says about it.
With full tanks, the gauge registers 14+ until the level gets below 14. I
guess the "+" means you are somewhere between 14 and 21 with no way to
determine exactly where. The fuel remaining part of the ACS fuel computer
is pretty accurate, though, so the gauge is just a backup for the fuel flow
counter. This assumes that you remember to reset the fuel computer after a
fillup. After a fillup, the computer fuel remaining indication is always
within a gallon or less of the actual fuel remaining.
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
>
> From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>>.............. I have the floats (senders) on the RV-7 calibrated by
>> the ACS 2002 and the most fuel that ever shows is 14 gallons in a
> 21-gallon
>> tank. Obviously, the geometry of the tank will not allow calibration
> above
>> about 14 gallons with the float senders.
>
> (((((((( What does the ACS2002 acknowledge when you calibrate it
> from 14 gallons to 16 gallons by adding two more gallons, and then 16 to
> 18
> and 18 to 20. Does it just keep saying 14 gallons? Something does not
> sound right with this.
>
> I am sending copy to Rob Hickman at ACS and hope he responds to the list.
> Larry Helming)))))))))))))
>
>> Pat Hatch
>> RV-4
>> RV-6
>> RV-7
>> Vero Beach, FL
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Marshall" <tony(at)lambros.com> |
| Subject: | Prop/Governor Adjustments |
I would appreciate direction to instructions on adjusting the prop low pitch and
governor? My new 62 hour lyc 0360, new hartzell c/s has never been adjusted
and is only giving me a static rpm of 2500 (initial takeoff roll rpm). Shouldnt
I be able to redline at 2700? Advice appreciated.
tony marshall
rv6
polson, mt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Prop/Governor Adjustments |
Tony -
My new Hartzell came with decent instructions on setting the fine pitch stop
in the hub (no adjustment necessary with mine). Also, got some good
installation and adjustment instructions from my governor OEM (Woodward) by
fax - very quick and helpfull. Before adjusting the prop, make sure it's
not a governor setting issue. One idea comes to mind on checking this. Run
it up and set the rpm control in the "lowest" rpm position (farthest aft)
that gives max rpm. Be careful to not move it, shut down. Open the cowl
(if not already) and check to see if there's more travel left at the
governor. If so, you might need to adjust the prop fine pitch stop.
Is your engine and prop good for 2700 rpm? Probably so, but just be sure.
Mine had a set screw that stops the travel of the rpm control cable. Want
more - allow more cable travel. Less - turn the screw the other way.
Last - make sure you set the max rpm with the engine oil at normal op temp.
Mine won't come up to 2700 without being at 95- F or so. I think it's just
a matter of getting enough oil flow rate through the system when it's cold.
It's early, but that's what I recall from 4-5 yrs ago. Strongly recommend
getting specific instructions for your governor from it's respective OEM.
Anyone have better suggestions?
Bryan
>I would appreciate direction to instructions on adjusting the prop low
>pitch and governor? My new 62 hour lyc 0360, new hartzell c/s has never
>been adjusted and is only giving me a static rpm of 2500 (initial takeoff
>roll rpm). Shouldnt I be able to redline at 2700? Advice appreciated.
>
>tony marshall
>rv6
>polson, mt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Capacitive sending unit |
Thanks for replies on this. Full is Full as far as the float sender is
concerned and that occurs at around 14-15 gallons. I think I will be
calibrating the ACS2002 tanks using only 16 gallons of fuel. Why put 5
extra gals of fuel in there if it is as full as the float can measure? I am
willing to take Van's and others' word that the tank has 21 gallon capacity
even if I did put in maybe a bit more or less proseal.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
> Larry,
>
> Yes, that's correct, the float senders appear to max out at about 14
> gallons, probably a little more, but unless the calibration algorithm sees
a
> full 2-gallon increase it will not register the increment. Because of the
> dihedral and the sender being at the root end, the float hits the top way
> before the tank is full. I never bothered to talk to Rob about it because
> it seemed normal to me but I'll be interested to hear what he says about
it.
> With full tanks, the gauge registers 14+ until the level gets below 14. I
> guess the "+" means you are somewhere between 14 and 21 with no way to
> determine exactly where. The fuel remaining part of the ACS fuel computer
> is pretty accurate, though, so the gauge is just a backup for the fuel
flow
> counter. This assumes that you remember to reset the fuel computer after
a
> fillup. After a fillup, the computer fuel remaining indication is always
> within a gallon or less of the actual fuel remaining.
>
> Pat
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
>
>
> >
> >
> > From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Capacitive sending unit
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >>.............. I have the floats (senders) on the RV-7 calibrated by
> >> the ACS 2002 and the most fuel that ever shows is 14 gallons in a
> > 21-gallon
> >> tank. Obviously, the geometry of the tank will not allow calibration
> > above
> >> about 14 gallons with the float senders.
> >
> > (((((((( What does the ACS2002 acknowledge when you calibrate it
> > from 14 gallons to 16 gallons by adding two more gallons, and then 16 to
> > 18
> > and 18 to 20. Does it just keep saying 14 gallons? Something does not
> > sound right with this.
> >
> > I am sending copy to Rob Hickman at ACS and hope he responds to the
list.
> > Larry Helming)))))))))))))
> >
> >> Pat Hatch
> >> RV-4
> >> RV-6
> >> RV-7
> >> Vero Beach, FL
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mau11" <mau11(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Navaid autopilot servo S2 |
Hi all,
I seach a seconhand Navaid servo S2 Crank or Capstan.
Thanks
--|--
--------(*)--------
Michel AUVRAY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop/Governor Adjustments |
> I would appreciate direction to instructions on adjusting the prop low
pitch and governor? My new 62 hour lyc 0360, new hartzell c/s has never
been adjusted and is only giving me a static rpm of 2500 (initial takeoff
roll rpm). Shouldnt I be able to redline at 2700? Advice appreciated.
>
> tony marshall
Will it spin up to 2700 once up to cruise speed? If so, then it's not the
governor, it's the fine pitch stop on the hub that needs adjusting. If it
will only do 2500 in the air also then it's the governor that needs
adjusting. Most c/s props (probably all) have adjustments for both fine and
course stops. Your prop's documentation should say what the stops are set to
in degrees of pitch. Yes, you should be able to get 2700 as you go to full
power on your takeoff roll, that's kind of the point with a c/s prop.
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop/Governor Adjustments |
>
>> I would appreciate direction to instructions on adjusting the prop low
>pitch and governor? My new 62 hour lyc 0360, new hartzell c/s has never
>been adjusted and is only giving me a static rpm of 2500 (initial takeoff
>roll rpm). Shouldnt I be able to redline at 2700? Advice appreciated.
>>
>> tony marshall
>
>
>Will it spin up to 2700 once up to cruise speed? If so, then it's not the
>governor, it's the fine pitch stop on the hub that needs adjusting. If it
>will only do 2500 in the air also then it's the governor that needs
>adjusting. Most c/s props (probably all) have adjustments for both fine and
>course stops. Your prop's documentation should say what the stops are set to
>in degrees of pitch. Yes, you should be able to get 2700 as you go to full
>power on your takeoff roll, that's kind of the point with a c/s prop.
>
But, the prop's fine pitch stop shouldn't be set any finer than
necessary to get 2700 rpm during the take-off roll. If your engine
fails, the prop will go to the fine pitch stop (assuming you don't
have a counter-weighted prop). And the finer the fine pitch stop is
set, the more drag you'll have from the windmilling prop.
Ideally, you'd probably have the fine pitch stop set so you couldn't
quite get 2700 rpm on a static full power runup, but the rpm comes up
to 2700 early in the take-off roll.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Kryptonite prop locks secure? I think not. |
Listers,
Just saw this on the web today. So much for the security of the Kryptonite,
round barrel type lock.
(BTW, this is for real. Tried it today on my laptop PC lock cable at work.)
http://www.businessblogconsulting.com/2004/09/engadget_a_
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <edbundy(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Altrak oscillations? |
I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just installed one,
and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude tighter than the
altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?) the entire time. After it's
engaged it will immediately nose up a degree or two for a couple of seconds,
then nose down a similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER stops. It also
never actually stays in a level attitude, it just passes through level on
it's way up and down. It has enough movement to see the change in attitude
and see/feel the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through the
seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat over small swells.
I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak tomorrow, but
I just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this and/or knows how to
fix it.
BTW, I've also tried the "low" sensitivity setting in addition to the
recommended "medium" setting, and all it did was lengthen the frequency and
slightly increase the amplitude of the oscillation. I imagine the high
setting will just speed it up.
Thanks,
Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
RV6A 600+ hours
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altrak oscillations? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Bundy
Subject: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just installed one,
and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude tighter than the
altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?) the entire time. After it's
engaged it will immediately nose up a degree or two for a couple of seconds,
then nose down a similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER stops. It also
never actually stays in a level attitude, it just passes through level on
it's way up and down. It has enough movement to see the change in attitude
and see/feel the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through the
seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat over small swells.
I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak tomorrow, but
I just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this and/or knows how to
fix it.
BTW, I've also tried the "low" sensitivity setting in addition to the
recommended "medium" setting, and all it did was lengthen the frequency and
slightly increase the amplitude of the oscillation. I imagine the high
setting will just speed it up.
Thanks,
Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
RV6A 600+ hours
---
I've been flying with an Altrak for three weeks & approx. 4000 miles, but not my
plane. However, it's been very smooth flight &
no up/down oscillations. In fact, most of these flights included very little turbulence
& the Altrak was just as smooth as the calm air. I'm so impressed, that
I'm going to buy one.
Larry Adamson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altrak oscillations? |
I have around 100 hours on my Alt Trak in my -4. If I have a pax in the
rear seat, (read Aft limit CG) the trim has to be exactly correct or it
hunts just a tiny bit. Exactly means just a tiny bit off neutral so there
is a tiny bit of pressure to take the "slack" out of the system. Most of
the slack is aerodynamic I suspect. When solo, it is absolutely rock solid
unless the trim is off. And when I am solo, the trim is not nearly as
critical as with an aft CG. I can't say enough good things about my Alt
Trak.
Call them, #1 you can talk to someone who knows what they are talking about,
and #2 I bet they can tell you in short order what your problem is.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Bundy
> To: Rv-List(at)Matronics.Com
> Subject: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
>
>
> I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just installed
one,
> and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
>
> I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude tighter than
the
> altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?) the entire time. After it's
> engaged it will immediately nose up a degree or two for a couple of
seconds,
> then nose down a similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
> up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER stops. It
also
> never actually stays in a level attitude, it just passes through level on
> it's way up and down. It has enough movement to see the change in
attitude
> and see/feel the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through
the
> seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat over small
swells.
>
> I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak tomorrow,
but
> I just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this and/or knows how
to
> fix it.
>
> BTW, I've also tried the "low" sensitivity setting in addition to the
> recommended "medium" setting, and all it did was lengthen the frequency
and
> slightly increase the amplitude of the oscillation. I imagine the high
> setting will just speed it up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
> RV6A 600+ hours
> ---
>
>
> I've been flying with an Altrak for three weeks & approx. 4000 miles, but
not my plane. However, it's been very smooth flight &
> no up/down oscillations. In fact, most of these flights included very
little turbulence & the Altrak was just as smooth as the calm air. I'm so
impressed, that I'm going to buy one.
> Larry Adamson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dcw(at)nomadwi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altrak oscillations? |
>
> I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just installed
> one,
> and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
>
> I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude tighter than
> the
> altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?) the entire time. After it's
> engaged it will immediately nose up a degree or two for a couple of
> seconds,
> then nose down a similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
> up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER stops. It
> also
> never actually stays in a level attitude, it just passes through level on
> it's way up and down. It has enough movement to see the change in
> attitude
> and see/feel the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through
> the
> seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat over small
> swells.
>
> I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak tomorrow,
> but
> I just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this and/or knows how
> to
> fix it.
I had a very similar occurrence on my Tru Trak (DigiFlight II) installed in
my RV-4. The Digiflight has a "half-step" setting for pitch. Using this
cured the problem. If the Altrak has a similar setting, try it and see what
happens.
Doug Weiler
RV-4, 160 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Altrak oscillations? |
My Digiflight 200VS does that occasionally too. It seems to be less likely
if trimmed perfectly and the air is smooth. All of the config settings are
still set to the default. I spoke to TT tech support, and they offered to
update the gyros and software. I haven't taken the time to do it yet.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LARRY ADAMSON [mailto:rvhi03(at)msn.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 5:31 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Bundy
> To: Rv-List(at)Matronics.Com
> Subject: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
>
>
> I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just
> installed one, and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
>
> I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude
> tighter than the altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?)
> the entire time. After it's engaged it will immediately nose
> up a degree or two for a couple of seconds, then nose down a
> similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
> up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER
> stops. It also never actually stays in a level attitude, it
> just passes through level on it's way up and down. It has
> enough movement to see the change in attitude and see/feel
> the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through
> the seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat
> over small swells.
>
> I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak
> tomorrow, but I just wanted to see if anyone else has
> experienced this and/or knows how to fix it.
>
> BTW, I've also tried the "low" sensitivity setting in
> addition to the recommended "medium" setting, and all it did
> was lengthen the frequency and slightly increase the
> amplitude of the oscillation. I imagine the high setting
> will just speed it up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
> RV6A 600+ hours
> ---
>
>
> I've been flying with an Altrak for three weeks & approx.
> 4000 miles, but not my plane. However, it's been very smooth
> flight & no up/down oscillations. In fact, most of these
> flights included very little turbulence & the Altrak was just
> as smooth as the calm air. I'm so impressed, that I'm going
> to buy one.
> Larry Adamson
>
>
> ========
> ========
> Matronics Forums.
> ========
> ========
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
| Subject: | air/oil separator |
Well,
the ACS $38 air/oil separator I orignally installed never seemed to work
very well, so I bought another one and did the bilinski mod and so far have
had nary a drop out the breather, nor any anything on the belly.
Cut the old one open to check it out and found they had in fact welded the
inlet and outlet such that there was little to no interior tube projection.
I'm guessing the welder has no idea what a wing or an engine is?
But, for $38, plus a few square inches of SS screen and two SS scrubbers it
sure beats a $300 M-20 empty can.
Think ACS will take the old 800 hours, cut open one back, and give me 30 or
so free aircraft belly washes?
If you have one of these, on both units the inlet tube is 3" total length,
and the outlet is 3.5". They seem to be welded in any old way, but if you
were to measure it from the outside you could tell if there is any overlap
of the tubes internally, which is good.
The old one I have is has little projection inside, but the new one has the
tubes just overlapped, but in both cases the tubes are the same total length
listed above. Another way of saying this is on the old one from inlet end to
outlet end is nine inches, but the new one it is 7 inches yet all the
relative parts are the same. Plus its just an empty can so there isn't a lot
of surface area for the oil fog to condense on.
If I were to modify the bilinski mod, I would add two things. One an
interior stand pipe for the oil return with a bottom quick drain for
moisture condensation. And two, a 1/2 psi pressure relief valve in the event
the outlet gets plugged anywhere, anyhow.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kryptonite prop locks secure? I think not. |
URL got clipped. I think its supposed to be:
http://www.businessblogconsulting.com/2004/09/engadget_a_
Brian Denk wrote:
>
>Listers,
>
>Just saw this on the web today. So much for the security of the Kryptonite,
>round barrel type lock.
>
>(BTW, this is for real. Tried it today on my laptop PC lock cable at work.)
>
>http://www.businessblogconsulting.com/2004/09/engadget_a_
>
>Brian Denk
>RV8 N94BD
>RV10 '51
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Altrak oscillations? |
It may be how you have it plumbed to the static sys. I spoke to the folks
at Trutrak while I was installing mine and they said it would be fine to
install the static sensor behind the baggage door over the servo. It has
worked great. No complaints at all. They mentioned a problem similar to
yours if I hooked it into my static system. Talk to the guys tomorrow and
Im sure they'll get it to work for you.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
150 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Bundy" <edbundy(at)velocitus.net>
Subject: RV-List: Altrak oscillations?
>
> I have a question for those of you with an Altrak. I've just installed
> one,
> and it seems to be doing a lot of "hunting".
>
> I've only tested it in smooth air, and it holds an altitude tighter than
> the
> altimeter can display, but it phugoids (sp?) the entire time. After it's
> engaged it will immediately nose up a degree or two for a couple of
> seconds,
> then nose down a similar amount for a few seconds and repeat. The entire
> up/down oscillation cycle takes about 8 seconds and it NEVER stops. It
> also
> never actually stays in a level attitude, it just passes through level on
> it's way up and down. It has enough movement to see the change in
> attitude
> and see/feel the stick move, and you can feel the g-load/unload through
> the
> seat of your pants. It feels similar to riding in a boat over small
> swells.
>
> I can't believe this is normal, and I plan on calling Trutrak tomorrow,
> but
> I just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this and/or knows how
> to
> fix it.
>
> BTW, I've also tried the "low" sensitivity setting in addition to the
> recommended "medium" setting, and all it did was lengthen the frequency
> and
> slightly increase the amplitude of the oscillation. I imagine the high
> setting will just speed it up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
> RV6A 600+ hours
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | oil leak induction tube |
I found an oil leak on the sleeve that attaches my #2 induction tube to the sump.
The rubber sleeve is pretty saturated and dripping on my exhaust. Im also
getting a pool of blue-ish oil pooling on the top of the fab. Im guessing Im
getting oil in the induction tube from somewhere and it is running down and
out through the fuel injector servo and leaking through the sleeve. Any suggestions
on where this oil is coming from?? Its an IO-360 with a Bendix injector.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
150 hours
Chicago/Louisville
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | oil leak induction tube |
> -->
>
> I found an oil leak on the sleeve that attaches my #2
> induction tube to the sump. The rubber sleeve is pretty
> saturated and dripping on my exhaust. Im also getting a
> pool of blue-ish oil pooling on the top of the fab. Im
> guessing Im getting oil in the induction tube from somewhere
> and it is running down and out through the fuel injector
> servo and leaking through the sleeve. Any suggestions on
> where this oil is coming from?? Its an IO-360 with a Bendix
> injector.
>
> Shemp/Jeff Dowling
> RV-6A, N915JD
> 150 hours
> Chicago/Louisville
Was the engine pickled prior to running? Mine slobbered blue oil for a
couple hundred hours. I believe it was engine priming fuel running down the
inside of the intake system, washing out the preservative oil which was
fogged into the intake during shutdown. I believe it stopped somewhere
around a couple hundred hours. Just a possibility.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 558 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com> |
RV-4(at)yahoogroups.com
As far as air oil separators go how dows the Slime Fighter compare with
it's larger cousins? My RV-4 doesn't have all that much room on the
firewall and I'd like to install as small a separator as I can. Any
suggestions as to the best small form factor air oil separator?
Thanks!
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
Listers, Is anyone using the EI tach with a Jeff Rose EIS and one mag? If
so, how did you set up the tach to read from both ignition systems on a mag
check? Is using the tach drive from Vans, part number IE Vtachgen12 the
solution?
Marty in Brentwood TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming (320) Crankcase Ventillation |
0.20 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From: contains an underline and numbers/letters
I've got a 160-hp -320 on a -8 with about 680-smoh. Just put a new
Vetterman 2" dia exhaust on it and it now (seems) to go even better than it
did before - and it went like heck before! 3rd in class at Sun 100 - and I
didn't even really know where the turns were! :D
Problem is, it chronically leaks at the main shaft/crank lip seal. Have
changed it 3-4 times, with the same results - after 10-20 hrs, it begins and
continues to blow a mist of oil vapor throughout the engine compartment.
I know why and how this happens. It's related to my overhaul of the engine
and the surface prep of the area where the lip seal rides (satin finish from
bead blast cleaning). It's there and it's not going to be addressed until
the next major. I'll just keep adding oil and cleaning the belly, because
it runs really well - just a very annoying condition.
The point of this message is to get some feedback on an idea I have come up
with to reduce the leakage out the fwd lip seal. I'd like to pull a vacuum
on the crankcase. About 1-2 inches water column, or the amount that you
could get from an old style instrument venturi. Or, install a regular
vacuum pump (and maybe a regulator) on the engine to pull the vapor out of
the crankcase nd dump it overboard.
Some questions -
1. Anyone know if pulling a slight vacuum on the crankcase would hurt
anything?
2. Would a dry vacuum pump pull a stream of air and oil vapor?
3. What about a wet pump with no oil supply?
4. Anyone believe a vacuum pumps could ever fail closed (plugged off)?
5. Are there vacuum/pressure reliefs available for these low pressure
streams like this - don't want a failed vacuum pump allowing the crankcase
to overpressure.
Thanks in advance for any constructive advice and direct experience.
Bryan Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Marty,
You probably could use the van's tach drive to keep the tach alive when
you kill the mag. That's probably what I'll do on my RV-6 project if the
ei tach can understand it's output. Let us know what you find out on
that one.
On our flying 6a with lightspeed ignition and mag, the ei tach reads off
the mag. We look for 100 rpm drop when you turn off the electronic. When
you turn off the mag, the tach zeros, but you hear very little in the
way of drop off. If the mag is seriously unhealthy, you'll see it lose
more than 100 rpm and it'll run rough when the electronic ignition is
turned off. I often do my runup with the mixture pretty lean which is a
pretty tough test of the ignition. When I do this, the rpm falls off
much more than 100 rpm when it's running on the mag only but still falls
off very little on the lightspeed. If the electronic ignition were
misfiring it would tend to be made worse and I think we'd hear and feel
it. The mag is pretty much along for the ride in flight. If I shut it
off in flight, you can't tell the difference except that the static in
the headset goes away. :-)
I'm going to put 2 lightspeeds on my 6 project because I don't want to
have my backup ignition be less reliable than the #1 and because both
sets of plugs will fire with a hotter and longer spark than a magneto
can manage and will fire simultaneously when advanced. You can use a
much wider gap on the plugs with electronic ignition also.
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath
Subject: RV-List: Help with Tach
Listers, Is anyone using the EI tach with a Jeff Rose EIS and one mag?
If
so, how did you set up the tach to read from both ignition systems on a
mag
check? Is using the tach drive from Vans, part number IE Vtachgen12 the
solution?
Marty in Brentwood TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming (320) Crankcase Ventillation |
Hi Brian,
Before you get too far into the ideas that you have discussed so far here
are some more:
How is the crankcase ventilation tube on your engine delivering the fumes to
the environment.
First check to see that there is not some kind of blockage in the crankcase
breather tube. Collapsed inner liner, foreign material, or a crimped hose
might be found.
Pulling the hose at the engine fitting and blowing through it might give a
clue.
If a smaller diameter hose and tubing was installed try increasing the size
of them.
If at present the breather hose stops somewhere inside the cowl, onto one of
the exhaust pipes for instance. You could look at extending it so that the
air streaming over it would tend to create a slight negative pressure.
For this to work it might be necessary to devise a soft neoprene flap valve
to cover the whistle hole in the crank case breather tube. If you don't have
a whistle hole at present put one there now.
The flap would seal in the presence of a slight vacuum but still allow the
breather pipe to release any pressures in the event of blockage due to
freeze up etc. A triangle of suitable material wrapped around the tube with
one of it's points just covering the whistle hole might work.
This of course might mean some extra belly washing but it might keep the
engine compartment a bit cleaner.
After testing this, if a measure success is achieved you could drill a hole
into the nice new LV.exhaust pipe about 6 inches from the outlet end and
insert a stainless steel tube at an angle devise a clamp to hold it in place
an hook onto it with the breather tube. If this works the crankcase wastage
will tend to be burnt reducing the belly washing a bit. If it works too
well, adjusting the flap valve position over the whistle hole should work
There is a way that you might be able to polish the seal area of the prop
shaft without engine removal and tear down.
Practice this on a piece of pipe or shaft material. Soak in coal oil or
what have you and the wrap a sheet of wet and dry 600 grit around the shaft.
it should wrap and overlap around the shaft about twice, coil a long leather
boot lace about three times around the 600 grit and pull left and right as
if shining a shoe add lubricant from time to time. I think you will be
surprised at how well and fast this can work.
In the case of the Lycoming shaft in place, polishing this way might reach
in far enough to do the job for you.
Of course care and cleanliness when working in this area is vital.
I used this method to polish the axels that where a bit to large for the
bearings to fit.
Best of luck,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Lycoming (320) Crankcase Ventillation
>
> I've got a 160-hp -320 on a -8 with about 680-smoh. Just put a new
> Vetterman 2" dia exhaust on it and it now (seems) to go even better than
> it
> did before - and it went like heck before! 3rd in class at Sun 100 - and
> I
> didn't even really know where the turns were! :D
>
> Problem is, it chronically leaks at the main shaft/crank lip seal. Have
> changed it 3-4 times, with the same results - after 10-20 hrs, it begins
> and
> continues to blow a mist of oil vapor throughout the engine compartment.
>
> I know why and how this happens. It's related to my overhaul of the
> engine
> and the surface prep of the area where the lip seal rides (satin finish
> from
> bead blast cleaning). It's there and it's not going to be addressed until
> the next major. I'll just keep adding oil and cleaning the belly, because
> it runs really well - just a very annoying condition.
>
> The point of this message is to get some feedback on an idea I have come
> up
> with to reduce the leakage out the fwd lip seal. I'd like to pull a
> vacuum
> on the crankcase. About 1-2 inches water column, or the amount that you
> could get from an old style instrument venturi. Or, install a regular
> vacuum pump (and maybe a regulator) on the engine to pull the vapor out of
> the crankcase nd dump it overboard.
>
> Some questions -
>
> 1. Anyone know if pulling a slight vacuum on the crankcase would hurt
> anything?
>
> 2. Would a dry vacuum pump pull a stream of air and oil vapor?
>
> 3. What about a wet pump with no oil supply?
>
> 4. Anyone believe a vacuum pumps could ever fail closed (plugged off)?
>
> 5. Are there vacuum/pressure reliefs available for these low pressure
> streams like this - don't want a failed vacuum pump allowing the crankcase
> to overpressure.
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any constructive advice and direct experience.
>
> Bryan Jones
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with Tach |
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Yes, I have the same set-up with the EIS engine monitor. My tach is
driven from the Rose EI. When the EI is switched off during the mag
check, the tach goes to 0. When switched back on, the EIS display shows
the lowered tach number before the engine can rev back up to the initial
RPM. For example 1800-0-1750-1800. A little kludgy, but it works.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?&q=kludgy
Emrath said:
>
> Listers, Is anyone using the EI tach with a Jeff Rose EIS and one mag? If
> so, how did you set up the tach to read from both ignition systems on a
> mag
> check? Is using the tach drive from Vans, part number IE Vtachgen12 the
> solution?
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: oil leak induction tube |
Yep, it was pickled for almost 6 years. Ive got about 150 hours on it now.
Im wondering if I should just wait until the next oil change and check it
again.
Shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: oil leak induction tube
>
>
>
>> -->
>>
>> I found an oil leak on the sleeve that attaches my #2
>> induction tube to the sump. The rubber sleeve is pretty
>> saturated and dripping on my exhaust. Im also getting a
>> pool of blue-ish oil pooling on the top of the fab. Im
>> guessing Im getting oil in the induction tube from somewhere
>> and it is running down and out through the fuel injector
>> servo and leaking through the sleeve. Any suggestions on
>> where this oil is coming from?? Its an IO-360 with a Bendix
>> injector.
>>
>> Shemp/Jeff Dowling
>> RV-6A, N915JD
>> 150 hours
>> Chicago/Louisville
>
> Was the engine pickled prior to running? Mine slobbered blue oil for a
> couple hundred hours. I believe it was engine priming fuel running down
> the
> inside of the intake system, washing out the preservative oil which was
> fogged into the intake during shutdown. I believe it stopped somewhere
> around a couple hundred hours. Just a possibility.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 558 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Lycoming (320) Crankcase Ventillation |
>I've got a 160-hp -320 on a -8 with about 680-smoh. Just put a new
>Vetterman 2" dia exhaust on it and it now (seems) to go even better than it
>did before - and it went like heck before! 3rd in class at Sun 100 - and I
>didn't even really know where the turns were! :D
>
>Problem is, it chronically leaks at the main shaft/crank lip seal. Have
>changed it 3-4 times, with the same results - after 10-20 hrs, it begins
>and
>continues to blow a mist of oil vapor throughout the engine compartment.
>
>I know why and how this happens. It's related to my overhaul of the engine
>and the surface prep of the area where the lip seal rides (satin finish
>from
>bead blast cleaning). It's there and it's not going to be addressed until
>the next major. I'll just keep adding oil and cleaning the belly, because
>it runs really well - just a very annoying condition.
>
>The point of this message is to get some feedback on an idea I have come up
>with to reduce the leakage out the fwd lip seal. I'd like to pull a vacuum
>on the crankcase. About 1-2 inches water column, or the amount that you
>could get from an old style instrument venturi. Or, install a regular
>vacuum pump (and maybe a regulator) on the engine to pull the vapor out of
>the crankcase nd dump it overboard.
>
>Some questions -
>
>1. Anyone know if pulling a slight vacuum on the crankcase would hurt
>anything?
>
>2. Would a dry vacuum pump pull a stream of air and oil vapor?
>
>3. What about a wet pump with no oil supply?
>
>4. Anyone believe a vacuum pumps could ever fail closed (plugged off)?
>
>5. Are there vacuum/pressure reliefs available for these low pressure
>streams like this - don't want a failed vacuum pump allowing the crankcase
>to overpressure.
>
>
>Thanks in advance for any constructive advice and direct experience.
>
>Bryan Jones
Hiya Bri...uh, BRYan.
I've also replaced the crankshaft nose seal, but only once. Still seeps
oil, but not as much as it did before. I think this is a notoriously weak
area in the Lyco crankcase area. I would avoid any shenanigans involving
the crank case vent, as anything that could possibly fail shut would lead to
seal failure and a bad day.
What I did was to fabricate a circular cover plate that covers the seal
around it's circumference. It's a simple, two-piece affair, kinda like a
toilet flange repair kit at home depot! Sorry for the reference, but it's
the best I can come up with. There are tapped holes in the crank case that
almost seem like they were put there for this reason. I think they are
1/4-20. I used stainless allen head bolts, drilled and safety wired in
place. Used some black permatex gasket maker on the back of the plates and
bolted them on. Pretty much took care of the problem. Still get some
seepage further back along the case split on the bottom that will likely
never stop until major overhaul. No thanks. I can live with some oil
drips.
As a Pitt's driver friend of mine once said, "the only dry Lycoming is one
that never runs".
This has proven very true in my case. (pun intended)
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
RV10 '51
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
Speaking of whistle hole's; I drilled a couple of small holes in my vent hose
about 6 inches from the crankcase discharge. I then wrapped the hose with electrical
tape to keep it from leaking. Im wondering if the amount of pressure
that would build up if the hose were to seal would be enough to blow out the
tape covering the holes. Im also noticing a lot of oil spots on the hose all
the way to the separator??? Its like its seeping through the hose?? Its a
fuel line hose from good ole NAPA.
tia
Shemp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Sneed <n242ds(at)cox.net> |
I installed an EZ pilot II (trio) in my RV-6 and it works well usually
keeping within .03 of cross track. While the autopilot is engaged it is
not very smooth. It feels like if you slapped the stick with your hand
(lightly) to make heading corrections. It is not that bad, but I was
wondering if this is normal? I was hoping there would not be that much
"feel" difference between hand flying and the autopilot flying but it
feels very different and I would not want to fly long distances with
the AP engaged, just because the bump is annoying, it makes smooth air
hand flying feel like light chop. Is this normal or not? I have tried
all the settings, but the best setting I have found is 2-3 on the
sensitivity and 9 on the pull in.
thanks a lot,
Jason Sneed
Commercial Lending Officer
First National Bank and Trust
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy is drilled |
This is somewhat comical. I received some of the same comments however, I am fortunate
to live in an airpark so most know and understand what is involved.
It is certainly a milestone to get the canopy done. In my case I have a tip up.
Everything went well but I did get a crack on the LAST hole I drilled!! I went
on and completely finished the canopy including all of the glass work. It is
now ready for paint and safely tucked into a spare bedroom!!
Good luck on your project.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Jason Sneed wrote:
>
> I installed an EZ pilot II (trio) in my RV-6 and it works well usually
> keeping within .03 of cross track. While the autopilot is engaged it is
> not very smooth. It feels like if you slapped the stick with your hand
> (lightly) to make heading corrections. It is not that bad, but I was
> wondering if this is normal? I was hoping there would not be that much
> "feel" difference between hand flying and the autopilot flying but it
> feels very different and I would not want to fly long distances with
> the AP engaged, just because the bump is annoying, it makes smooth air
> hand flying feel like light chop. Is this normal or not? I have tried
> all the settings, but the best setting I have found is 2-3 on the
> sensitivity and 9 on the pull in.
Jason, what you have described is definitely not normal performance for
the EZ-Pilot. You need to get in contact with Jerry at Trio to get this
glitch worked out.
A properly functioning EZ-Pilot will be so smooth you will not be able
to feel the roll corrections in calm air.
Sam Buchanan
http://thervjournal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Wayne Stiles" <dwstiles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | more FGN questions |
We have completed the practice piece and done a bunch of extra practice,
cutting dimpling and riviting on scrap and we are about ready to start on
Jim's 7 empanege kit. And we have more FNG questions.
1) We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
Can anyone advise as to where to find the best deal on buying a couple
hundred more clecos?
2) Re removing blue plastic file.
We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
alclad. What is the best way to remove a narrow strip along the rivet lines
without scoring the metal?
Just getting started,
Wayne & Jim in Niles MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
As far as removing the blue plastic I've seen some say they used a
soldering iron to melt the plastic along a thin strip. I've never done
it myself. A heat gun might work as well.
D. Wayne Stiles wrote:
>
>We have completed the practice piece and done a bunch of extra practice,
>cutting dimpling and riviting on scrap and we are about ready to start on
>Jim's 7 empanege kit. And we have more FNG questions.
>
>1) We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
>Can anyone advise as to where to find the best deal on buying a couple
>hundred more clecos?
>
>2) Re removing blue plastic file.
>We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
>alclad. What is the best way to remove a narrow strip along the rivet lines
>without scoring the metal?
>
>Just getting started,
>Wayne & Jim in Niles MI
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
In a message dated 11/29/04 11:19:11 AM Central Standard Time,
dwstiles(at)hotmail.com writes:
> 2) Re removing blue plastic file.
Lay a straight edge (I used an aluminum yardstick) along the rivetlines and
carefully run a hot 15-25 watt soldering pencil/iron with a nicely smoothed tip
on it along the edge. Definately practice on some scrap areas first! You
want to just score the plastic enough to allow it to tear along the score and
avoid going all the way through to the skin. I removed strips about 15mm wide
and it worked out well- time consuming, though!
Have fun-
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Neal E Capt AU/PC <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil> |
| Subject: | more FGN questions |
Wayne -
Pan American Tool has the best price on clecos I could find.
http://www.panamericantool.com/family.cfm?fam=CLECO%20FASTENERS
Neal
RV-7 (tanks - ready to close)
RV-8 (emp)
> We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
Wayne & Jim
A good place to get get "clecos" is at a major airshow/convention such as
Sun'n Fun In Lakeland Florida or at Oshkosh.
However, you do need them now so I would suggest Ebay ,Bob Avery or
Cleveland..
To remove the strip of plastic after drilling the holes to a # 40. Draw a
one inche and line on both sides of the hole, Use a soldering gun like a
Weller and free hand it. I would make sure that the tip is smooth so that it
does not scratch the surface.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Wayne Stiles" <dwstiles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: more FGN questions
>
> We have completed the practice piece and done a bunch of extra practice,
> cutting dimpling and riviting on scrap and we are about ready to start on
> Jim's 7 empanege kit. And we have more FNG questions.
>
> 1) We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
> Can anyone advise as to where to find the best deal on buying a couple
> hundred more clecos?
>
> 2) Re removing blue plastic file.
> We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
> alclad. What is the best way to remove a narrow strip along the rivet
> lines
> without scoring the metal?
>
> Just getting started,
> Wayne & Jim in Niles MI
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
>
> We have completed the practice piece and done a bunch of extra practice,
> cutting dimpling and riviting on scrap and we are about ready to start on
> Jim's 7 empanege kit. And we have more FNG questions.
>
> 1) We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
> Can anyone advise as to where to find the best deal on buying a couple
> hundred more clecos?
Clecos 35cents each
http://www.browntool.com/productselect.asp?ProductID=169
-------
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "coolmate_04(at)cashette.com" <no-reply(at)cashette.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your email. Your message has not reached my Inbox because you are
not yet on my Approved List. To reach my Inbox, please click on this link. When
I respond to your message, you will be automatically added to my Approved List!
Warm regards,
coolmate_04(at)cashette.com
__________________________
Note from Cashette:
If you don't see any link above, copy and paste the link below to your browser:
http://home.cashette.com/myCashette/newUser.do?ms=jjewell%40telus.net&mr=coolmate_04%40cashette.com&rid=coolmate_04&name=Jim+Jewell&sec=OD%2Fk&dt=1101757143857
If you are a business, click Business.
-----Original Message:-----
From: "Jim Jewell" jjewell(at)telus.net
Subject: Re: RV-List: more FGN questions
__________________________
Cashette stops spam. 100% effective and free! Go to http://home.cashette.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
Anybody using this comm antenna from Van's that goes inside the canopy?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1101758476-330-27&browse=avionics&product=lowdrag-antennas
How about the comm antenna in the wing tip as seen here:
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-006&Category=0f91b131-8228-4617-98f0-06fea064876c
I'm looking for any practicle comparisons to external bent whip.
Steve
RV7A #2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Search the archives - this has been hashed over many times past, but here's
a quick re-cap.
The wingtip and canopy antennas work (sort of), but there is really NO
comparision to the belly bent whip. Many people (including me) have tried
the wingtip comm antenna (in fact it's still in my plane-unhooked), but
installed a bent whip fairly quickly.
The sound clarity, distance and overall useability of the bent whips is
quite far superior to the wingtip antennas.
That being said, the wingtip NAV antennas work quite well (both VOR/ILS).
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
sjhdcl(at)kingston.net
Subject: RV-List: Comm Antenna
Anybody using this comm antenna from Van's that goes inside the canopy?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1101758476-330-27&brow
se=avionics&product=lowdrag-antennas
How about the comm antenna in the wing tip as seen here:
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-006&Category=0f91b131-82
28-4617-98f0-06fea064876c
I'm looking for any practicle comparisons to external bent whip.
Steve
RV7A #2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | The Skinny on LOE |
Well, after calling the Chamber of Commerce, Mayors Office, and other various city
and airport offices, I think I finally got the skinny on why LOE is moving.
Once again, it boils down to personalities and politics. I was told there
is a personality conflict between Red and the owners of Adventure Aviation. Red
decided to pull out. The details I was given do not bear repeating, but IMHO
I think both parties should work out their differences, especially in light
of the post on Doug Reeves site questioning the new facilities. I spoke with
the staff of Adventure Aviation, who assured me they will be hosting and welcoming
the fly-in again next year and hopefully in the years to come. They have
already send out invitation cards to people who registered this past year, and
are planning on sending out more cards in the future.. So LOE 2005 at Las
Cruces is on! I hope this helps folks out. I was just a curious party. Glenn
in Arizona -9A fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | ACS2002 Fuel Floats |
Fuel Level
The ACS2002 stores two sets of calibration numbers for each tank. The
ACS2002 uses the ground calibration numbers when the RPM is less than 1200 RPM
and
the flight calibration numbers when the RPM is greater than 1200 RPM. This
feature enables the fuel gauges to read correct on the ground for a tail wheel
equipped airplanes. If your plane does not have a tail wheel you should set
the ground and flight data to the same calibration number.
Calibration Tips:
Fuel tank sensors are not accurate when the tank is near full. Once you
notice the reading not changing much or not corresponding with the rest of the
readings during calibration the last few entries in the fuel calibration data
should read the same value.
If the tanks do not consistently show full you should lower the digital
value for the tank full data.
The fuel gauge will only show the digital fuel amount for the highest
reading that the float changed with a plus sign indicating that the correct fuel
amount is not known but is over the last reading. The analog gauge will show
full for the last changing reading. It is normal for a 18 gallon tank to show
16.2+ when it is full. This indicates that the float stopped changing at 16.2
gallons and this is the highest fuel reading that can be detected by the
float in the tank.
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems
(503) 598-7727
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <quinn.talley(at)cox.net> |
Does anyone have experience with a Avery's $65 Click-Type 20 to 200 inch-pound
torque wrench? I have one on order, but there may be time to upgrade if needed.
Anyone know the range of torque values required on the RV-10 (QB)?
Anyone know whether the required accuracy of torque values on the RV dictate periodic
calibration of the torque wrench?
Thanks,
Quinn Talley
RV10 Tail Cone
40295
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ACS2002 Fuel Floats |
In a message dated 11/29/04 6:22:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
RobHickman(at)aol.com writes:
> The fuel gauge will only show the digital fuel amount for the highest
> reading that the float changed with a plus sign indicating that the correct
> fuel
> amount is not known but is over the last reading. The analog gauge will
> show
> full for the last changing reading. It is normal for a 18 gallon tank to
> show
> 16.2+ when it is full. This indicates that the float stopped changing at
> 16.2
> gallons and this is the highest fuel reading that can be detected by the
> float in the tank.
> Rob Hickman
> Advanced Flight Systems
> (503) 598-7727
>
>
Why not put 2 capacitive sender units in the tanks, one in the inboard
location, and one in the outboard end of the tank? Then let the computer figure
out
how much fuel is in there.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A (Van's gauges, resistive sensors)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
Whirl Wind Propellers Corp
| Subject: | Whirl Wind reply. |
Howdy,
In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl Wind prop "designed"
for RVs, I received the following info from them on that very subject.
I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
hmmm....Checkoway would have his in the shop and be without a plane at least twice
a year! And $350 to boot? I didn't even ask if there were East Coast overhaul
shops.
Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to hear.
Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaper Hartzell seem like a steal at the moment.
What's the Hartzell designed blade life on a Magneto fired Lycoming? 40,000
hours? 20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> Hello Lucky,
>
> Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an ideal propeller
> choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
>
> The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade inspection
> every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
>
> If you would like to place an order, all that is required is a deposit of $1,000
> with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I currently have an
> opening for delivery in May 2005.
>
> Sincerely,
> -Patti
> Whirl Wind Propellers
> 619-562-3725
Howdy,
In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl Wind prop "designed"
for RVs, I received the following info from them on that very subject.
I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
hmmm....Checkoway would havehis in the shop and be without a planeat least twice
a year! And $350 to boot?I didn't even ask if there were East Coast overhaul
shops.
Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to hear.
Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaperHartzell seem like a steal at the moment.
What's the Hartzelldesigned blade life on a Magneto fired Lycoming? 40,000 hours?
20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
Hello Lucky,
Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an ideal propeller
choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade inspection
every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
If you would like to place an order, all that is required is a deposit of $1,000
with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I currently have an
opening for delivery in May 2005.
Sincerely,
-Patti
Whirl Wind Propellers
619-562-3725
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: titanium tie down bolts |
>
>In a message dated 11/24/04 8:29:47 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net writes:
>
> > > If you do the math, it would take nearly 8 tons to break a 7075
> > aluminum
> > >hold down (with a 3/8" threaded shaft.). The rope will break first. Next,
> > >the spar will buckle. Next, the four 10-32 bolts holding the mount in
> place
> >
> > >will shear.
> > >
>
>I did the math and only got 3.87 tons.
I meant to say "nearly 8,000 pounds" instead of " nearly 8 tons".
Sorry.
Still, this is probably more than the mount will take and
certainly more than the spar will take as a point load in the center of the
span.
If you stick with aluminum, galvanic action will not be a problem.
You can anodize or Alodine the 7075 tie down.
>I am not sure what math you are using, but according to the formulas in
>the machinists handbook, a 3/8" bolt with 18 TPI made of 7075 Al with
>70ksi yield strength gives an ultimate yield of approximately 6000 lbs.
>Normally parts like these are rated at 1/4 the ultimate yield which
>means a rating of 1500 lbs - well under 8 tons.
See above. I used 73 ksi in the calculation. Ultimate yield for
7075 will be between 76 and 83 ksi, depending on the temper.
All you really need to do is compare the tie down to the mount and
the spar. Is the tie down as strong or stronger? If so, then it is OK.
Fatigue will work on all parts in proportion to their strength
(stress.) If the tie down is the strongest (least stressed) aluminum
element, other, weaker (more stressed) aluminum elements in the system will
fail in fatigue first. Thus, you need not bother doing the fatigue
calculations on the strongest (least stressed) element. (Don't worry about
the 1/4 rating for this part.)
The wings are designed to withstand +9 g's -4.5 g's maximum. This
is less than +5,000 lbs -2,500 lbs each, at the root. The tie downs exert a
negative load to the wing at the center of the wing. The wing spar will
fold at the root at a load of -2,500 lbs. (It will also fold in the center
at about -2500 lbs.) Thus, using a tie down that has an ultimate strength
(not a working strength) of over 2,500 lbs will hold the middle of the wing
spar in place while the rest of the airplane deforms around it, (assuming
the mount doesn't tear loose first.)
>All that said, titanium and the garden variety steel tiedown rings are
>not much more than that, so an aluminum tiedown would work likely just
>fine.
The hardware store 3/8" eye bolt that is recommended will have a
yield strength of something like 50 ksi. A 7075 tie down will be 40%
stronger and won't corrode the aluminum mount.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions |
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>We have completed the practice piece and done a bunch of extra practice,
>>cutting dimpling and riviting on scrap and we are about ready to start on
>>Jim's 7 empanege kit. And we have more FNG questions.
>>
>>1) We have found that we need a BUNCH more clecos.
>>Can anyone advise as to where to find the best deal on buying a couple
>>hundred more clecos?
>>
>>
>
>Clecos 35cents each
>http://www.browntool.com/productselect.asp?ProductID=169
>
>
>-------
>
>
I think you can get them from Van for about the same price..
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | titanium tie down bolts |
Lest we get too embroiled in stress analysis, the limiting factor will
likely be the ground anchor. Unless you're using a permanent anchor embedded
in the ramp the highest pullout strength I've seen for any portable anchor
was about 600 lbs. with most around 2-400 lbs. We might tear up some sod but
I don't think we're going to break any metal regardless of the material.
Greg
> > > >hold down (with a 3/8" threaded shaft.). The rope will
> break first.
> > > >Next, the spar will buckle. Next, the four 10-32 bolts
> holding the
> > > >mount in
> > place
> > >
> > > >will shear.
> > > >
> -2500 lbs.) Thus, using a tie down that has an ultimate
> strength (not a working strength) of over 2,500 lbs will hold
> the middle of the wing spar in place while the rest of the
> airplane deforms around it, (assuming the mount doesn't tear
> loose first.)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation |
G'day Bryan,
You might consider this. Make up a fitting that incorporates a reed valve
(flapper valve) that goes on the engine breather hose. This acts as a
one-way valve, letting crankcase pressure escape but creates a small
negative pressure situation in the case. We use such a system on our Harley
race motors which are notorious for pressurising the cases. We use stainless
reeds that were common with 2-stroke dirtbikes, most of which use
carbonfibre now. Just make sure it has sufficient flow.
Simpler still, just cut the end of the breather hose on an angle and stick
it into the airstream facing aft...
Cheers
Martin in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation |
Experience based comments below...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation
>
>
> G'day Bryan,
>
> You might consider this. Make up a fitting that incorporates a reed valve
> (flapper valve) that goes on the engine breather hose. This acts as a
> one-way valve, letting crankcase pressure escape but creates a small
> negative pressure situation in the case. We use such a system on our
> Harley
> race motors which are notorious for pressurising the cases. We use
> stainless
> reeds that were common with 2-stroke dirtbikes, most of which use
> carbonfibre now. Just make sure it has sufficient flow.
>
> Simpler still, just cut the end of the breather hose on an angle and stick
> it into the airstream facing aft...
Not a good idea. I had an experience 3 years ago (I think?) where I lost
quite a bit of oil due to an aft facing breather vent and an unfastened
dipstick. Made a real mess on the belly of the aircraft, and if the flight
had been 1 hour instead of 15 minutes, I'd have run the engine out of oil.
The story is in the archives, and Van's published a slightly more formal
version in the RVator...
KB
> Cheers
>
> Martin in Oz
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Whirl Wind reply. |
The "blade life" on a C2YK-1BF and C2YL-1BF is 8,700 hours . . . They don't
show a time for the "blended airfoil" prop.
I'm about ready to order a prop for my RV-8 . . . probably will go
Hartzell - blended airfoil . . . if nothing else is seems to be the low cost
option, is certified, and would probably raise fewer eyebrows when it come
time to sell.
Regards,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net>
; "Whirl Wind Propellers Corp"
Subject: RV-List: Whirl Wind reply.
>
> Howdy,
> In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl Wind
prop "designed" for RVs, I received the following info from them on that
very subject.
>
> I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
>
> hmmm....Checkoway would have his in the shop and be without a plane at
least twice a year! And $350 to boot? I didn't even ask if there were East
Coast overhaul shops.
>
> Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to hear.
>
> Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaper Hartzell seem like a steal at the
moment. What's the Hartzell designed blade life on a Magneto fired
Lycoming? 40,000 hours? 20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
>
> Lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Hello Lucky,
> >
> > Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an ideal
propeller
> > choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
> >
> > The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade
inspection
> > every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
> >
> > If you would like to place an order, all that is required is a deposit
of $1,000
> > with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I currently
have an
> > opening for delivery in May 2005.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > -Patti
> > Whirl Wind Propellers
> > 619-562-3725
>
> Howdy,
> In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl Wind
prop "designed" for RVs, I received the following info from them on that
very subject.
>
> I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
>
> hmmm....Checkoway would havehis in the shop and be without a planeat least
twice a year! And $350 to boot?I didn't even ask if there were East Coast
overhaul shops.
>
> Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to hear.
>
> Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaperHartzell seem like a steal at the
moment. What's the Hartzelldesigned blade life on a Magneto fired Lycoming?
40,000 hours? 20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
>
> Lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> Hello Lucky,
>
> Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an ideal
propeller
> choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
>
> The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade
inspection
> every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
>
> If you would like to place an order, all that is required is a deposit of
$1,000
> with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I currently have
an
> opening for delivery in May 2005.
>
> Sincerely,
> -Patti
> Whirl Wind Propellers
> 619-562-3725
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation |
Hmmm... I'd rather blow all that oil out the breather vent than the front
seal!! *Lot* less messy!! ;) ;)
Lots of good ideas. Thanks for all the comments. Gives me something to
work with in the coming months of less good weather.
Thanks again.
Bryan
>From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation
>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:24:30 -0500
>
>
>Experience based comments below...
>
>KB
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation
>
>
> >
> >
> > G'day Bryan,
> >
> > You might consider this. Make up a fitting that incorporates a reed
>valve
> > (flapper valve) that goes on the engine breather hose. This acts as a
> > one-way valve, letting crankcase pressure escape but creates a small
> > negative pressure situation in the case. We use such a system on our
> > Harley
> > race motors which are notorious for pressurising the cases. We use
> > stainless
> > reeds that were common with 2-stroke dirtbikes, most of which use
> > carbonfibre now. Just make sure it has sufficient flow.
> >
> > Simpler still, just cut the end of the breather hose on an angle and
>stick
> > it into the airstream facing aft...
>
>Not a good idea. I had an experience 3 years ago (I think?) where I lost
>quite a bit of oil due to an aft facing breather vent and an unfastened
>dipstick. Made a real mess on the belly of the aircraft, and if the flight
>had been 1 hour instead of 15 minutes, I'd have run the engine out of oil.
>
>The story is in the archives, and Van's published a slightly more formal
>version in the RVator...
>
>KB
>
>
> > Cheers
> >
> > Martin in Oz
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Condon" <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | more FGN questions - Removing Blue Plastic |
Don't bother or worry about with this plastic. When the professional painter
finally paints your airplane, the first thing he does is rub your aluminum
down with a chunk of street asphalt to rough up the surface to give the
primer something to stick to. Exaggerating here, but the point is you don't
want to be there when this prep process occurs, you'll cry. The end product
is a nice paint job though.............
............................................................................
............
2) Re removing blue plastic file.
We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
alclad. What is the best way to remove a narrow strip along the rivet lines
without scoring the metal?
Just getting started,
Wayne & Jim in Niles MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
Quinn,
Re: Avery's torque wrench - we have been very pleased with it during after
building our 8.
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
>From: <quinn.talley(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: torque wrench Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:59:05 -0700
>
>
>Does anyone have experience with a Avery's $65 Click-Type 20 to 200
>inch-pound torque wrench? I have one on order, but there may be time to
>upgrade if needed.
>
>Anyone know the range of torque values required on the RV-10 (QB)?
>
>Anyone know whether the required accuracy of torque values on the RV
>dictate periodic calibration of the torque wrench?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Quinn Talley
>RV10 Tail Cone
>40295
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob n' Lu Olds" <oldsfolks(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re:titanium tie down bolts |
I guess I just found out I am a racer ! I have used stainless steel tie down bolts
and after use I put them into my little tool bag(A leatherette shave kit
bag) until needed again. The tool bag has velcro on the bottom and sits on the
other half of the velcro on top of the center tunnel in our RV-4. Hasn't come
off yet,even when upside down.
Bob Olds RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 11/29/04 |
Hi All,
Your link to a "wingtip" COM antenna, SA-006, appears to be the antenna
designed as a Lancair fuselage COM antenna. This is not a "wingtip" antenna.
The Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog has the Model 1A wingtip COM
antenna. If installed to the instructions, this is almost as good as the belly
mounted bent whip antenna.
This antenna is available directly from the manufacturer at a lower price
than AC$. Contact Bob Archer (310) 316-8796, or email him at
_bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com_ (mailto:bobsantennas(at)earthlink.com)
IMHO, the archives are a useless reference to "wingtip antenna".
There is more than one manufacturer of wingtip antennas. The archived posts
do not include the antenna manufacturer they are discussing (cussing? :-)
). Or, sometimes, if they were discussing a wingtip COM antenna, or NAV
antenna.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
In a message dated 11/30/2004 12:00:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Subject: RV-List: Comm Antenna
From: sjhdcl(at)kingston.net
Anybody using this comm antenna from Van's that goes inside the canopy?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1101758476-330-27&browse
=avionics&product=lowdrag-antennas
How about the comm antenna in the wing tip as seen here:
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-006&Category=0f91b131-8228
-4617-98f0-06fea064876c
I'm looking for any practicle comparisons to external bent whip.
Steve
RV7A #2
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
b=X2/F+913TUO423tVHW26Np5ZTA0vm9wQG8BG9IpB/ypW6IsZpVhBQfxDY4p6FQXpFZczsVmHuLIXbyMUO+xIntCEClJ0qJJO9SJVeP2LerM9U0Tm7R13qKU4i5udrhDN6772FcTZgqF4yKSo/GIkI2/pq1NSkvpkDSgXzbis3iUReceived:
by 10.54.4.26 with SMTP id 26mr191123wrd;
| From: | Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation |
My neighbor has a Walker air/oil seperator (now made by Airwolf) in
his Bonanza. These seperators use the vacuum pump outlet to pull
negative pressure on the crankcase via the seperator. At $475 they're
a bit pricey but I understand they work well. It appears to be a
simple unit that could be welded up fairly easily. Has anyone here
looked at making a homebuilt version?
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
> Hmmm... I'd rather blow all that oil out the breather vent than the front
> seal!! *Lot* less messy!! ;) ;)
>
> Lots of good ideas. Thanks for all the comments. Gives me something to
> work with in the coming months of less good weather.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Bryan
>
> >From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation
> >Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:24:30 -0500
>
>
> >
> >
> >Experience based comments below...
> >
> >KB
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au>
> >To:
> >Subject: RV-List: Re: Lycoming (O-320) Crankcase Ventilation
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > G'day Bryan,
> > >
> > > You might consider this. Make up a fitting that incorporates a reed
> >valve
> > > (flapper valve) that goes on the engine breather hose. This acts as a
> > > one-way valve, letting crankcase pressure escape but creates a small
> > > negative pressure situation in the case. We use such a system on our
> > > Harley
> > > race motors which are notorious for pressurising the cases. We use
> > > stainless
> > > reeds that were common with 2-stroke dirtbikes, most of which use
> > > carbonfibre now. Just make sure it has sufficient flow.
> > >
> > > Simpler still, just cut the end of the breather hose on an angle and
> >stick
> > > it into the airstream facing aft...
> >
> >Not a good idea. I had an experience 3 years ago (I think?) where I lost
> >quite a bit of oil due to an aft facing breather vent and an unfastened
> >dipstick. Made a real mess on the belly of the aircraft, and if the flight
> >had been 1 hour instead of 15 minutes, I'd have run the engine out of oil.
> >
> >The story is in the archives, and Van's published a slightly more formal
> >version in the RVator...
> >
> >KB
> >
> >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Martin in Oz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions - Removing Blue Plastic |
Wayne & Jim: To answer the question, use a hot soldering iron and a strip
of wood for straight edge.
Better still to just remove the whole protection sheet and save some time.
The skin will, as Philip says, get scuffed up really well later on during
painting anyway. I cut the strips like you asked about and after 2 years,
there was a difference in how the exposed and unexposed skin looked after I
removed the remaining protective sheet. We want it to all look the same
before painting anyway, right? So, save some time. Take it off when first
working on it and be done with it. Little risk in doing that.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Condon" <pcondon(at)mitre.org>
Subject: RV-List: more FGN questions - Removing Blue Plastic
>
> Don't bother or worry about with this plastic. When the professional
painter
> finally paints your airplane, the first thing he does is rub your aluminum
> down with a chunk of street asphalt to rough up the surface to give the
> primer something to stick to. Exaggerating here, but the point is you
don't
> want to be there when this prep process occurs, you'll cry. The end
product
> is a nice paint job though.............
>
>
............................................................................
> ............
> 2) Re removing blue plastic file.
> We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
> alclad. What is the best way to remove a narrow strip along the rivet
lines
> without scoring the metal?
>
> Just getting started,
> Wayne & Jim in Niles MI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "sdellangelo(at)netzero.com" <sdellangelo(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Help with Prop Choice (Catto or Sensenich) |
I am trying to decide whether to get a Sensenich or 3 bladed Catto for my 9A?
I searched the archives and have found only good things about the Catto and that
it does hold up to rain pretty well (even better if Prop Guard is installed).
Can anybody give me any pros/cons besides what I have? Here is what i've
got. I am definitely doing fixed pitch.
Catto is a little (not much) cheaper, probably lighter even with 3 blades??, performance
similar??, smoother, no RPM restrictions.
Sensenich is tougher?? (but Catto supposedly ok in rain as said above), better
idle because of more inertia. It does have RPM restrictions and also according
to Sensenich might be a problem with 9:1 compression that I plan to do.
Catto would be somewhere like 66X70 or 72 (the way he measures) and Sensenich 70X81
probably. I "should" be somewhere in the 170 horsepower range out of an
O-320.
Thanks,
Scott DellAngelo
#90598 Fuselage
Plainfield, IL
NetZero HiSpeed $14.95.
Visit Sam Goody, Suncoast or MediaPlay Stores.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with Prop Choice (Catto or Sensenich) |
What will the weight difference do for your CG? Might make a big difference
in how much you can carry in back.
>
>
>
>I am trying to decide whether to get a Sensenich or 3 bladed Catto for my
>9A? I searched the archives and have found only good things about the
>Catto and that it does hold up to rain pretty well (even better if Prop
>Guard is installed). Can anybody give me any pros/cons besides what I
>have? Here is what i've got. I am definitely doing fixed pitch.
>
>Catto is a little (not much) cheaper, probably lighter even with 3
>blades??, performance similar??, smoother, no RPM restrictions.
>
>Sensenich is tougher?? (but Catto supposedly ok in rain as said above),
>better idle because of more inertia. It does have RPM restrictions and
>also according to Sensenich might be a problem with 9:1 compression that I
>plan to do.
>
>Catto would be somewhere like 66X70 or 72 (the way he measures) and
>Sensenich 70X81 probably. I "should" be somewhere in the 170 horsepower
>range out of an O-320.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott DellAngelo
>#90598 Fuselage
>Plainfield, IL
>
>NetZero HiSpeed $14.95.
>Visit Sam Goody, Suncoast or MediaPlay Stores.
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 11/29/04 |
>
> The Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog has the Model 1A wingtip COM
> antenna. If installed to the instructions, this is almost as good as the
belly
> mounted bent whip antenna.>
>This antenna is available directly from the manufacturer at a lower price
>than AC$. Contact Bob Archer......
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> Less Drag Products, Inc.
> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
========================
"Almost as good" does not compute.
Got legitimat/objective comparison specs?
As to Bob Archer stuff...
If you are associated in a business way, it should be duly noted so the
reader might understand where you are coming from.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help with Prop Choice (Catto or Sensenich) |
In a message dated 11/30/04 12:28:39 PM Central Standard Time,
sdellangelo(at)netzero.com writes:
> I am trying to decide whether to get a Sensenich or 3 bladed Catto for my
> 9A?
>>>>
Another data point- Catto props have chewed a whole bunch of air around Reno
for many years, but now he mostly makes 3-blades for RVs... All your other
points agree with my experience.
Mark -6A, 150 hp Catto 3-blade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
,
| Subject: | TV show, building a kit plane |
Check it out...here's that TV show filmed a few months ago when they decked
my RV-7 out with cameras and had me take Walter Tondu up for a ride. Dave
Richardson was shooting air-to-air footage from a Christen Eagle in
formation:
http://images.rvproject.com/movies/fastlane.wmv
Slightly lower bandwidth version:
http://images.rvproject.com/movies/Fine_living.wmv
The show aired on the Fine Living Network and is supposed to air again in
early December.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Bob 1,
Maybe you could do a study, collect some numbers, write it up and get back
to us. In the meantime, Jim's opinion of "almost as good" is useful.
Terry
RV-8A wiring & cowling
Seattle
>
> The Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog has the Model 1A wingtip COM
> antenna. If installed to the instructions, this is almost as good as the
belly
> mounted bent whip antenna.>
>This antenna is available directly from the manufacturer at a lower price
>than AC$. Contact Bob Archer......
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> Less Drag Products, Inc.
> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
========================
"Almost as good" does not compute.
Got legitimat/objective comparison specs?
As to Bob Archer stuff...
If you are associated in a business way, it should be duly noted so the
reader might understand where you are coming from.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Hanson <rv8tor(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [VAF Mailing List] TV show, building a kit plane |
Nice aileron roll...where's the parachutes you're supposed to wear :)
Cheers,
Kevin
rv-8, tail
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
> Check it out...here's that TV show filmed a few months ago when they
> decked
> my RV-7 out with cameras and had me take Walter Tondu up for a ride. Dave
> Richardson was shooting air-to-air footage from a Christen Eagle in
> formation:
>
> http://images.rvproject.com/movies/fastlane.wmv
>
> Slightly lower bandwidth version:
>
> http://images.rvproject.com/movies/Fine_living.wmv
>
> The show aired on the Fine Living Network and is supposed to air again in
> early December.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
> Online help on this group at:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129f6j00c/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=groups/S=1705340085:HM/EXP=1101936495/A=2434971/R=0/SIG=11eeoolb0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185400>
>
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vansairforce/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> vansairforce-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GEORGE INMAN" <ghinman(at)allstream.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector handle loose |
I have the Van's standard fuel selector.
It is new but the handle is not tight.
It moves a small amount when switching
tanks.I feel it might become more loose and
eventually I will be unable to switch tanks.
Probably at the worst time!!
Have others had this problem?
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)allstream.net
CELL 204 799 7062
HOME 204 287 8334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | "Project" Insurance |
Can anybody recommend a company for "project" insurance please? Thanks in advance.
Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector handle loose |
Can you tighten the set screw?
Subject: RV-List: Fuel selector handle loose
>
> I have the Van's standard fuel selector.
> It is new but the handle is not tight.
> It moves a small amount when switching
> tanks.I feel it might become more loose and
> eventually I will be unable to switch tanks.
> Probably at the worst time!!
> Have others had this problem?
>
> GEORGE H. INMAN
> ghinman(at)allstream.net
> CELL 204 799 7062
> HOME 204 287 8334
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Project" Insurance |
Nation Air. They sell it and you can transfere the balance when you are
ready to fly.
Jim
James Cimino
RV-8 SN 80039
100+ Hours
570-842-4057
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: "Project" Insurance
>
> Can anybody recommend a company for "project" insurance please? Thanks in
> advance. Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
| Subject: | Help with Prop Choice (Cato or Sensenich) |
Not familiar with the Cato but I had good luck with a Sterba and I liked my
Senenich 70X80 which is for sale since I went with a Constant Speed.
John Furey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel selector handle loose |
I would install the Andair now and save yourself the trouble later.
John Furey
2nd RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector handle loose |
In a message dated 11/30/2004 3:21:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ghinman(at)allstream.net writes:
I have the Van's standard fuel selector.
It is new but the handle is not tight.
It moves a small amount when switching
tanks.I feel it might become more loose and
eventually I will be unable to switch tanks.
Probably at the worst time!!
Have others had this problem?
======================================
George-
What part is loose? As long as the handle tightly fits the shaft, a small
amount of slop in the mechanism is not a problem IMO. Mine has remained
absolutely unchanged in the 730 hrs, and I suspect that yours will be no different.
GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 725hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross S" <rv7maker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
O.K. Newbies, Listen up. When you start plumbing your pitot and static
systems be careful with the hardware you choose. I used some of the
nylo-seal fittings sold through spruce along with the o-ring style fittings
sold through Vans. Today I had an avionics shop come out to certify my
panel for Instrument Work and all hell broke loose. What should have been a
couple hour task turned into a major project. When we tried to test the
static system, it was tight with no leaks, but for some reason the Dynon
airspeed was cranking up along with the altitute, even though we applied
suction to both the pitot tube and the static ports. After about two hours
of head scratching and tearing apart my panel, we found that one of the
nylo-seal elbows I got from Spruce was plugged. It had a manufacturing
defect that left a thin layer of nylon in the middle of the elbow. You
could't see it but I tried to blow through it and turned blue in the face.
Moral of the Story: Buy good fittings ( I think the O-ring style are
better) and blow through all of them prior to assembly.
This would have saved me a couple hours of A&P ($65/hour) time as well as
about 6 hours of my time ($0.85/hour based on the planes market value) and a
bunch of chipped paint around screw heads on my once perferct panel.
Ross Schlotthauer
RV-7 - Almost There
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Project" Insurance |
In a message dated 11/30/04 5:38:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gbrasch(at)earthlink.net writes:
<< Can anybody recommend a company for "project" insurance please? Thanks in
advance. Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage. >>
I have been very satisfied with Nation Air for builder's insurance and now
have their in-flight coverage. Just my $0.02.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, flying!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Com antennas |
> Maybe you could do a study, collect some numbers, write it up and get back
> to us. In the meantime, Jim's opinion of "almost as good" is useful.
>
> Terry
> RV-8A wiring & cowling
> Seattle
================================
Sorry, the burden of proof legitimately rests with whomever is making a
claim - and that would not be me.
After 40 years in the telecom industry, I've learned to appreciate hard
antenna facts over warm and fuzzy subjective opinions.
YMMV.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Project" Insurance |
Skysmith did the same thing for me. Good outfit to deal with. Policy
is through AIG.
SKYSMITH INTL (SCOTT SMITH) 800-743-1439 515-289-1439 sales(at)skysmith.com
AIRCRAFT INSURANCE
Jeff Point
>Nation Air. They sell it and you can transfere the balance when you are
>ready to fly.
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more FGN questions - Removing Blue Plastic |
In a message dated 11/30/04 10:45:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pcondon(at)mitre.org writes:
> Don't bother or worry about with this plastic.
>
> .........................................................................
> ............
>
> We'd like to leave as much of it on as long as possible to protect the
> alclad.
You may not want to leave the plastic film on the aluminum. Depends on
how long it will be there. The plastic remained on my instrument panel for
about 5 years. When I removed it there was filigree corrosion around the edges
in several places.
Dale Ensing
RV-6A N118DE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for examples of
airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following if you know of
any.
Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as saying:
"There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
Baloney!
This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of airports in
the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by side.
In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook County Forest
Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course. Many small airports
exist right in state and national parks. Many more have parks adjacent
with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of planes taking off and landing.
Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of airports
large and small co-existing with:
a.. Parks
b.. Nature trails
c.. Golf courses
d.. Forest preserves
e.. Camping facilities
f.. Museums
g.. Historical landmarks
Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First Flight Airport
(FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS), Mackinac Island (MCD),
Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA (PAO).
Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their series of airstrips
in their state parks, including the number one nominee: Rough River Dam
State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one of its many nominators:
"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge, restaurant,
and a runway. This is a great example of what you are looking for. This is
state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have further examples:
Help us prove them wrong!
Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have electronic pictures
or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes connection, send them too!
Send them to us at:
info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
Thanks for the help
Shemp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | "Project" Insurance |
Glenn,
We have had excellent service and support from Scott & Jeanne Smith @
SkySmith Ins (800) 743-1439. The cost was very resonalbe and change to
flight coverage at the last minute was effortless.
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: "Project" Insurance
>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:40:56 -0700
>
>
>Can anybody recommend a company for "project" insurance please? Thanks in
>advance. Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
Ross S wrote:
>
> O.K. Newbies, Listen up. When you start plumbing your pitot and static
> systems be careful with the hardware you choose. I used some of the
> nylo-seal fittings sold through spruce along with the o-ring style fittings
> sold through Vans. Today I had an avionics shop come out to certify my
> panel for Instrument Work and all hell broke loose. What should have been a
> couple hour task turned into a major project. When we tried to test the
> static system, it was tight with no leaks, but for some reason the Dynon
> airspeed was cranking up along with the altitute, even though we applied
> suction to both the pitot tube and the static ports. After about two hours
> of head scratching and tearing apart my panel, we found that one of the
> nylo-seal elbows I got from Spruce was plugged. It had a manufacturing
> defect that left a thin layer of nylon in the middle of the elbow. You
> could't see it but I tried to blow through it and turned blue in the face.
>
> Moral of the Story: Buy good fittings ( I think the O-ring style are
> better) and blow through all of them prior to assembly.
>
> This would have saved me a couple hours of A&P ($65/hour) time as well as
> about 6 hours of my time ($0.85/hour based on the planes market value) and a
> bunch of chipped paint around screw heads on my once perferct panel.
Bummer!!
Just a reminder to current builders that even though the special elbow
and bulkhead fittings look "professional", the easiest, least expensive,
and probably most reliable way of putting together the pitot lines is to
join the nylon tubing with a short length of rubber hose. The lines can
usually be routed through the wings and fuse without having to resort to
elbows. If the line needs to be disconnected, just cut the rubber splice
off and replace it with a new one.
By the way, this same method is used on at least one certificated plane
that I know of for hooking up the fuel vent hoses.
Sam Buchanan
http://thervjournal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List COM Antenna |
Hi Bob1 and all,
Please recall that the original email was regarding a fuselage mounted COM
antenna for a fiberglass fuselage that was unsuitable for a wingtip
installation. And that the COM antenna was one of Bob Archer's Sportcraft antenna.
I have NEVER seen any "legitimat/objective comparison specs" regarding
antenna's on this list. Why should I be held to a higher standard? (If you want
that kind of information, I have always suggested a conversation with Bob
Archer. He knows.)
I quit selling Bob Archer's antenna's on the RV list years ago. Check the
archives.
Do you object to my giving out Bob Archer's contact information so people on
the RV list can buy direct, and save money?
I'm one of the original skeptics.
I have one RV flying, and two more in process.
What I learned from the first is being applied to the rest.
The first RV has one external transponder antenna.
The RV-6A will have NO external antenna's with no compromise in performance
using 2 COM, NAV, GPS and transponder.
My HR2 will be the same with 2 COM, 2 GPS, NAV and Transponder.
I've know Bob Archer for over 20 years. Of the antenna experts, Bob is the
only one I know that consistently has reliable information.
I do have a pet peeve. It offends me to see the a multitude of antenna's on
the outside of RV's. I've seen as many as 9 external antenna's on the
outside of an RV-6.
With Regards, but slightly confused about some peoples reaction on the RV
list to my postings,
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
"Drag is like magic. It's what you don't see that's important."
In a message dated 12/01/2004 12:01:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 11/29/04
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1"
>
> The Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog has the Model 1A wingtip COM
> antenna. If installed to the instructions, this is almost as good as the
belly
> mounted bent whip antenna.>
>This antenna is available directly from the manufacturer at a lower price
>than AC$. Contact Bob Archer......
> Regards,
> Jim Ayers
> Less Drag Products, Inc.
> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
========================
"Almost as good" does not compute.
Got legitimat/objective comparison specs?
As to Bob Archer stuff...
If you are associated in a business way, it should be duly noted so the
reader might understand where you are coming from.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More help needed to re-open Meigs |
There's one on the TX/OK border (OK side IIRC) on lake Texoma. There's a resort
with a golf course right next to it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Dowling <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for examples of
airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following if you know of
any.
Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as saying:
"There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
Baloney!
This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of airports in
the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by side.
In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook County Forest
Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course. Many small airports
exist right in state and national parks. Many more have parks adjacent
with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of planes taking off and landing.
Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of airports
large and small co-existing with:
a.. Parks
b.. Nature trails
c.. Golf courses
d.. Forest preserves
e.. Camping facilities
f.. Museums
g.. Historical landmarks
Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First Flight Airport
(FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS), Mackinac Island (MCD),
Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA (PAO).
Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their series of airstrips
in their state parks, including the number one nominee: Rough River Dam
State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one of its many nominators:
"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge, restaurant,
and a runway. This is a great example of what you are looking for. This is
state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have further examples:
Help us prove them wrong!
Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have electronic pictures
or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes connection, send them too!
Send them to us at:
info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
Thanks for the help
Shemp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
In my opinion the best fittings are the push pull air fittings used in
pneumatic automation equipment. Much smaller than the fittings mentioned
here and work great. The good news for me is we have them here in stock for
our pneumatic equipment. They are the same fittings (SMC) used by Mountain
High Oxygen systems. If they are trusted in a oxygen system then why not
the panel.
>
>Ross S wrote:
> >
> > O.K. Newbies, Listen up. When you start plumbing your pitot and static
> > systems be careful with the hardware you choose. I used some of the
> > nylo-seal fittings sold through spruce along with the o-ring style
> fittings
> > sold through Vans. Today I had an avionics shop come out to certify my
> > panel for Instrument Work and all hell broke loose. What should have
> been a
> > couple hour task turned into a major project. When we tried to test the
> > static system, it was tight with no leaks, but for some reason the Dynon
> > airspeed was cranking up along with the altitute, even though we applied
> > suction to both the pitot tube and the static ports. After about two
> hours
> > of head scratching and tearing apart my panel, we found that one of the
> > nylo-seal elbows I got from Spruce was plugged. It had a manufacturing
> > defect that left a thin layer of nylon in the middle of the elbow. You
> > could't see it but I tried to blow through it and turned blue in the face.
> >
> > Moral of the Story: Buy good fittings ( I think the O-ring style are
> > better) and blow through all of them prior to assembly.
> >
> > This would have saved me a couple hours of A&P ($65/hour) time as well as
> > about 6 hours of my time ($0.85/hour based on the planes market value)
> and a
> > bunch of chipped paint around screw heads on my once perferct panel.
>
>
>Bummer!!
>
>Just a reminder to current builders that even though the special elbow
>and bulkhead fittings look "professional", the easiest, least expensive,
>and probably most reliable way of putting together the pitot lines is to
>join the nylon tubing with a short length of rubber hose. The lines can
>usually be routed through the wings and fuse without having to resort to
>elbows. If the line needs to be disconnected, just cut the rubber splice
>off and replace it with a new one.
>
>By the way, this same method is used on at least one certificated plane
>that I know of for hooking up the fuel vent hoses.
>
>Sam Buchanan
>http://thervjournal.com
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Boss" <bossone(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Try lake Nasworthy and all of it's parks including the Goodflellow Air Force
Base park ...all adjacent to the municipal airport. Mathis Field at San
Angelo, Texas. Main approach to the main runway is over the lake and parks.
Airplanes come in over people sitting on a beach for that one.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
>
>
> There's one on the TX/OK border (OK side IIRC) on lake Texoma. There's a
resort with a golf course right next to it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Dowling <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
>
>
> Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for
examples of airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following if
you know of any.
>
>
> Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as
saying:
> "There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
>
> Baloney!
>
> This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of
airports in the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by side.
>
> In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook
County Forest Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course.
Many small airports exist right in state and national parks. Many more have
parks adjacent with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of planes
taking off and landing.
>
> Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of
airports large and small co-existing with:
>
> a.. Parks
> b.. Nature trails
> c.. Golf courses
> d.. Forest preserves
> e.. Camping facilities
> f.. Museums
> g.. Historical landmarks
> Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First Flight
Airport (FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS), Mackinac Island
(MCD), Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA (PAO).
>
> Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their series
of airstrips in their state parks, including the number one nominee: Rough
River Dam State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one of its many
nominators:
>
> "Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge,
restaurant, and a runway. This is a great example of what you are looking
for. This is state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
>
> Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have further
examples:
>
> Help us prove them wrong!
>
> Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have
electronic pictures or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes
connection, send them too! Send them to us at:
>
> info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
>
>
> Thanks for the help
>
> Shemp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Just a detail but Aeroflex-Andover (12N) is in NJ not IN.
Dick Tasker (from NJ)
Jeff Dowling wrote:
>
>Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for examples
of airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following if you know of
any.
>
>
>Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as saying:
>"There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
>
>Baloney!
>
>This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of airports in
the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by side.
>
>In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook County Forest
Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course. Many small airports
exist right in state and national parks. Many more have parks adjacent
with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of planes taking off and landing.
>
>Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of airports
large and small co-existing with:
>
> a.. Parks
> b.. Nature trails
> c.. Golf courses
> d.. Forest preserves
> e.. Camping facilities
> f.. Museums
> g.. Historical landmarks
>Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First Flight Airport
(FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS), Mackinac Island (MCD),
Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA (PAO).
>
>Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their series of airstrips
in their state parks, including the number one nominee: Rough River Dam
State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one of its many nominators:
>
>"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge, restaurant,
and a runway. This is a great example of what you are looking for. This is
state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
>
>Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have further examples:
>
>Help us prove them wrong!
>
>Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have electronic pictures
or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes connection, send them too!
Send them to us at:
>
>info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
>
>
>Thanks for the help
>
>Shemp
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
Scott Eilinski mentioned SMC products.
I "googled" SMC and found this link to their fittings and hoses:
http://www.smcusa.com/sections/products/fittings_tubings.asp
Scott, I haven't called SMC or searched their website for info - can you
give a brief description of how these fittings work? What is the "one
touch" terminology about?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static Check Nightmare
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> In my opinion the best fittings are the push pull air fittings used in
> pneumatic automation equipment. Much smaller than the fittings mentioned
> here and work great. The good news for me is we have them here in stock
for
> our pneumatic equipment. They are the same fittings (SMC) used by Mountain
> High Oxygen systems. If they are trusted in a oxygen system then why not
> the panel.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
Hey Scott those look neat....I just looked at them on the mountain High OX
site. Where would the rest of us get them?
Thanks....Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static Check Nightmare
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> In my opinion the best fittings are the push pull air fittings used in
> pneumatic automation equipment. Much smaller than the fittings mentioned
> here and work great. The good news for me is we have them here in stock
for
> our pneumatic equipment. They are the same fittings (SMC) used by Mountain
> High Oxygen systems. If they are trusted in a oxygen system then why not
> the panel.
>
>
> >
> >Ross S wrote:
> > >
> > > O.K. Newbies, Listen up. When you start plumbing your pitot and
static
> > > systems be careful with the hardware you choose. I used some of the
> > > nylo-seal fittings sold through spruce along with the o-ring style
> > fittings
> > > sold through Vans. Today I had an avionics shop come out to certify
my
> > > panel for Instrument Work and all hell broke loose. What should have
> > been a
> > > couple hour task turned into a major project. When we tried to test
the
> > > static system, it was tight with no leaks, but for some reason the
Dynon
> > > airspeed was cranking up along with the altitute, even though we
applied
> > > suction to both the pitot tube and the static ports. After about two
> > hours
> > > of head scratching and tearing apart my panel, we found that one of
the
> > > nylo-seal elbows I got from Spruce was plugged. It had a
manufacturing
> > > defect that left a thin layer of nylon in the middle of the elbow.
You
> > > could't see it but I tried to blow through it and turned blue in the
face.
> > >
> > > Moral of the Story: Buy good fittings ( I think the O-ring style are
> > > better) and blow through all of them prior to assembly.
> > >
> > > This would have saved me a couple hours of A&P ($65/hour) time as well
as
> > > about 6 hours of my time ($0.85/hour based on the planes market value)
> > and a
> > > bunch of chipped paint around screw heads on my once perferct panel.
> >
> >
> >Bummer!!
> >
> >Just a reminder to current builders that even though the special elbow
> >and bulkhead fittings look "professional", the easiest, least expensive,
> >and probably most reliable way of putting together the pitot lines is to
> >join the nylon tubing with a short length of rubber hose. The lines can
> >usually be routed through the wings and fuse without having to resort to
> >elbows. If the line needs to be disconnected, just cut the rubber splice
> >off and replace it with a new one.
> >
> >By the way, this same method is used on at least one certificated plane
> >that I know of for hooking up the fuel vent hoses.
> >
> >Sam Buchanan
> >http://thervjournal.com
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
Go to: http://www.mcmaster.com/ and click on "Instant Fittings".
The "Glass-Filled Nylon Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) Fittings"
would likely be the prudent choice. They have the greatest temperature
range and have passed some sort of standardized certification process.
Always a comforting attribute, even if it doesn't directly apply.
I have not yet used these style fittings on an airplane pitot static
system. (I plan to use them on my RV-7.) However, I have used them with
excellent results in all sorts of applications for many many years. I have
used them all seasons outdoors, under modest vacuum, for compressed air,
for CO2, for helium, for neon, for water, etc. I have never had one fail or
leak, even after repeated disconnection and reconnection of the tubing.
The swivel feature makes them especially easy to install in tight quarters.
You will fall in love with instant fittings once you have used them. You
will ask yourself, "Why did I bother to use any other type of low-pressure
tubing fitting?"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List COM Antenna |
Good info Jim. A couple of quick questions ...
{SNIP
> The RV-6A will have NO external antenna's with no compromise in
> performance
> using 2 COM, NAV, GPS and transponder.
Hmmmm.
1. What antennas are you using? I purchased Bob's Wingtip NAV and MKR BCN
antennas and during my chat with him concluded that the COM would be "not as
good as" the external COM antenna available (per Bob Archer himself)
2. Where are you placing them? I assume wingtip but figured I would ask
I took my antennas destined for the the RV6A I am building and put them in
the RV6 we have already built and are flying. The RV6A has TWO steps and a
nosegear (more drag), so your "NO external antenna's with no compromise in
performance" caught my eyes.
Thanks for any response,
James
{SNIP}
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
For .25 dia tubing (use their tubing!!) the fitting is about .5 ~.75 long
depending on type and .375 dia. There is a flange around the opening of the
fitting that appears to float. Push the tubing in place and your done, "one
touch?". Depress the flange and pull out the tubing, sometimes easier said
than done. There are distributors all over the US, find one near you and
get there fitting/tubing catalog. Prices are about 2~5 bucks per fitting
depending.
>
>Scott Eilinski mentioned SMC products.
>
>I "googled" SMC and found this link to their fittings and hoses:
>http://www.smcusa.com/sections/products/fittings_tubings.asp
>
>Scott, I haven't called SMC or searched their website for info - can you
>give a brief description of how these fittings work? What is the "one
>touch" terminology about?
>
>David Carter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static Check Nightmare
>
>
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > In my opinion the best fittings are the push pull air fittings used in
> > pneumatic automation equipment. Much smaller than the fittings mentioned
> > here and work great. The good news for me is we have them here in stock
>for
> > our pneumatic equipment. They are the same fittings (SMC) used by Mountain
> > High Oxygen systems. If they are trusted in a oxygen system then why not
> > the panel.
> >
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
Go to the SMC web site and find a local distributor.
http://www.smcusa.com/default.asp
>
>Hey Scott those look neat....I just looked at them on the mountain High OX
>site. Where would the rest of us get them?
>Thanks....Evan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static Check Nightmare
>
>
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > In my opinion the best fittings are the push pull air fittings used in
> > pneumatic automation equipment. Much smaller than the fittings mentioned
> > here and work great. The good news for me is we have them here in stock
>for
> > our pneumatic equipment. They are the same fittings (SMC) used by Mountain
> > High Oxygen systems. If they are trusted in a oxygen system then why not
> > the panel.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Ross S wrote:
> > > >
> > > > O.K. Newbies, Listen up. When you start plumbing your pitot and
>static
> > > > systems be careful with the hardware you choose. I used some of the
> > > > nylo-seal fittings sold through spruce along with the o-ring style
> > > fittings
> > > > sold through Vans. Today I had an avionics shop come out to certify
>my
> > > > panel for Instrument Work and all hell broke loose. What should have
> > > been a
> > > > couple hour task turned into a major project. When we tried to test
>the
> > > > static system, it was tight with no leaks, but for some reason the
>Dynon
> > > > airspeed was cranking up along with the altitute, even though we
>applied
> > > > suction to both the pitot tube and the static ports. After about two
> > > hours
> > > > of head scratching and tearing apart my panel, we found that one of
>the
> > > > nylo-seal elbows I got from Spruce was plugged. It had a
>manufacturing
> > > > defect that left a thin layer of nylon in the middle of the elbow.
>You
> > > > could't see it but I tried to blow through it and turned blue in the
>face.
> > > >
> > > > Moral of the Story: Buy good fittings ( I think the O-ring style are
> > > > better) and blow through all of them prior to assembly.
> > > >
> > > > This would have saved me a couple hours of A&P ($65/hour) time as well
>as
> > > > about 6 hours of my time ($0.85/hour based on the planes market value)
> > > and a
> > > > bunch of chipped paint around screw heads on my once perferct panel.
> > >
> > >
> > >Bummer!!
> > >
> > >Just a reminder to current builders that even though the special elbow
> > >and bulkhead fittings look "professional", the easiest, least expensive,
> > >and probably most reliable way of putting together the pitot lines is to
> > >join the nylon tubing with a short length of rubber hose. The lines can
> > >usually be routed through the wings and fuse without having to resort to
> > >elbows. If the line needs to be disconnected, just cut the rubber splice
> > >off and replace it with a new one.
> > >
> > >By the way, this same method is used on at least one certificated plane
> > >that I know of for hooking up the fuel vent hoses.
> > >
> > >Sam Buchanan
> > >http://thervjournal.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MnwPeeps(at)aol.com |
Looking for recommendations for a good prop repair shop in the New England
area - fairly close to the Boston area would be a plus, but not important.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
>
>For .25 dia tubing (use their tubing!!) the fitting is about .5 ~.75 long
>depending on type and .375 dia. There is a flange around the opening of the
>fitting that appears to float. Push the tubing in place and your done, "one
>touch?". Depress the flange and pull out the tubing, sometimes easier said
>than done. There are distributors all over the US, find one near you and
>get there fitting/tubing catalog. Prices are about 2~5 bucks per fitting
>depending.
These are "instant fittings".
Here is a link to the exact page in the McMaster Catalog:
http://www.mcmaster.com/nav/enter.asp?pagenum=139
They have a HUGE selection of instant fittings and tubing to go
with them. The nylon tubing comes in all different colors. This is a big
help when you are plumbing multiple systems (like in an airplane.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Static Check Nightmare |
I used these fittings to repair pinhole leaks in my plastic brake lines, and
they worked great. Just cut the line, slip each end into the union all the
way, crack the coupling nut on the left side master cylinder until the
bubble is gone, and we're serviceable again.
And they're so cheap, I bought extras for the fly-away kit.
Scott in Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pitot Static Check Nightmare
>
>><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>>For .25 dia tubing (use their tubing!!) the fitting is about .5 ~.75 long
>>depending on type and .375 dia. There is a flange around the opening of
>>the
>>fitting that appears to float. Push the tubing in place and your done,
>>"one
>>touch?". Depress the flange and pull out the tubing, sometimes easier said
>>than done. There are distributors all over the US, find one near you and
>>get there fitting/tubing catalog. Prices are about 2~5 bucks per fitting
>>depending.
>
> These are "instant fittings".
>
> Here is a link to the exact page in the McMaster Catalog:
>
> http://www.mcmaster.com/nav/enter.asp?pagenum=139
>
> They have a HUGE selection of instant fittings and tubing to go
> with them. The nylon tubing comes in all different colors. This is a big
> help when you are plumbing multiple systems (like in an airplane.)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector handle loose |
Is the handle on properly?
The part of the handle that mates with the selector shaft is not completely
square.
Just like the ring gear being forced onto the crankshaft the wrong way,
tightening the handle onto the selector shaft the wrong way will create
enough of a grip to get it to turn.
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel selector handle loose
>
>
> In a message dated 11/30/2004 3:21:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> ghinman(at)allstream.net writes:
>
> I have the Van's standard fuel selector.
> It is new but the handle is not tight.
> It moves a small amount when switching
> tanks.I feel it might become more loose and
> eventually I will be unable to switch tanks.
> Probably at the worst time!!
> Have others had this problem?
>
>
> ======================================
>
> George-
>
> What part is loose? As long as the handle tightly fits the shaft, a
> small
> amount of slop in the mechanism is not a problem IMO. Mine has remained
> absolutely unchanged in the 730 hrs, and I suspect that yours will be no
> different.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 725hrs)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
To balance out my Whirl Wind info I got earlier, I called Hartzell today and talked
to a tech rep (John) who said that someone from his group was out flying
this week testing a new prop for the 200hp angle valve engine and told me their
goal was to have something available for Van's to market for Sun n Fun. They
were specifically testing with both a counterweighted and non-counterweighted
version of the engine. They said to call back at the end of January and they
should be able to give some specific results.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
> Lucky -
>
> Actually, as of yesterday, they have upped the TBO time on the 200RV
> to 500h and expect that it will go to 1000h. I have about 40h on mine
> and am extremely happy with it.
>
> Jon Weiswasser
> N898JW
>
> --- In Mid-AtlRVwing(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote:
> > Howdy,
> > In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl
> Wind prop "designed" for RVs, I received the following info from them
> on that very subject.
> >
> > I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
> >
> > hmmm....Checkoway would have his in the shop and be without a plane
> at least twice a year! And $350 to boot? I didn't even ask if there
> were East Coast overhaul shops.
> >
> > Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to
> hear.
> >
> > Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaper Hartzell seem like a steal
> at the moment. What's the Hartzell designed blade life on a Magneto
> fired Lycoming? 40,000 hours? 20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
> >
> > Lucky
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > > Hello Lucky,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an
> ideal propeller
> > > choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
> > >
> > > The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade
> inspection
> > > every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
> > >
> > > If you would like to place an order, all that is required is a
> deposit of $1,000
> > > with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I
> currently have an
> > > opening for delivery in May 2005.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > -Patti
> > > Whirl Wind Propellers
> > > 619-562-3725
>
>
>
>
>
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/SyTolB/TM
>
>
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mid-AtlRVwing/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Mid-AtlRVwing-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
To balance out my Whirl Wind info I got earlier, I called Hartzell todayand talked
to a tech rep (John) who said that someone from his group was out flying this
week testing a new prop for the 200hp angle valve engine and told me their
goal was to have something available for Van's to market for Sun n Fun. They
were specifically testing with both a counterweighted and non-counterweighted
version of the engine. They said to call back at the end of January and they should
be able to give some specific results.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
Lucky -
Actually, as of yesterday, they have upped the TBO time on the 200RV
to 500h and expect that it will go to 1000h. I have about 40h on mine
and am extremely happy with it.
Jon Weiswasser
N898JW
--- In Mid-AtlRVwing(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote:
Howdy,
In case anyone was curious about the care and feeding of the Whirl
Wind prop "designed" for RVs, I received the following info from them
on that very subject.
I am shocked. Full teardown every 250 hours?
hmmm....Checkoway would have his in the shop and be without a plane
at least twice a year! And $350 to boot? I didn't even ask if there
were East Coast
overhaul shops.
Are folks flying this prop really going through this? I'd like to
hear.
Wow, makes the heavy, noisy but cheaper Hartzell seem like a steal
at the moment. What's the Hartzell designed blade life on a Magneto
fired Lycoming? 40,000 hours? 20,000? TBO 1000 hours?
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
Hello Lucky,
Thank you for your email. For your RV-8, the 200RV would be an
ideal propeller
choice. You can read about the performance on www.rv-8.com
The current maintenance requirement is a full teardown and blade
inspection
every 250 hours. The cost of this teardown is $350 for the 200RV.
If you would like to pl
ace an order, all that is required is a
deposit of $1,000
with the balance due prior to shipment of the propeller. I
currently have an
opening for delivery in May 2005.
Sincerely,
-Patti
Whirl Wind Propellers
619-562-3725
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/SyTolB/TM
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mid-AtlRVwing/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Mid-AtlRVwing-unsubscr
ibe(at)yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector handle loose |
An early parts problem solved:
Though I have not held one in my hand, I have no doubt that the Andair fuel
selector valve referred to is of good quality with good features. Of course
the quality and features comes with a commemorate added cost and some added
instalation effort.
Back in my early days on this list I heard that there was a problem with the
fuel valves that Van's was supplying. These units where all metal and in use
would slowly tighten up and eventually even jam. If these units taken apart
early enough and lubed with fuel lube or some other fuel proof lubricant
they could be reused. I assume that this step was then added to the annual
inspection list.
Van's superseded the all metal valve with one that outwardly looked the same
but utilized an internal plastic ball valve that so far as I know has not
had any problems associated to it.
My kit supplied early 1997 came with the plastic ball type fuel selector
valve.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Zilik" <zilik(at)excelgeo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel selector handle loose
>
> I assume you have tried tightening the screw in the top. :) Are you sure
> you have the handle pressed all the way down on the shaft? If you still
> can't get it tight order another from vans, or maybe on of the listers
> that has installed the Andair unit will give you there old valve.
>
> I must second Jerry's comment. I see nothing wrong with the kit supplied
> selector valve. I have installed (in other peoples airplanes) two Andair
> valves along with an Andair gascolator. While they are nice units they
> require more work to install.
>
> Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Not only are parks and airports not incompatible, but are viable companions.
With allowance for non-secured areas for picnicking, boating, Frisbee
throwing and dog walking, the airport serves as additional entertainment.
How many airports have parking/viewing areas at the end of runways? Many.
Why--because many people like to watch planes. Those that don't have the
option of going to a different park. Those that do, have no option of going
to any other park because Chicago is deficit in parks that are associated
with aviation! Lets give all the citizens an option, not just those that
don't want to be near aviation. We need Meigs back for the recreation and
entertainment value in the Chicago parks system!
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Tasker
Subject: Re: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
Just a detail but Aeroflex-Andover (12N) is in NJ not IN.
Dick Tasker (from NJ)
Jeff Dowling wrote:
>
>Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for
examples of airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following if
you know of any.
>
>
>Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as
saying:
>"There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
>
>Baloney!
>
>This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of airports
in the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by side.
>
>In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook County
Forest Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course. Many
small airports exist right in state and national parks. Many more have
parks adjacent with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of planes
taking off and landing.
>
>Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of
airports large and small co-existing with:
>
> a.. Parks
> b.. Nature trails
> c.. Golf courses
> d.. Forest preserves
> e.. Camping facilities
> f.. Museums
> g.. Historical landmarks
>Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First Flight
Airport (FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS), Mackinac Island
(MCD), Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA (PAO).
>
>Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their series
of airstrips in their state parks, including the number one nominee: Rough
River Dam State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one of its many
nominators:
>
>"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge,
restaurant, and a runway. This is a great example of what you are looking
for. This is state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
>
>Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have further
examples:
>
>Help us prove them wrong!
>
>Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have electronic
pictures or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes connection, send
them too! Send them to us at:
>
>info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
>
>
>Thanks for the help
>
>Shemp
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Laurence <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
$467.90!
Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
OUCH!
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List COM Antenna |
I can't resisst piping in here....
Jim has been around a LOOONG time regarding these RV's and making them go fast.
His word is worth quite a bit more than some people's.
That being said, my personal experience is that of mixed results. I have both
the wingtip mounted antennas, Com/Nav. I like the Nav and quit using the Comm.
My personal experience is that I like the belly mounted whip better, and I'm
willing to accept the 1 mph deduction for the extremely long range, crystal
clear comm. That being said, the wingpit comm worked fine, just not as well as
the belly mounted whip that I'm using.
Alos, the Wingtip Nav is great. I get accurate VOR/GS/ILS from a long way out.
Just my 2 cents. I also like to hide as many antennas as possible. No reason
to have an external GPS antenna, and many people are successfully mounting the
txpdr under the cowl in between the stack with good results also. My planes
(present & future) will have the belly mounted whip, but everything else will
be hidden.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:52:22 EST
>
>
>Hi Bob1 and all,
>
>Please recall that the original email was regarding a fuselage mounted COM
>antenna for a fiberglass fuselage that was unsuitable for a wingtip
>installation. And that the COM antenna was one of Bob Archer's Sportcraft antenna.
>
>I have NEVER seen any "legitimat/objective comparison specs" regarding
>antenna's on this list. Why should I be held to a higher standard? (If you
want
>that kind of information, I have always suggested a conversation with Bob
>Archer. He knows.)
>
>I quit selling Bob Archer's antenna's on the RV list years ago. Check the
>archives.
>
>Do you object to my giving out Bob Archer's contact information so people on
>the RV list can buy direct, and save money?
>
>I'm one of the original skeptics.
>I have one RV flying, and two more in process.
>What I learned from the first is being applied to the rest.
>The first RV has one external transponder antenna.
>The RV-6A will have NO external antenna's with no compromise in performance
>using 2 COM, NAV, GPS and transponder.
>My HR2 will be the same with 2 COM, 2 GPS, NAV and Transponder.
>
>I've know Bob Archer for over 20 years. Of the antenna experts, Bob is the
>only one I know that consistently has reliable information.
>
>I do have a pet peeve. It offends me to see the a multitude of antenna's on
>the outside of RV's. I've seen as many as 9 external antenna's on the
>outside of an RV-6.
>
>With Regards, but slightly confused about some peoples reaction on the RV
>list to my postings,
>Jim Ayers
>Less Drag Products, Inc.
>"Drag is like magic. It's what you don't see that's important."
>
>In a message dated 12/01/2004 12:01:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 11/29/04
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1"
>
>
>>
>> The Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog has the Model 1A wingtip COM
>> antenna. If installed to the instructions, this is almost as good as the
>belly
>> mounted bent whip antenna.>
>
>>This antenna is available directly from the manufacturer at a lower price
>>than AC$. Contact Bob Archer......
>
>> Regards,
>> Jim Ayers
>> Less Drag Products, Inc.
>> _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
>========================
>
>"Almost as good" does not compute.
>Got legitimat/objective comparison specs?
>
>As to Bob Archer stuff...
>If you are associated in a business way, it should be duly noted so the
>reader might understand where you are coming from.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Lake Whitney State Park, TX (F50)
This is in the P-49 prohibited area when President Bush is at
his ranch but it is a nice place to go most of the time.
I have landed at Meigs on the way to Oshkosh in years past and
would love to see it reopened.
Dick Dial
N89DD RV6
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Dowling
Subject: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for
examples of airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following
if you know of any.
Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as
saying:
"There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
Baloney!
This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of
airports in the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by
side.
In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook
County Forest Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course.
Many small airports exist right in state and national parks. Many more
have parks adjacent with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of
planes taking off and landing.
Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of
airports large and small co-existing with:
a.. Parks
b.. Nature trails
c.. Golf courses
d.. Forest preserves
e.. Camping facilities
f.. Museums
g.. Historical landmarks
Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First
Flight Airport (FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS),
Mackinac Island (MCD), Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA
(PAO).
Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their
series of airstrips in their state parks, including the number one
nominee: Rough River Dam State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one
of its many nominators:
"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge,
restaurant, and a runway. This is a great example of what you are
looking for. This is state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have
further examples:
Help us prove them wrong!
Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have
electronic pictures or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes
connection, send them too! Send them to us at:
info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
Thanks for the help
Shemp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List COM Antenna |
I built an electrical "clone" of the Archer wingtip comm antenna into my RV wingtip
and removed the belly bent-whip comm antenna. The new antenna has beautiful
VSWR characteristics, is lightweight and zero-drag, but is highly directional,
even for stations on the outboard side of the wingtip (not shielded by the
fuselage and wing). This is leading me to install a second wingtip antenna
on the other side, which will have its "opening" facing the other way, allowing
me to overcome the shielding effects of the plane itself and the directional
effects of the antenna planform (front-to-back directionality). I am unsure
at this point if I will parallel the two feedlines together and use both antennas
at once (it's doable with inline coax impedance transformers and a tee-fitting,
but would give rise to an interesting stellate radiation pattern) or just
use a BNC switch or relay to operate one antenna at a time, whichever one is
hearing the other guy the best. Still scanning eBay for appropriate switching
devices...
My word to the wise at this point: expect a compromise in radio performance if
you opt for this antenna design, unless you are willing to install a pair of them,
and even then your troubles may not be over.
-Bill Boyd RV-6A
>>>Hmmmm.
1. What antennas are you using? I purchased Bob's Wingtip NAV and MKR BCN
antennas and during my chat with him concluded that the COM would be "not as
good as" the external COM antenna available (per Bob Archer himself)
2. Where are you placing them? I assume wingtip but figured I would ask<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Grand Canyon Airport is in a National park isn't it?
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Dial" <jrdial@hal-pc.org>
Subject: FW: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
>
>
> Lake Whitney State Park, TX (F50)
> This is in the P-49 prohibited area when President Bush is at
> his ranch but it is a nice place to go most of the time.
> I have landed at Meigs on the way to Oshkosh in years past and
> would love to see it reopened.
> Dick Dial
> N89DD RV6
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Dowling
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: More help needed to re-open Meigs
>
>
>
> Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of Meigs is looking for
> examples of airports and parks that co-exist. Please read the following
> if you know of any.
>
>
> Officials of the Chicago Park District have been quoted in the paper as
> saying:
> "There are no parks where airstrips are a compatible use."
>
> Baloney!
>
> This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of
> airports in the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist side by
> side.
>
> In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is adjacent to the Cook
> County Forest Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a golf course.
> Many small airports exist right in state and national parks. Many more
> have parks adjacent with observation areas to enjoy the excitement of
> planes taking off and landing.
>
> Thanks to you, we've already received over 80 e-mails citing examples of
> airports large and small co-existing with:
>
> a.. Parks
> b.. Nature trails
> c.. Golf courses
> d.. Forest preserves
> e.. Camping facilities
> f.. Museums
> g.. Historical landmarks
> Some airports have received multiple "nominations," including First
> Flight Airport (FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD (CGS),
> Mackinac Island (MCD), Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA
> (PAO).
>
> Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple nominations for their
> series of airstrips in their state parks, including the number one
> nominee: Rough River Dam State Park (2I3). According to Aaron Carr, one
> of its many nominators:
>
> "Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking, camping, beach, lodge,
> restaurant, and a runway. This is a great example of what you are
> looking for. This is state owned and operated with a lot of traffic."
>
> Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to those who have
> further examples:
>
> Help us prove them wrong!
>
> Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing. If you have
> electronic pictures or links to sites highlighting the parks/planes
> connection, send them too! Send them to us at:
>
> info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
>
>
> Thanks for the help
>
> Shemp
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=eHAVAQKCmJrPLTfDzgh83odDhS0MGIE7uBlwFfm78bL97GQxaskOIeas//ApSlCG8hUV68vGwx42LO7njjoRNal5yYPh2zGSkiINY9Sx82rEv8H9ZhZ5WlvXA4ewlX6sGL7f9FQWNRXtQrdmz1QDKaeByCyFrcmvbIqgUH2X3hc;
| From: | "R. Craig Chipley" <mechtech81(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | More help needed to re-open Meigs |
Do not forget a big park with a big airport, OSH. Only
a few hundred thousand people but that probably won't
count in their feeble minds.
--- Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
>
> Not only are parks and airports not incompatible,
> but are viable companions.
> With allowance for non-secured areas for picnicking,
> boating, Frisbee
> throwing and dog walking, the airport serves as
> additional entertainment.
> How many airports have parking/viewing areas at the
> end of runways? Many.
> Why--because many people like to watch planes.
> Those that don't have the
> option of going to a different park. Those that do,
> have no option of going
> to any other park because Chicago is deficit in
> parks that are associated
> with aviation! Lets give all the citizens an
> option, not just those that
> don't want to be near aviation. We need Meigs back
> for the recreation and
> entertainment value in the Chicago parks system!
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf
> Of Richard Tasker
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: More help needed to re-open
> Meigs
>
>
>
>
> Just a detail but Aeroflex-Andover (12N) is in NJ
> not IN.
>
> Dick Tasker (from NJ)
>
> Jeff Dowling wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Hey guys, the fight isn't over yet. Friends of
> Meigs is looking for
> examples of airports and parks that co-exist.
> Please read the following if
> you know of any.
> >
> >
> >Officials of the Chicago Park District have been
> quoted in the paper as
> saying:
> >"There are no parks where airstrips are a
> compatible use."
> >
> >Baloney!
> >
> >This is flat out untrue. There are hundreds, if
> not thousands, of airports
> in the U.S. alone where parks and airports co-exist
> side by side.
> >
> >In the Chicago area alone, Palwaukee Airport is
> adjacent to the Cook County
> Forest Preserve, and DuPage Airport is adjacent to a
> golf course. Many
> small airports exist right in state and national
> parks. Many more have
> parks adjacent with observation areas to enjoy the
> excitement of planes
> taking off and landing.
> >
> >Thanks to you, we've already received over 80
> e-mails citing examples of
> airports large and small co-existing with:
> >
> > a.. Parks
> > b.. Nature trails
> > c.. Golf courses
> > d.. Forest preserves
> > e.. Camping facilities
> > f.. Museums
> > g.. Historical landmarks
> >Some airports have received multiple "nominations,"
> including First Flight
> Airport (FFA) at Kill Devil Hills, College Park, MD
> (CGS), Mackinac Island
> (MCD), Aeroflex-Andover, IN (12N), and Palo Alto, CA
> (PAO).
> >
> >Kentucky fares extremely well, with multiple
> nominations for their series
> of airstrips in their state parks, including the
> number one nominee: Rough
> River Dam State Park (2I3). According to Aaron
> Carr, one of its many
> nominators:
> >
> >"Rough River is a State Park with golf, hiking,
> camping, beach, lodge,
> restaurant, and a runway. This is a great example of
> what you are looking
> for. This is state owned and operated with a lot of
> traffic."
> >
> >Thank you everyone who has written so far. And to
> those who have further
> examples:
> >
> >Help us prove them wrong!
> >
> >Send your examples of parks and planes co-existing.
> If you have electronic
> pictures or links to sites highlighting the
> parks/planes connection, send
> them too! Send them to us at:
> >
> >info(at)friendsofmeigs.org
> >
> >
> >Thanks for the help
> >
> >Shemp
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> by the
> Admin.
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net> |
I can't help you since I'm a brand new customer but I do think their
shipping technique is a bit odd. Other outfits I've dealt with have made
"deals" with a specific shipper and just add the cost of shipping to one's
bill. Works well - the recipient gets a better rate and doesn't have to
come up with money to satisfy a trucker. I have no idea why Van does it the
way he does and my question to them didn't get much of an answer. "That's
the way we do it."
Bill
Albion, Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: RV-List: Freight
>
> Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
> $467.90!
>
> Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or
7
> wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
>
>
> OUCH!
>
>
> Peter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
| From: | smoothweasel(at)juno.com |
Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some ideas
bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
Weasel RV-4
Brooksville Ms
Juno Gift Certificates
Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
http://www.juno.com/give
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Peter,
The finish kit, marked "glass -- fragile" is gonna kill ya. As I remember,
it was twice what the wing cost me.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying since July)
In a message dated 12/1/04 3:47:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org writes:
>
> Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
> $467.90!
>
> Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
> wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
>
>
> OUCH!
>
>
> Peter
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
I've worked with Barbara at Van's twice to arrange my own shipping company
and rate. There is no problem doing that - you just need to find a shipping
company that is satisfactory to you and gives you a better rate than the one
Van's has selected - Barbara has no hesitation using your chosen company.
I've used two different companies and everything worked out fine.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chenoweth" <chenoweth(at)gwi.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Freight
>
> I can't help you since I'm a brand new customer but I do think their
> shipping technique is a bit odd. Other outfits I've dealt with have made
> "deals" with a specific shipper and just add the cost of shipping to one's
> bill. Works well - the recipient gets a better rate and doesn't have to
> come up with money to satisfy a trucker. I have no idea why Van does it
the
> way he does and my question to them didn't get much of an answer. "That's
> the way we do it."
> Bill
> Albion, Maine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Laurence" <dr.laurence(at)mbdi.org>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Freight
>
>
> >
> > Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
> > $467.90!
> >
> > Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9
or
> 7
> > wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
> >
> >
> > OUCH!
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List COM Antenna |
In a message dated 12/1/04 5:06:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
> I am unsure at this point if I will parallel the two feedlines together and
> use both antennas at once (it's doable with inline coax impedance
> transformers and a tee-fitting, but would give rise to an interesting stellate
> radiation pattern) or just use a BNC switch or relay to operate one antenna at
a
> time, whichever one is hearing the other guy the best. Still scanning eBa!
> y for appropriate switching devices...
Bill,
I think you would do just fine if you use a small toggle switch to switch the
antennas. Just keep the leads as short as possible -- like maybe 1/4 to 1/2
inch. Build it into a small mini-box with 3 BNC connectors. It'll work just
fine.
Dan Hopper K9WEK (Ham radio operator since 1960 at age 16 -- you do the
math!)
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying great since July)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
smoothweasel(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
>Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
>be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
>have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
>but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some ideas
>bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
>
>Weasel RV-4
>Brooksville Ms
>
>
>
Check the Rocket list for John Harmons email address and ask him, I am
sure he could answer your questions.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
>
>
>Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
>be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
>have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
>but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some ideas
>bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
>
>Weasel RV-4
>Brooksville Ms
>
The CAS would be about 157 kt at this condition. The drag at a given
CAS is relatively independent of altitude, as long as the Mach number
is low enough so that Mach effects aren't coming into play. The
power required is proportional to the drag times the TAS. So, the
power required to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft would be about 220/157 =
1.4 times as much as the power required to go 157 kt TAS at sea level.
Assuming a Rocket has similar drag to the RV-8, I estimate it would
take about 110 hp to go 157 kt TAS at sea level (based on Van's perf
specs for top speed, with speed varying as the cube root of power),
and about 154 hp to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft. That doesn't sound
like a lot of power, until you realize that the air density is only
50% of what it is at sea level. This calculation also assumes that
the prop efficiency at 22,000 ft is the same as a Hartzell at sea
level.
Good luck.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector handle loose |
> I have the Van's standard fuel selector.
> It is new but the handle is not tight.
> It moves a small amount when switching
> tanks.I feel it might become more loose and
> eventually I will be unable to switch tanks.
> Probably at the worst time!!
> Have others had this problem?
Yes, mine has always been slightly loose, especially after I laid against it
inadvertantly while working under the panel. Just make sure the screw is
snug once in a while, but don't overdo it. I think it's just a quirk of the
design. If you want a backup plan, keep a pair of pliers in the cockpit.
Curt
RV-6 240 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Not good but not too bad. My wing and fuse QB boxes were $1,100 shipped to
Little Rock and my Finish and FWF kit (one box) was $451 received just last
week.
Bill Schlatterer
7a QB fuse/panel
Arkansas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Peter Laurence
Subject: RV-List: Freight
Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
$467.90!
Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
OUCH!
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Coldenhoff <rv9a_000(at)deru.com> |
Peter Laurence wrote:
>
> Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
> $467.90!
>
> Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
> wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
Call Barbara at Van's and confirm that you got billed
correctly by the freight company. When I got my finishing
kit, the bill was over $500. Not knowing any better (and
wanting my kit!), I paid it, but sent an inquiry to Van's
afterwards.
Turns out the freight company did not take out the discount
that Van's had negotiated. It took about a month to work out
getting the refund of about $250.
--
Tim Coldenhoff
#90338 - Final Assembly!!
http://rv9a.deru.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John DeCuir <jadecuir(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna location? |
I need some help here, guys. I've bought a used GX50 GPS to replace the
flybuddy loran in my RV4. The loran antenna was mounted on the belly,
just aft the firewall. The com antenna is mounted on top the fuse,
midway between the aft edge of the canopy and the vert stab. The
cleanest install I can think of is to put the GPS ant where the com is
now, and move the com to the underbelly loran spot. I know the GPS
would be fine, but how well would my com work with the antenna that
close to the firewall (groundplane reduced) and between the gearlegs?
If I leave the com antenna where it is, I can cap the loran hole.
Has anyone mounted the GPS ant. on the aft fuse underneath the canopy,
just behind the pax seat? I feel that I need as much distance from the
com ant. as I can get. What about on the fuse top, between the firewall
and the panel?
John D
RV-4, N204CP
Salinas, CA
EAA204
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
Peter Laurence wrote:
>
>Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
>$467.90!
>
>Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
>wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
>
>
>OUCH!
>
>
>Peter
>
>
All shipping aranged by Van's - cost after discounts, they were listed
on shipper.
Empennage kit $75.39 UPS
Wing kit $214.36 Freight Company - ABF - 53% discount 10/01
QB Fuselage kit $1,042.28 Freight Company - ABF - 60% discount 1/03
Finish kit $387.79 Freight Company - Roadway - 60% discount 7/03
Firewall Forward Kit $59.45 UPS
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna location? |
I've seen a lot of GPS antennas mounted on the top fuselage just aft of
the rear passenger. They seem to work just fine there. I have my com
antenna mounted just ahead of my spar on the belly of the plane. No
comm. problems at all.
John DeCuir wrote:
>
>I need some help here, guys. I've bought a used GX50 GPS to replace the
>flybuddy loran in my RV4. The loran antenna was mounted on the belly,
>just aft the firewall. The com antenna is mounted on top the fuse,
>midway between the aft edge of the canopy and the vert stab. The
>cleanest install I can think of is to put the GPS ant where the com is
>now, and move the com to the underbelly loran spot. I know the GPS
>would be fine, but how well would my com work with the antenna that
>close to the firewall (groundplane reduced) and between the gearlegs?
> If I leave the com antenna where it is, I can cap the loran hole.
>Has anyone mounted the GPS ant. on the aft fuse underneath the canopy,
>just behind the pax seat? I feel that I need as much distance from the
>com ant. as I can get. What about on the fuse top, between the firewall
>and the panel?
>John D
>RV-4, N204CP
>Salinas, CA
>EAA204
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
Kevin,
I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
the same speed at higher altitude?
I always thought (perhaps erroneously) that the thinner air meant less
drag and that the reason our normally aspirated birds were slower up
high was because the power available decreased more rapidly than the
drag. I was also under the impression that we go fast down low because
the extra power available overcomes the extra drag of the thicker air.
This idea has been re-enforced over the years by watching field goals
being kicked at extremely long distances in Denver which I (and the TV
announcers) attributed to thinner air at high altitude.
I always thought that was the reason people turbocharge piston airplanes
and fly at high altitudes. It can't be for lessened fuel burn since you
gotta keep the mixture pretty rich in a turbocharged airplane to keep
the cht's and tit's down, don't you?
Confused,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
>Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
>be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
>have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
>but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some
ideas
>bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
>
>Weasel RV-4
>Brooksville Ms
>
The CAS would be about 157 kt at this condition. The drag at a given
CAS is relatively independent of altitude, as long as the Mach number
is low enough so that Mach effects aren't coming into play. The
power required is proportional to the drag times the TAS. So, the
power required to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft would be about 220/157 =
1.4 times as much as the power required to go 157 kt TAS at sea level.
Assuming a Rocket has similar drag to the RV-8, I estimate it would
take about 110 hp to go 157 kt TAS at sea level (based on Van's perf
specs for top speed, with speed varying as the cube root of power),
and about 154 hp to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft. That doesn't sound
like a lot of power, until you realize that the air density is only
50% of what it is at sea level. This calculation also assumes that
the prop efficiency at 22,000 ft is the same as a Hartzell at sea
level.
Good luck.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
Well, I don't live in South Florida, I live in NJ which is only a little
closer to Oregon, and I received my wing kit two years ago, but my
shipping bill was only $200 and that included a 3.5% fuel surcharge..
As others have said, you may not have received the 60% discount Van's
gets. If you have the wing kit delivered to a residence they tack on an
additional $50 or so which is not charged if it is delivered to a
business (which mine was).
You say "wing". Was it the wing kit or the QB wing? The QB would be
more since the box is substantially bigger.
Dick Tasker
Peter Laurence wrote:
>
>Received my wing from Van's via Roadway Trucking and got a bill for
>$467.90!
>
>Has anyone in the south Florida area recently taken delivery of an RV9 or 7
>wing? If so, does the amount I just paid commensurate with yours?
>
>
>OUCH!
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> Kevin,
>
> I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
> understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
> the same speed at higher altitude?
>
Read it again. Kevin was comparing to a lower speed because that is what he
had data on.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross S" <rv7maker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Brake holding Power |
Esteemed listers,
How does air in brake lines affect the holding power of the brakes. I made
a couple initial taxi tests with my plane the other day and it took quite a
bit of pedal pressure to run the engine at run up power and they just plain
wouldn't hold at anything above that. I ran it around for about four orfive
minutes for a so called brake "brake in" but it had no effect. I later
noticed some air bubbles in one of the lines. I haven't run it again yet
and don't want to before I fly it, but I wonder if they will have more
holding power with the air bled. I would think that a small amount of air
in the lines would make them spongy, but not lower the hydraulic pressure or
the resulting squeeze on the disk, unless the master cylinders ran out of
stroke (which they didn't).
Your thoughts please.
Thanks,
Ross
Ross Schlotthauer
RV-7 Wrap-up
www.experimentalair.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Molex connectors |
Listers,
Can someone in the know tell me if .062" molex terminals are capable of handling
the current flow required for a taillight/strobe unit in the rudder or are
the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
Thanks,
Ivan Haecker
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derrick Aubuchon <n184da(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna location? |
Hey John,,
That's exactly where my GPS antenna is located,, under the canopy,
behind the rear passenger.
Works as advertised!
Derrick L. Aubuchon
n184da(at)volcano.net
On Dec 1, 2004, at 8:03 PM, John DeCuir wrote:
>
> I need some help here, guys. I've bought a used GX50 GPS to replace the
> flybuddy loran in my RV4. The loran antenna was mounted on the belly,
> just aft the firewall. The com antenna is mounted on top the fuse,
> midway between the aft edge of the canopy and the vert stab. The
> cleanest install I can think of is to put the GPS ant where the com is
> now, and move the com to the underbelly loran spot. I know the GPS
> would be fine, but how well would my com work with the antenna that
> close to the firewall (groundplane reduced) and between the gearlegs?
> If I leave the com antenna where it is, I can cap the loran hole.
> Has anyone mounted the GPS ant. on the aft fuse underneath the canopy,
> just behind the pax seat? I feel that I need as much distance from the
> com ant. as I can get. What about on the fuse top, between the firewall
> and the panel?
> John D
> RV-4, N204CP
> Salinas, CA
> EAA204
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brake holding Power |
Hi Ross,
Air is compressible. Brake fluid is not. A small amount of air in your lines
will definitely make the brakes less effective as far as the pressure on the
pedal for holding and stopping power is concerned. The pedal will have a
soft spongy, springy or cushioned feel.
Bleed the air out and inspect for a source of the air that you are
describing. As this is first testing of new system, It is most likely that
you have found air bubbles that were introduced during the initial filling
of the system. It is also possible that air has entered past a loose fitting
or one or more of the O ring seals (best to replace all O rings in that
cylinder) . Most commonly the master cylinders do this. If this is the case
replacement of the offending seals is the fix.
Happy landings,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross S" <rv7maker(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Brake holding Power
>
> Esteemed listers,
>
> How does air in brake lines affect the holding power of the brakes.
> >spip<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | purpose of fire sleeve |
I was advised today by one of the guys at Van's to not bother putting
fire sleeve on oil lines. Just use it on the fuel lines.
Is the purpose of fire sleeve just to insulate the fuel lines from heat
of the engine, or is it to retard the progress of an engine fire, by
protecting the combustible oil and fuel from flames? If it's just to
keep the gas cool, then I guess he's right. If it's supposed to retard a
fire, then I think oil lines should be firesleeved too, yes?
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
> I always thought that was the reason people turbocharge piston airplanes
> and fly at high altitudes. It can't be for lessened fuel burn since you
> gotta keep the mixture pretty rich in a turbocharged airplane to keep
> the cht's and tit's down, don't you?
when I first bought our Cessna TurboCenturion and took it up high, ( well,
FL220 seemed high, although it's ceiling was FL310, IIRC)I was surprized
that the same power setting yielded the same fuel flow and the exact same
IAS.
I shouldn't have been surprized, just never thought about it, having only
flown normally-aspirated engines up until that time.
The only thing that kept increasing with altitude was the TAS, I don't think
the CHT and TIT changed noticeably.
Scott in VAncouver
>-----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
>>
>>
>>Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
>>be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
>>have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
>>but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some
> ideas
>>bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
>>
>>Weasel RV-4
>>Brooksville Ms
>>
>
> The CAS would be about 157 kt at this condition. The drag at a given
> CAS is relatively independent of altitude, as long as the Mach number
> is low enough so that Mach effects aren't coming into play. The
> power required is proportional to the drag times the TAS. So, the
> power required to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft would be about 220/157 > 1.4 times
as much as the power required to go 157 kt TAS at sea level.
>
> Assuming a Rocket has similar drag to the RV-8, I estimate it would
> take about 110 hp to go 157 kt TAS at sea level (based on Van's perf
> specs for top speed, with speed varying as the cube root of power),
> and about 154 hp to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft. That doesn't sound
> like a lot of power, until you realize that the air density is only
> 50% of what it is at sea level. This calculation also assumes that
> the prop efficiency at 22,000 ft is the same as a Hartzell at sea
> level.
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: purpose of fire sleeve |
Hi Tom,
This topic tends to need some fire sleeve. ;-)
Fire sleeve is firstly intended to delay the negative effects of heat and
open flames on hoses, wires, etc.
Fuel hoses being a potential and volatile source for feeding a fire require
fire sleeve. (Mandatory on aircraft I.think)
Oil hoses being quite able to feed a fire are a close second.. Not mandatory
(Also good idea I think)
The fire sleeve will insulate the oil lines but oil lines are not generally
intended to be heat radiators unless deliberately designed that way
If the choice is to install fire sleeve there are some considerations:
If installing over rubber hoses be aware that the ends of the fire sleeve
need to be sealed and clamped tight to stop the invasion of condensation and
other environmental contaminants that will tend to reduce the expected life
cycle of the hoses being protected. There is a special product for this but
RTV can be utilized. (generally a very messy job)
Because the cut ends of fire sleeve are fuzzy and tend to release fibbers it
is advisable to use the sealant of choice on all installations. (it Does
look nicer)
With the stainless braided neoprene etc, hoses deterioration and rotting is
less of a consideration.
Does installing fire sleeve on fuel lines have a positive effect on in line
fuel vaporization?
Yes; it initially delays the invasion of heat into the fuel line during warm
up. (no biggy)
During flight the cooling effect of the fresh fuel flow will be more
effective because the fire sleeve will insulate the line thereby keeping the
coolness in the line as well as tending to keep the ambient heat out.
During an after shut down hot soak (no fuel flow) it will then first delay
the fairly short duration but noticeable heat increase.
Then it will tend to hold onto any heat gained, delaying the cooling off
period or until fuel movement begins again. This could be a negative effect
on starting during short duration shut offs.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: purpose of fire sleeve
>
> I was advised today by one of the guys at Van's to not bother putting
> fire sleeve on oil lines. Just use it on the fuel lines.
>
> Is the purpose of fire sleeve just to insulate the fuel lines from heat
> of the engine, or is it to retard the progress of an engine fire, by
> protecting the combustible oil and fuel from flames? If it's just to
> keep the gas cool, then I guess he's right. If it's supposed to retard a
> fire, then I think oil lines should be firesleeved too, yes?
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
> I always thought that was the reason people turbocharge piston
airplanes
> and fly at high altitudes. It can't be for lessened fuel burn since
you
> gotta keep the mixture pretty rich in a turbocharged airplane to keep
> the cht's and tit's down, don't you?
when I first bought our Cessna TurboCenturion and took it up high, (
well,
FL220 seemed high, although it's ceiling was FL310, IIRC)I was surprized
that the same power setting yielded the same fuel flow and the exact
same
IAS.
I shouldn't have been surprized, just never thought about it, having
only
flown normally-aspirated engines up until that time.
The only thing that kept increasing with altitude was the TAS, I don't
think
the CHT and TIT changed noticeably.
Scott in VAncouver
Scott,
That's just what I expected. I thought, that with the same available
power (which you can maintain to higher altitude with a turbocharger),
you'd see higher true airspeed at higher altitude. But it seems that
Kevin predicts a lower tas with the same power. That's what I'm trying
to figure out.
I bet if you had leaned it out, both temperatures would've gone into the
red at least until you got high enough to where the engine couldn't
maintain anything like sea level power. ;-)
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
Hi Larry,
I read it again (and again and again), and I think that what Kevin said
was that 157 kts cas (calibrated airspeed which is indicated airspeed
corrected for installation errors, if I've got it right) is equal to 220
kts tas (true airspeed) at 22k ft. At sea level cas and tas are equal
(given standard temperature), right? He said that drag is roughly the
same for cas at differing altitudes and that power required is
proportional to drag times tas. I believe I understand what he said and
I can't fault his math, but I don't understand why it would be so.
Lift has to overcome gravity and thrust has to overcome drag at any
altitude. An engine has less ability to produce power at higher
altitude, but why should more power, assuming the engine could be
convinced to make it, be required to overcome, what I expect (perhaps
unrealistically), to be lower drag in the thinner air at higher
altitude? To me it's counterintuitive that drag would increase with
altitude. That's the part that I don't get.
I don't have any math to back it up, but shouldn't parasitic drag
decrease in thinner air? I've heard it said that induced drag is the
smaller part of total drag. Does the induced drag increase a lot (40
percent or more) as the wing struggles to make up the lift that is lost
through lower air density? Would this be because of the necessity of a
higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift?
Could it be not entirely an increase in drag but, in part, a decrease in
prop efficiency that is causing this effect? A prop is less efficient at
higher altitude, sure, but is it 40 percent less efficient?
When I said that Kevin knows more about this than I do, I wasn't being
facetious. I genuinely want to understand the principles involved.
Seeking knowledge,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Pardue
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> Kevin,
>
> I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
> understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
> the same speed at higher altitude?
>
Read it again. Kevin was comparing to a lower speed because that is
what he
had data on.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
Here is perhaps another way to think of things.
1. The airplane weighs the same at all usable altitudes.*
2. Thus the wing has produce the same amount of lift effect.
3. Since the air is less dense at altitude, you have to move the wing faster
through the air to get the same amount of lift.
4. Because you are going faster, the amount of drag increases too, even
though the air is less dense.
5. The two effects are exactly matched with the airspeed indicator, so that
the airplane, if operated at the same CAS, will have the same amount of lift
and drag. **
6. Power is a measure of the amount of work (which is the same as moving a
force through a distance) performed during a given period of time.
7. Let's say the airplane has a drag of say 200 lbs at 157 kts CAS.
8. At sea level, the airplane moves 157 nm in one hour, while at altitude
the airplane moves 220 nm in the same one hour of time, in each case working
against the same 200 lb drag force. .
9. So the airplane flying at altitude has moved the same force a greater
distance in the same time and so must have used more power to do so (as it
did more work in the same amount of time).
10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you either need a
bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-3, RV-6A
* Purists will note that gravitational force deceases as you go higher so
the airplane will actually "weigh" a bit less, the change is tiny until you
get many miles up.
** Assuming the various mach and Reynolds number effects can be disregarded.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I read it again (and again and again), and I think that what Kevin said
> was that 157 kts cas (calibrated airspeed which is indicated airspeed
> corrected for installation errors, if I've got it right) is equal to 220
> kts tas (true airspeed) at 22k ft. At sea level cas and tas are equal
> (given standard temperature), right? He said that drag is roughly the
> same for cas at differing altitudes and that power required is
> proportional to drag times tas. I believe I understand what he said and
> I can't fault his math, but I don't understand why it would be so.
>
> Lift has to overcome gravity and thrust has to overcome drag at any
> altitude. An engine has less ability to produce power at higher
> altitude, but why should more power, assuming the engine could be
> convinced to make it, be required to overcome, what I expect (perhaps
> unrealistically), to be lower drag in the thinner air at higher
> altitude? To me it's counterintuitive that drag would increase with
> altitude. That's the part that I don't get.
>
> I don't have any math to back it up, but shouldn't parasitic drag
> decrease in thinner air? I've heard it said that induced drag is the
> smaller part of total drag. Does the induced drag increase a lot (40
> percent or more) as the wing struggles to make up the lift that is lost
> through lower air density? Would this be because of the necessity of a
> higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift?
>
> Could it be not entirely an increase in drag but, in part, a decrease in
> prop efficiency that is causing this effect? A prop is less efficient at
> higher altitude, sure, but is it 40 percent less efficient?
>
> When I said that Kevin knows more about this than I do, I wasn't being
> facetious. I genuinely want to understand the principles involved.
>
> Seeking knowledge,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Pardue
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
>> understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
>> the same speed at higher altitude?
>>
>
> Read it again. Kevin was comparing to a lower speed because that is
> what he
> had data on.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David" <davewendi(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
axle?
3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
everything is tightened up?
Thanks.
David Kirby
RV-6AQB
Griffin, GA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
(((((((((comments embedded))))))))))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I read it again (and again and again), and I think that what Kevin said
> was that 157 kts cas (calibrated airspeed which is indicated airspeed
> corrected for installation errors, if I've got it right) is equal to 220
> kts tas (true airspeed) at 22k ft. At sea level cas and tas are equal
> (given standard temperature), right? He said that drag is roughly the
> same for cas at differing altitudes and that power required is
> proportional to drag times tas. I believe I understand what he said and
> I can't fault his math, but I don't understand why it would be so.
>
> Lift has to overcome gravity and thrust has to overcome drag at any
> altitude. An engine has less ability to produce power at higher
> altitude, but why should more power, assuming the engine could be
> convinced to make it, be required to overcome, what I expect (perhaps
> unrealistically), to be lower drag in the thinner air at higher
> altitude? To me it's counterintuitive that drag would increase with
> altitude. That's the part that I don't get.
>
> I don't have any math to back it up, but shouldn't parasitic drag
> decrease in thinner air? I've heard it said that induced drag is the
> smaller part of total drag. Does the induced drag increase a lot (40
> percent or more) as the wing struggles to make up the lift that is lost
> through lower air density? Would this be because of the necessity of a
> higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift?
>
> Could it be not entirely an increase in drag but, in part, a decrease in
> prop efficiency that is causing this effect? (((((((( That is how I see
it.)))))))) A prop is less efficient at
> higher altitude, sure, but is it 40 percent less efficient? ((((((((could
be.........as we go even higher eventually it has no air to pull through. I
don't have enough time and motivation to try and figure this out myself
cause I am trying to get ready for my first flight coming up in a couple
months.))))))))))
>
> When I said that Kevin knows more about this than I do, I wasn't being
> facetious. I genuinely want to understand the principles involved.(((((((I
know. I think Kevin is a knowledgeable person. He might not of explained
this so us less knowledgeable can understand. But if you keep after it, I
am sure he or someone will. Thanks for pursuing this.......Indiana
Larry)))))))))))
>
> Seeking knowledge,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Pardue
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > I expect that you know a lot more about it than I do, but I just don't
> > understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes more power to go
> > the same speed at higher altitude?
> >
>
> Read it again. Kevin was comparing to a lower speed because that is
> what he
> had data on.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
> either need a
> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>
There are indeed free lunches with respect to flying higher. Many factors
apply, but most normally aspirated piston planes get their best economy
(which is another way of saying speed per gallon) at something around 7 - 8
thousand feet. Obviously, if a trip is only 50 miles, there may not be a
net benefit. Jets run high because for the same indicated airspeed, which
approximately translates to power needed, they have a much higher TAS. I'll
let the jet jockeys chime in here, but the fuel burns in jets go way up at
lower altitudes, TAS the same.
I will run some tests soon, setting some constant power (this means basic
power settings are the same, and fuel flow and egt relative to peak must be
identical), fly a high and low altitude run, and take data. A complication
to this is that the temperature will not be the same at, for example, 2000'
vs 7500'. In any case, the output of this test will be to calculate TAS
based upon temperature, IAS, barometer and altitude.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 558 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Sneed <n242ds(at)cox.net> |
I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
it with a screen.
Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
running the top.
Any ideas welcome!
Jason Sneed
n242ds(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)excelgeo.com> |
\"rv-list(at)matronics.com\""
| Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Gary Zilik's engine problem update |
bmarvel(at)cox.net wrote:
> A few questions:
>
> 1. How many hours have you flown this engine?
The engine has ~700 hours since overhaul and ~500 hours since new
Millennium cylinders where installed. This is another story in itself.
> 2. Has this problem occurred periodically throughout its lifetime on
> your aircraft or is it relatively new?
The problem cropped up in July of this year. Previous to that there were
no problems.
> 3. If the latter, when did it start in terms of anything that you
> changed, adjusted or replaced on the engine or in the fuel system?
No changes were made previous to the episodes. After the July roughness
I pulled the cowl when we got home and checked it over pretty carefully.
The inlet ramp on #2 cyl was cracked and had lost a football shaped
chunk about 1.5 in
2 in area. I repaired the hole using 500 mph tape
(aluminum tape used on Boeings) and intended to repair the baffle
properly at annual time. It turns out the 500 mph tape could not
withstand the heat and pressure of the cooling plenum and failed. After
removal of the baffle for repair it was noted that the football shaped
hole had also allowed the side of the baffle to push away from the
cylinder head when under pressure. I'm leaning towards the failed baffle
causing hot spots on the cylinder in question leading towards
detonation. I really think the baffle failure and the first roughness
episode came at the same time. The previouse episodes of roughness
always happend at higher altitudes where the engine cannot generate as
much power and enriching the mixture solved the problem. On the last
episode it was a coold day, high pressure in the area and full power.
Enrichening the mixture helped at first and then it slowley started
getting worse. Of course the cylinder in question was not the one my
single egt/cht is installed on and all readings were normal. So at this
point I have a strange looking piston and plug in number 2, failed
baffles on #2, leaned for cruse at 6000' 21 map 2500 rpm and I then
increased power for the chase. I think (i really don't remember) that I
violated the cardinal rule to increase the mixture before pushing in the
throttle. The roughness started soon after and then I pushed the mixture
in. As I said, it helped at first but only got worse from then on.
I thank everyone for the suggestions I have gotten so far. There are a
lot of great minds on the lists.
Gary
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna location? |
In a message dated 12/2/04 1:20:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
n184da(at)volcano.net writes:
> I feel that I need as much distance from the
> >com ant. as I can get. What about on the fuse top, between the firewall
> >and the panel?
> >John D
> >RV-4, N204CP
> >Salinas, CA
> >EAA204
> >
>
John,
I don't think the GPS antenna needs to be more than say 18 inches from the
COM antenna given the great difference in frequency, but that location works
fine for the GPS antenna.
I have a Garmin 295 panel mounted.=A0 The portable antenna off the back of the
295 sits horizontally on the glareshield (inside the cockpit) on a BNC
bulkhead connector, and gives excellent results.=A0
A 6 inch length of RG-400 was made up to extend the antenna from the back of
the 295 up to the bulkhead connector.
This antenna installation was really easy.=A0 Only one hole for the BNC
connector drilled with a unibit up from the bottom.=A0 No messy antenna wire to
run.=A0
And the 295 and its antenna are easy to remove from the airplane for land
use.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying since July)
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=ZhYVNJI8VKqWf8SVnOZ3hdZEPPbBy0rvvxmg78ghne09ZmHoDtkD865H6IVwDE6NtupctQqLba5D+76EKtrpwI+EKHV781q8j+30ZQJm0zMRYcqWdW2eWiaV/5QdCvGIkHRsDBpt0oM6VmdmXMABxz8d6Ex/gQbpeRvIqzytvW4;
| From: | Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
I sent this reply yesterday, but of course, it
bounced...
Ed,
Perhaps I can shed some light on this...
It all really boils down to exactly what "work" and
"power" are...
You are correct that drag decreases with altitude,
hence the reason that, as Kevin explained, drag for a
given CAS remains fairly constant regardless of
altitude. Think about it...if you fly sea level at
160 kts CAS, your TRUE airspeed is 160 kts. However,
at 20,000 ft, 160 kts CAS is realy around 220 kts
TRUE. So, if the drag is constant at a given CAS,
regardless of altitude, then you are flying faster at
20,000 ft than sea level, with the same drag. Thus,
for the same THRUST, you can fly 60 KTS faster at
20,00o ft. Speed for free, right?
Sort of...
Thrust is defined as a force. Force is not the same
as "work" or "power". Physics text books define
"work" as "force times distance" i.e. 10 lbs x 10
feet.
Physics books also define "power" as "work over time"
or "force times distance over time". Therefore, power
is the amount of work that can be completed in a given
amount of time. So, if you apply 10 lbs of force to an
object while you push it 10 feet in 5 seconds, you are
apply twice as much "power" than if you can apply 10
pounds of force while pushing it 10 feet in 10
seconds.
Consider these definitions, then consider the airplane
example again. As I stated in the above example, it
takes the same amount of thrust or force to move the
airplane at 160 kts CAS at sea level as it does at
20,000 feet. The difference is that at 20,000 feet,
the TAS is 60 kts faster, thus is takes 1.4 times as
much POWER to apply the same thrust.
Keep this in mind, however: Since drag at a given air
density increases with the square of the speed, and
power at a given thrust increases proportionally with
speed, it takes 8 times the power to double the speed
at a given altitude! That is the real reason why
aircraft "perform" better at higher altitude. In the
previous example, it only takes 1.4 times as much
power to fly 220 kts at 20,000 ft than it does to fly
160 kts at sea level. To fly 220 kts at sea level
would require almost 4 times as much power!
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
--- Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>
> Kevin,
>
> I expect that you know a lot more about it than I
> do, but I just don't
> understand. Can you explain for a dunce why it takes
> more power to go
> the same speed at higher altitude?
>
> I always thought (perhaps erroneously) that the
> thinner air meant less
> drag and that the reason our normally aspirated
> birds were slower up
> high was because the power available decreased more
> rapidly than the
> drag. I was also under the impression that we go
> fast down low because
> the extra power available overcomes the extra drag
> of the thicker air.
>
> This idea has been re-enforced over the years by
> watching field goals
> being kicked at extremely long distances in Denver
> which I (and the TV
> announcers) attributed to thinner air at high
> altitude.
>
> I always thought that was the reason people
> turbocharge piston airplanes
> and fly at high altitudes. It can't be for lessened
> fuel burn since you
> gotta keep the mixture pretty rich in a turbocharged
> airplane to keep
> the cht's and tit's down, don't you?
>
> Confused,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
>
> smoothweasel(at)juno.com
> >
> >
> >Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an
> estimated HP that would
> >be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS
> at say 22000ft. I
> >have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna
> go faster and higher
> >but I don't want the complications of a Turbo
> system. I have some
> ideas
> >bur I don't know how much power I will need at this
> ALT.
> >
> >Weasel RV-4
> >Brooksville Ms
> >
>
> The CAS would be about 157 kt at this condition.
> The drag at a given
> CAS is relatively independent of altitude, as long
> as the Mach number
> is low enough so that Mach effects aren't coming
> into play. The
> power required is proportional to the drag times the
> TAS. So, the
> power required to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft would
> be about 220/157 =
> 1.4 times as much as the power required to go 157 kt
> TAS at sea level.
>
> Assuming a Rocket has similar drag to the RV-8, I
> estimate it would
> take about 110 hp to go 157 kt TAS at sea level
> (based on Van's perf
> specs for top speed, with speed varying as the cube
> root of power),
> and about 154 hp to go 220 kt TAS at 22,000 ft.
> That doesn't sound
> like a lot of power, until you realize that the air
> density is only
> 50% of what it is at sea level. This calculation
> also assumes that
> the prop efficiency at 22,000 ft is the same as a
> Hartzell at sea
> level.
>
> Good luck.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=1jmVXwjfT14MK1plKxWhd+ziCVFCv3LGSnH081TgBArvGdD+apZVS6s+Qm7b0GVDlOxyhh88CkYBobdtoX38w+Y3urlHJXt7Kpy/0r1XoqBQ45/9Pjsup6Sftr+e6cA1muhjXC8X1kjWa2fH+1bd5OhkQRhNPy0YO3c+leVuAgI;
| From: | Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EGT increase |
How much do your EGT's rise during a mag check?
That's how much they should rise when a plug fails...
--- Jason Sneed wrote:
>
>
> I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between
> my lowest EGT and
> highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance
> FI system. This
> lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and
> around 7.8 if I
> operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my
> number 2 cylinder
> started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal
> and the difference
> between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees.
> Needless to say I now
> burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like
> it. I first suspected
> a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector
> (looked fine) and
> cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
> After putting everything back together I still had
> the same problem. I
> removed the flow divider and inspected it, found
> nothing... So I have
> shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to
> check it out and update
> it with a screen.
>
> Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go
> up 50 degrees all
> of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I
> would guess the EGT
> would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug
> stopped firing, but I
> do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom
> and an old mag
> running the top.
>
> Any ideas welcome!
>
>
> Jason Sneed
> n242ds(at)cox.net
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> by the
> Admin.
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://my.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EGT increase |
EGT spread from cylinder to cylinder is not important. What is important is
when each cylinder reaches peak EGT. You want them to all peak at the same
time, they will never peak at the same temp.....well almost never. Have you
balanced your injectors? I have the same set up as you and have balanced
the injectors so the cylinders peak close to the same time, last time I
checked, 2 cylinders peaked at 8.0 GPH and 2 peaked at 8.1 GPH. Cant get
any better than that. Call Don at AFP he will tell you the same thing but
in greater detail.
>
>I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
>highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
>lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
>operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
>started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
>between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
>burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
>a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
>cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
>After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
>removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
>shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
>it with a screen.
>
>Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
>of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
>would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
>do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
>running the top.
>
>Any ideas welcome!
>
>
>Jason Sneed
>n242ds(at)cox.net
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
David
Question 1, the answer is yes
Question 2, use standard torque for the bolt in question.
Question 3, yes, the inner brass bushing is clamped in place by torquing the
bolt, and should not be free to rotate. It is the sacrificial material in
the joint and the bellcrank should be free to rotate about it.
Dean Van Winkle
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "David" <davewendi(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Aileron Bellcrank Fit
>
> I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
>
> 1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
> be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
>
> 2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
> axle?
>
> 3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
> everything is tightened up?
>
>
> Thanks.
> David Kirby
> RV-6AQB
> Griffin, GA.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
Jason,
I recently had a similar experience but it was with the #4 cylinder and on
an O-320 engine with the AFP fuel injection system. During a normal flight
the CHT started dropping while the EGT started climbing. As I would richen
the mixture the CHT and EGT would go down then the EGT would start climbing
back up. We tore everything apart thinking it was either the valves or the
injectors. We even tore the flow divider apart. After finding nothing we
did a borescope inspection of the cylinder. We never found anything wrong.
So I tried changing the coils around on the Pasma Electronic Ignition.
Nothing. After we put everything back together and did a run-up I now find
the the EGTs are normal but the #4 CHT is down about 25 degrees from the
other three cylinders.
The engine is running fine and strong. It is just that one cylinder is
running 25 degrees lower than it used to. Needless to say we are keeping an
eye on and and, if the weather will give us a break, will continue flying
it.
I will be interested to see if AFP finds anything with the flow divider.
Mike Robertson
>From: Jason Sneed <n242ds(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: EGT increase
>Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:32:19 -0600
>
>
>I typically see 12-18 degrees of separation between my lowest EGT and
>highest. It is a o-360 with the airflow performance FI system. This
>lets me burn 8.5 gallons an hour at altitude and around 7.8 if I
>operate lean of peak. Starting last weekend my number 2 cylinder
>started running about 50 degrees hotter than normal and the difference
>between the hottest and coldest was 65 degrees. Needless to say I now
>burn about a gallon more an hour and I don't like it. I first suspected
>a dirty injector on #2 so I inspected the injector (looked fine) and
>cleaned it using the #9 gun cleaner method.
>
>After putting everything back together I still had the same problem. I
>removed the flow divider and inspected it, found nothing... So I have
>shipped the flow divider back to AP for them to check it out and update
>it with a screen.
>
>Does anybody know what else might cause an EGT to go up 50 degrees all
>of the sudden? Could it be a plug not firing? I would guess the EGT
>would go up way more than 50 degrees if one plug stopped firing, but I
>do not know for sure. I have a rose EI on the bottom and an old mag
>running the top.
>
>Any ideas welcome!
>
>
>Jason Sneed
>n242ds(at)cox.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Bellcrank Fit |
Please note this part differs significantly between the RV-6 to the RV-9. The
'6 does not have a
bush bearing but the answer to Q3 is yes.
Doug Gray
Dean wrote:
>
> David
>
> Question 1, the answer is yes
>
> Question 2, use standard torque for the bolt in question.
>
> Question 3, yes, the inner brass bushing is clamped in place by torquing the
> bolt, and should not be free to rotate. It is the sacrificial material in
> the joint and the bellcrank should be free to rotate about it.
>
> Dean Van Winkle
> RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David" <davewendi(at)comcast.net>
> To: "RV-List"
> Subject: RV-List: Aileron Bellcrank Fit
>
>
>
>>
>>I am fitting the aileron bellcranks to the wing. (RV-6A)
>>
>>1) Should the assembly of bellcrank, spacers and washers
>> be as snug as possible between the two pieces of angle?
>>
>>2) How tight does one torque the locknut on the bellcrank
>> axle?
>>
>>3) Should the inside portion of the bearing be frozen when
>> everything is tightened up?
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>David Kirby
>>RV-6AQB
>>Griffin, GA.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: air/oil separator |
Hi Wheeler,
You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator. Would you
elaborate on the "bilinski mod"? $38 for an air/oil separator, even if
you have to do some modifications, seems pretty reasonable if it does
the job.
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
-6A re-assembling at the airport
Wheeler North wrote:
>
>Well,
>
>the ACS $38 air/oil separator I orignally installed never seemed to work
>very well, so I bought another one and did the bilinski mod and so far have
>had nary a drop out the breather, nor any anything on the belly.
>
>Cut the old one open to check it out and found they had in fact welded the
>inlet and outlet such that there was little to no interior tube projection.
>I'm guessing the welder has no idea what a wing or an engine is?
>
>But, for $38, plus a few square inches of SS screen and two SS scrubbers it
>sure beats a $300 M-20 empty can.
>
>Think ACS will take the old 800 hours, cut open one back, and give me 30 or
>so free aircraft belly washes?
>
>If you have one of these, on both units the inlet tube is 3" total length,
>and the outlet is 3.5". They seem to be welded in any old way, but if you
>were to measure it from the outside you could tell if there is any overlap
>of the tubes internally, which is good.
>
>The old one I have is has little projection inside, but the new one has the
>tubes just overlapped, but in both cases the tubes are the same total length
>listed above. Another way of saying this is on the old one from inlet end to
>outlet end is nine inches, but the new one it is 7 inches yet all the
>relative parts are the same. Plus its just an empty can so there isn't a lot
>of surface area for the oil fog to condense on.
>
>If I were to modify the bilinski mod, I would add two things. One an
>interior stand pipe for the oil return with a bottom quick drain for
>moisture condensation. And two, a 1/2 psi pressure relief valve in the event
>the outlet gets plugged anywhere, anyhow.
>
>W
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
At 06:27 PM 12/3/2004, you wrote:
>
>I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
>if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
>the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the engine
>itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
>just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
>cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
Yeh.
Its pretty much standard around here to use avgas. It works well, dries
quickly, and is much cheaper than the recommended water soluble (fire
resistant) engine cleaning products. Now if you're careful, you can even
smoke while you clean the engine. Just don't get caught.
NOW HERE'S THE REAL STORY.....
I have watched several real pros clean engines with gasoline. It does, in
fact work well. But you got to be crazy. Last year, in a very large repair
hangar adjacent to mine, a couple of mechanics were cleaning up after a
repair job. To save time, they used avgas. They won't admit it, but I have
seen them smoking while working on fuel systems. So I can easily suspect
one was smoking while cleaning up the engine. Anyway, they lost the piston
twin they were working on and the Citation jet next to it. Hey, the good
news is that the Avgas was cheaper than the water soluble solvent. (and
that no one was burned to death.) The bill was probably 6-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
I don't know how I lost my reply to cyberspace, but it seems to have been
sent before I could finish.
Anyway, the bill for the two destroyed aircraft was probably $6-8 million .
I once tried to spray my engine with gasoline to clean it down. I was
absolutly crazy. A million things could have happened to ignite a fire, but
it was sooo easy to use. Anyway, use the standard engine solvents
recommended by the pros on this list.
-
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mailindex(at)juno.com" <mailindex(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
You will get many answers and many people do use avgas. There is a danger factor,
but I dont think it is any greater than spraying paint. My favorite is Brake
Clean, three cans will do it, I like the CRC brand in the red can. It works
better if the engine is warm.
Bruce Green
Eagle N110GM
Juno Gift Certificates
Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
http://www.juno.com/give
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
I usually end up using a toilet or similar brush and mineral spirits.
Cheap, relatively low volatility, disolves most stuff. Make sure it won't
hurt your paint. Some of the others at the field use Varsol. But they have
a drum sitting in the hanger.
Have used some of the water based detergent cleaners from the auto parts
store, but the old timers cringe when mentioning use of water/water based
cleaners (out of concern for unnecessary corrosion.
I sometimes use avgas in a bucket to clean parts. Spraying or splashing it
around is outside my comfort limit.
Bryan
>You will get many answers and many people do use avgas. There is a danger
>factor, but I dont think it is any greater than spraying paint. My
>favorite is Brake Clean, three cans will do it, I like the CRC brand in the
>red can. It works better if the engine is warm.
>
>Bruce Green
>Eagle N110GM
>
>Juno Gift Certificates
>Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season.
>http://www.juno.com/give
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Bending the elevator tabs |
OK - Don't laugh.....
Remember the guy who was all excited about drilling the canopy?
Well, I just successfully bent the tabs on the elevator.
I feel like a king! My Wife thinks I'm half insane.
The first time was a nightmare (Yes, I'm rebuilding it)
Now.... This I want in the archive!
Use the double sided carpet tape Van's tells you to use (SO THE WOOD BLOCKS DON'T
MOVE)
One more time...
USE CARPET TAPE.
Only you all would understand. Had to share.
Dave
BTW: For Woodbridge Virginia, the wing shipping was 425.00. That's 365 to the
terminal and 60 bucks for the 20 miles to my front door.
David Fenstermacher
dfenstermacher(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Oke
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>Here is perhaps another way to think of things.
1. The airplane weighs the same at all usable altitudes.*
2. Thus the wing has produce the same amount of lift effect.
3. Since the air is less dense at altitude, you have to move the wing
faster
through the air to get the same amount of lift.
4. Because you are going faster, the amount of drag increases too, even
though the air is less dense.
5. The two effects are exactly matched with the airspeed indicator, so
that
the airplane, if operated at the same CAS, will have the same amount of
lift
and drag. **
6. Power is a measure of the amount of work (which is the same as moving
a
force through a distance) performed during a given period of time.
7. Let's say the airplane has a drag of say 200 lbs at 157 kts CAS.
8. At sea level, the airplane moves 157 nm in one hour, while at
altitude
the airplane moves 220 nm in the same one hour of time, in each case
working
against the same 200 lb drag force. .
9. So the airplane flying at altitude has moved the same force a greater
distance in the same time and so must have used more power to do so (as
it
did more work in the same amount of time).
10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you either need
a
bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-3, RV-6A
I'm wondering if there might not be some free lunch, or at least a snack
after all.
Kevin Horton originally estimated that it takes 110 hp to drive an RV-8
at 157 kts at sea level and 154 hp to get the same cas at 22k'.
So I'm doing 157 kts near sea level and burning 12 gph (I actually do
about 175 kts down low for that fuel burn in our O-320 RV-6a - limited
to 2600rpm by the prop). In an hour I will have traveled 157 nautical
miles and burned 12 gallons of 100LL.
Now as I climb to 22,000 I kick in my (imaginary) supercharger which
allows me to make the necessary horsepower the keep up my 157kt cas at
that altitude. It only takes me 43 minutes to cover the same 157
nautical miles at 220 tas. If my fuel burn (per hour) goes up by 40
percent it would be about 16.8 gph. I'll burn about 11.93 gallons in
that 43 minutes for a net savings of .07 gallons of gas and 17 minutes
of my precious time. I'm flying 29 percent fewer hours/1000 miles with
commensurate savings in maintenance costs i.e.: less oil change and
engine overhaul reserve costs per mile flown assuming I don't blow up my
engine in the mean time.
I didn't factor in time to climb, though. That's likely to be a bitch.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
I did some sample trips supposing that my supercharged RV climbs at 800
fpm at 110 kts ias burning 20 gph, cruises at 220 burning 16.8 gph at
22k ft and descends at 500 fpm at 157 kts ias burning 12 gph.
I compared it to the same trips using my RV-6a climbing at 600 fpm at
110 kts ias burning 12 gph, cruising at 155 kts tas at 9k ft and
descending at 500 fpm at 160 kts ias burning 6 gph (figures I normally
use for flight planning).
As you can see I went very heavy on the fuel burn, both climbing and
descending, on the hypothetical airplane and light on the rate of climb.
The comparisons are as follows:
From WHP (Los Angeles) to Phoenix a distance of 323 nm, the Super RV
burned 11 gallons more and arrived 16 minutes earlier.
From WHP to LRU (Las Cruces, NM), 588 nm, it burned 16 gallons more and
saved 48 minutes.
From WHP to UAO (the home of Van's), 689 nm, it drank 18 gallons extra
and saved 58 minutes.
These examples don't address the difference in fuel burn and time from
sea level to 22000 ft where the fuel burns might be closer together, but
the low level flight would be impossible due to intervening terrain. We
got mountains out here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Polishing Aluminum |
Listers,
I would like to start a thread about polishing unpainted aluminum,
specificaly I want to hear from RV builders/owners who have a polished RV,
or a combination of partly painted and partly polished.
I have done a little research into the chemicals (compounds) and tools
(polishers, compounders, cloth, etc.) that the Temco/Swift and the
Airstream-Trailer folks use.
At this point it seems to me that polishing an RV is much cheaper than
painting it, even if you do it yourself, plus it will not add any
considerable weight, while painting adds 10-40 pounds to the empty weight of
the craft (by several accounts). Polished aluminum does need some
maintenance, but after the first "big job" (which still sounds like takes
less time than painting) it sounds like it only takes 1-2 days a year to
keep up a nice shine.
I understand that the fiberglass parts (tips, cowl, etc.) need to be painted
"anyway", so maybe there's a valid argument for "just have it all painted,
and be done with it", and personal taste might play a great part in favoring
paint over polished aluminum, but, and here is my real question (Finally...
thanks for bearing with me so far):
Are there any other considerations I am missing?
Amit,
65 hours of flying with bare, unpolished aluminum.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Travis Hamblen"
I was planning to clean my engine at the next oil change and wanted to know
if anyone had any advice. I have some Oil Eater which works pretty well on
the oily belly but didn=92t know if there was something better for the
engine
itself or a preferred method. The engine isn=92t really nasty or anything,
just VERY dusty and a little grimy in places. Any recommendations on
cleaning the engine would be appreciated.
================================================
BMW motorcycle shops sell an aerosol product called S100 for cleaning all
aluminum alloy surfaces. You apply, leave for about 15 minutes and then hose
off with a cold water stream. I will be doing it this way at my next
condition inspection.
GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 730hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
I forgot to mention - I figured the RV-6's cruising fuel burn at 9 gph
in the examples below. I generally burn less than that at that sort of
altitude.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Oke
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>Here is perhaps another way to think of things.
1. The airplane weighs the same at all usable altitudes.*
2. Thus the wing has produce the same amount of lift effect.
3. Since the air is less dense at altitude, you have to move the wing
faster
through the air to get the same amount of lift.
4. Because you are going faster, the amount of drag increases too, even
though the air is less dense.
5. The two effects are exactly matched with the airspeed indicator, so
that
the airplane, if operated at the same CAS, will have the same amount of
lift
and drag. **
6. Power is a measure of the amount of work (which is the same as moving
a
force through a distance) performed during a given period of time.
7. Let's say the airplane has a drag of say 200 lbs at 157 kts CAS.
8. At sea level, the airplane moves 157 nm in one hour, while at
altitude
the airplane moves 220 nm in the same one hour of time, in each case
working
against the same 200 lb drag force. .
9. So the airplane flying at altitude has moved the same force a greater
distance in the same time and so must have used more power to do so (as
it
did more work in the same amount of time).
10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you either need
a
bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-3, RV-6A
I'm wondering if there might not be some free lunch, or at least a snack
after all.
Kevin Horton originally estimated that it takes 110 hp to drive an RV-8
at 157 kts at sea level and 154 hp to get the same cas at 22k'.
So I'm doing 157 kts near sea level and burning 12 gph (I actually do
about 175 kts down low for that fuel burn in our O-320 RV-6a - limited
to 2600rpm by the prop). In an hour I will have traveled 157 nautical
miles and burned 12 gallons of 100LL.
Now as I climb to 22,000 I kick in my (imaginary) supercharger which
allows me to make the necessary horsepower the keep up my 157kt cas at
that altitude. It only takes me 43 minutes to cover the same 157
nautical miles at 220 tas. If my fuel burn (per hour) goes up by 40
percent it would be about 16.8 gph. I'll burn about 11.93 gallons in
that 43 minutes for a net savings of .07 gallons of gas and 17 minutes
of my precious time. I'm flying 29 percent fewer hours/1000 miles with
commensurate savings in maintenance costs i.e.: less oil change and
engine overhaul reserve costs per mile flown assuming I don't blow up my
engine in the mean time.
I didn't factor in time to climb, though. That's likely to be a bitch.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
I did some sample trips supposing that my supercharged RV climbs at 800
fpm at 110 kts ias burning 20 gph, cruises at 220 burning 16.8 gph at
22k ft and descends at 500 fpm at 157 kts ias burning 12 gph.
I compared it to the same trips using my RV-6a climbing at 600 fpm at
110 kts ias burning 12 gph, cruising at 155 kts tas at 9k ft and
descending at 500 fpm at 160 kts ias burning 6 gph (figures I normally
use for flight planning).
As you can see I went very heavy on the fuel burn, both climbing and
descending, on the hypothetical airplane and light on the rate of climb.
The comparisons are as follows:
From WHP (Los Angeles) to Phoenix a distance of 323 nm, the Super RV
burned 11 gallons more and arrived 16 minutes earlier.
From WHP to LRU (Las Cruces, NM), 588 nm, it burned 16 gallons more and
saved 48 minutes.
From WHP to UAO (the home of Van's), 689 nm, it drank 18 gallons extra
and saved 58 minutes.
These examples don't address the difference in fuel burn and time from
sea level to 22000 ft where the fuel burns might be closer together, but
the low level flight would be impossible due to intervening terrain. We
got mountains out here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
I probably should have said "there is no aerodynamic free lunch" to be had
in flying at higher altitudes. Engines, be they piston or turbine, naturally
react to changes in altitude and generally are happier when operating at
cooler ambient temperatures, which is of course the normal situation when
flying higher.
The 7,000 - 8,000 altitude range is a natural one for an engine designer to
choose to optimize for due other reasons such as probable terrain
clearance, avoiding the need for onboard oxygen, etc.
The basic point remains, you need more power to maintain the same CAS at a
higher altitude.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
>> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
>> either need a
>> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>>
>
> There are indeed free lunches with respect to flying higher. Many factors
> apply, but most normally aspirated piston planes get their best economy
> (which is another way of saying speed per gallon) at something around 7 -
> 8
> thousand feet. Obviously, if a trip is only 50 miles, there may not be a
> net benefit. Jets run high because for the same indicated airspeed, which
> approximately translates to power needed, they have a much higher TAS.
> I'll
> let the jet jockeys chime in here, but the fuel burns in jets go way up at
> lower altitudes, TAS the same.
>
> I will run some tests soon, setting some constant power (this means basic
> power settings are the same, and fuel flow and egt relative to peak must
> be
> identical), fly a high and low altitude run, and take data. A
> complication
> to this is that the temperature will not be the same at, for example,
> 2000'
> vs 7500'. In any case, the output of this test will be to calculate TAS
> based upon temperature, IAS, barometer and altitude.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 558 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing Aluminum |
I tried polishing a small area of my unfinished fuselage with 'silvo' silver polish
(for cutlery and
fine silverware) and it was too easy. A small area that I had scotchbrited came
back to a mirror
shine in 15-30 seconds of light rubbing using a hand cloth.
I'd love to know what is in this product. I could imagine doing the whole aircraft
in far less time
than it would take to prep for painting.
The label says it is good for aluminium but carries little other information.
Do polished aircraft normally get a coat of clear to protect the finish or are
they left bare Al?
Doug Gray
Sydney, Australia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing Aluminum |
Amit Dagan wrote:
>
>Listers,
>I would like to start a thread about polishing unpainted aluminum,
>specificaly I want to hear from RV builders/owners who have a polished RV,
>or a combination of partly painted and partly polished.
>I have done a little research into the chemicals (compounds) and tools
>(polishers, compounders, cloth, etc.) that the Temco/Swift and the
>Airstream-Trailer folks use.
>At this point it seems to me that polishing an RV is much cheaper than
>painting it, even if you do it yourself, plus it will not add any
>considerable weight, while painting adds 10-40 pounds to the empty weight of
>the craft (by several accounts). Polished aluminum does need some
>maintenance, but after the first "big job" (which still sounds like takes
>less time than painting) it sounds like it only takes 1-2 days a year to
>keep up a nice shine.
>I understand that the fiberglass parts (tips, cowl, etc.) need to be painted
>"anyway", so maybe there's a valid argument for "just have it all painted,
>and be done with it", and personal taste might play a great part in favoring
>paint over polished aluminum, but, and here is my real question (Finally...
>thanks for bearing with me so far):
>Are there any other considerations I am missing?
>Amit,
>65 hours of flying with bare, unpolished aluminum.
>
>
The polished Swift on the cover of Sport Aviation 8 or 10 years ago
lived in a hangar here at Slobovia Outernational for a while. It was
kept under a custom cover in a closed hangar. If it was never flown, it
would go for maybe 2 months without polishing. Polishing was an all-day
job with a power buffer. Being based on a grass strip, it stayed in the
hangar many, many days when everyone else went flying & just rinsed off
the mud after flying.
I guess there are 3 choices. Unpainted for light weight, easy to clean &
ok looking. Painted for better looking, slightly heavier & easy to
clean. Polished for drop dead gorgeous but effectively unflyable. :-)
Ya pays yer money & ya takes yer choice...
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing Aluminum |
One big reason not to polish is that you cant hide any of your mistakes. I
understand that you built a fabulous airframe....I was told specifically to
look for your plane at the homecoming......but the rest of us hmmm... I
actually feel like my project is coming out pretty good, but I know where
the flaws are. If I dont fix them they will just stare at me everytime I
look at the plane. As for the fiberglass, you may remember a post a couple
of months ago with a link to some pretty cool chrome paint. I looked at the
website and I doubt it would be as shiney as polished aluminum, but its as
good as I have ever seen....Link below:http://www.alsacorp.com/chrome.htm
Evan
www.evansaviationproducts.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Polishing Aluminum
>
> Listers,
> I would like to start a thread about polishing unpainted aluminum,
> specificaly I want to hear from RV builders/owners who have a polished RV,
> or a combination of partly painted and partly polished.
> I have done a little research into the chemicals (compounds) and tools
> (polishers, compounders, cloth, etc.) that the Temco/Swift and the
> Airstream-Trailer folks use.
> At this point it seems to me that polishing an RV is much cheaper than
> painting it, even if you do it yourself, plus it will not add any
> considerable weight, while painting adds 10-40 pounds to the empty weight
of
> the craft (by several accounts). Polished aluminum does need some
> maintenance, but after the first "big job" (which still sounds like takes
> less time than painting) it sounds like it only takes 1-2 days a year to
> keep up a nice shine.
> I understand that the fiberglass parts (tips, cowl, etc.) need to be
painted
> "anyway", so maybe there's a valid argument for "just have it all painted,
> and be done with it", and personal taste might play a great part in
favoring
> paint over polished aluminum, but, and here is my real question
(Finally...
> thanks for bearing with me so far):
> Are there any other considerations I am missing?
> Amit,
> 65 hours of flying with bare, unpolished aluminum.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/03/04 |
In a message dated 12/4/2004 4:14:26 AM Central Standard Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
The basic point remains, you need more power to maintain the same CAS at a
higher altitude.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
I beg your pardon if I show my ignorance here.
2100RPM/23"MP = 9.5GPH (most of the time --varies slightly with temps), and
this shows about 165KIAS on the ASI in my F1 (not calibrated by any means).
This seems to be the case at 2000'MSL or 8000'MSL. I do see a difference in GS
(increases with altitude), if the wind factor is removed.
This seems to refute the 'takes more power at altitude' argument: I get an
increase in GS with no increase in fuel flow...and I have always thought fuel
flow in GPH x ~14 = HP when operating LOP for the 8.5 comp engines.
Now, in looking at the P&W R985 power charts, it shows a lower MP (and fuel
flow) at higher altitudes to get the same power -- I recall this is due to
the lower ambient pressure in the crankcase..along with the lower ambient pres
seen by the exhaust system.
So, it would seem that the power chart tells us that it takes a lower fuel
flow to get the same power at a higher altitude...so, if the flow remains
constant, you would be seeing a power increase?
It's getting a bit nebulous now... 'splain it to me (again), Lucy. What I
have seen in 6000hrs of flying tells me higher = faster = cheaper, at least on
longer trips where the extra fuel for the climb can be eliminated by the
greater efficiency of flight at a higher altitude.
It may be that flying higher in a turbo- or supercharged engine starts to
allow the blower to use some percentage of the produced HP to operate the blower
itself -- could this be the source of the higher power required to fly at
the same CAS at 22,000MSL? I recall the automotive blower folks telling me that
a blown engine uses more fuel per HP when under boost...but the efficiency
charts for the big round motors doesn't show that same drop off...
So, help me understand this, one more time...
Cheers
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/03/04 |
I think we're reading too much into this. It isn't rocket science. We're
using engines that were designed in the late 20's to run unattended all day
long turning agricultural pumps in the southern States; aviation use was
initially just a spin-off of this.
As far as the airplane can sense, there is no reduced drag at altitude,
remember our elementary balancing of forces for unaccelerated flight: the
airplane will just keep accelerating until the total drag equals the thrust
produced by the engine/propellor package at the power output we've decided
upon.
If we want to cruise at 75% power, then our best TAS would be at the
highest altitude that the engine can still produce that power, and the
throttle plate would be wide-open, and I recently discovered from an
engineer that that reduces efficiency losses in the intake system.
If we wanted to cruise at 65%, then the altitude would be a little higher
and the IAS would be a little lower, but the TAS might not be much different
from that at the 75%-power altitude, as it increases with altitude, but the
fuel flow would be commensurately less, as we're asking less power of the
engine.
And so on for 55%, etc.
There's no free lunch. of course, we have to burn extra fuel to lift
ourselves higher.
To include the wind component in this, the simplest way of finding the
most-efficient altitude-mpg speaking- for each leg flown,would be to start
at the altitude that the engine can only produce the cruising power we
desire with full throttle, then continue a slow drift upwards while watching
the instantaneous groundspeed readout on the GPS. Once it starts to
decrease, return to the altitude at which it peaked. This simplifies the
TAS/GS/fuel flow solution to child's play.
I hate to admit that flying the latest-generation airliners, with dual FMGC
and lots of fuel-predicting algorithms, I still use the old groundspeed-over
fuel-flow ratio on my circular slide rule ,which reflects the real world out
there, not the idealized atmospheric models the computers use, and nearly
always beat the predictions for fuel-over destination and trip burn.
Not bragging by anymeans, just trying to keep this simple, folks. As we keep
telling ourselves at "work", "Hey, it might be all-glass and full-time,
fly-by-wire, but it's still just an airplane!"
Scott in Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
From: <Mlfred(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/03/04
>
>
> In a message dated 12/4/2004 4:14:26 AM Central Standard Time,
> rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> The basic point remains, you need more power to maintain the same CAS at
> a
> higher altitude.
>
> Jim Oke
> Wpg., MB
>
>
> I beg your pardon if I show my ignorance here.
>
> 2100RPM/23"MP = 9.5GPH (most of the time --varies slightly with temps),
> and
> this shows about 165KIAS on the ASI in my F1 (not calibrated by any
> means).
> This seems to be the case at 2000'MSL or 8000'MSL. I do see a difference
> in GS
> (increases with altitude), if the wind factor is removed.
>
> This seems to refute the 'takes more power at altitude' argument: I get
> an
> increase in GS with no increase in fuel flow...and I have always thought
> fuel
> flow in GPH x ~14 = HP when operating LOP for the 8.5 comp engines.
>
> Now, in looking at the P&W R985 power charts, it shows a lower MP (and
> fuel
> flow) at higher altitudes to get the same power -- I recall this is due
> to
> the lower ambient pressure in the crankcase..along with the lower ambient
> pres
> seen by the exhaust system.
>
> So, it would seem that the power chart tells us that it takes a lower fuel
> flow to get the same power at a higher altitude...so, if the flow remains
> constant, you would be seeing a power increase?
>
> It's getting a bit nebulous now... 'splain it to me (again), Lucy. What I
> have seen in 6000hrs of flying tells me higher = faster = cheaper, at
> least on
> longer trips where the extra fuel for the climb can be eliminated by the
> greater efficiency of flight at a higher altitude.
>
> It may be that flying higher in a turbo- or supercharged engine starts to
> allow the blower to use some percentage of the produced HP to operate the
> blower
> itself -- could this be the source of the higher power required to fly at
> the same CAS at 22,000MSL? I recall the automotive blower folks telling
> me that
> a blown engine uses more fuel per HP when under boost...but the
> efficiency
> charts for the big round motors doesn't show that same drop off...
>
> So, help me understand this, one more time...
>
> Cheers
> Mark
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HAL KEMPTHORNE <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
RV_8 Pilot wrote:
Have used some of the water based detergent cleaners from the auto parts
store, but the old timers cringe when mentioning use of water/water based
cleaners (out of concern for unnecessary corrosion.
Hi all,
Some detergent cleaners, maybe most, corrode aluminum. If the use of water to
clean the engine causes corrosion, what does flying in rain do? I've heard Woolite
recommended. I always fly after a wash.
I've heard Air Force forbids use of Simple Green but I know several who use it
regularly and their planes look great. I imagine they do a thorough water rinse.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kosta Lewis" <mikel(at)dimensional.com> |
| Subject: | Polishing Aluminum |
Gordon Comfort would be the resident expert on polished RVs. Someone
discussed a polished RV-4 a while back parked on the ramp and the
reflection from the wing wrinkled the canopy. There was a beeeutiful
polished Cessna C-170B at OSH every year belonging to the Applegates
that was traded up for an also beeeutiful C-195 that is painted. Harv
said he is pretty happy to have a painted airplane and would not go back
to the polishing. I think it depends on what you want your airplane to
be: show plane or play-horse. Fly for one polish for six. I know at
least one airplane that has been flying around in VeriPrime for 7 years
now................
March '93 Sport Aviation has David Anders' polished RV on the cover if
you want to know what a Reserve Grand Champion looked like at the time.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David L Ahrens <daviddla(at)juno.com> |
Hello list members: I am rebuilding a 0-320B3B. I have most of the parts
that I need except for the camshaft. The question I have is, can I change
to the camshaft with the intergal gear? I have the parts book and know
the different parts that are required at the tach drive end. I am
concerned about the possible need to change out the accessory case
because of oil slinger, etc.. I have not been able to locate a copy of
Lycoming Service Letter 1218A that addresses the conversion. Can anyone
help?
Thanks and happy holidays, David Ahrens, RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
>
>> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
>> either need a
>> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>>
>
>There are indeed free lunches with respect to flying higher. Many factors
>apply, but most normally aspirated piston planes get their best economy
>(which is another way of saying speed per gallon) at something around 7 - 8
>thousand feet. Obviously, if a trip is only 50 miles, there may not be a
>net benefit. Jets run high because for the same indicated airspeed, which
>approximately translates to power needed, they have a much higher TAS. I'll
>let the jet jockeys chime in here, but the fuel burns in jets go way up at
>lower altitudes, TAS the same.
>
>I will run some tests soon, setting some constant power (this means basic
>power settings are the same, and fuel flow and egt relative to peak must be
>identical), fly a high and low altitude run, and take data. A complication
>to this is that the temperature will not be the same at, for example, 2000'
>vs 7500'. In any case, the output of this test will be to calculate TAS
>based upon temperature, IAS, barometer and altitude.
>
I was on the road without e-mail access since early in this thread.
It looks like Ed's questions have been pretty much answered, I think.
One comment on your plan Alex - if you want the same power at
different altitudes, the MP will be a bit lower at the higher
altitude. The power chart from a 250 Commanche POH that Tom Gummo
posted illustrates this effect well.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleaning an engine |
I generally rinse off any detergents used on anything.
As for the water, your point is well taken but it is typically not splashed
(with a cowled & baffled arrgt) across your magnetos, spark plug connectors,
firewall mounted components when flying through rain.
Bryan
>Some detergent cleaners, maybe most, corrode aluminum. If the use of water
>to clean the engine causes corrosion, what does flying in rain do? I've
>heard Woolite recommended. I always fly after a wash.
>
>I've heard Air Force forbids use of Simple Green but I know several who use
>it regularly and their planes look great. I imagine they do a thorough
>water rinse.
>
>hal
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lyle" <lyleedda(at)telus.net> |
Listers,
Anybody know of a supplier of nice wooden grips that Van used to
sell ?
The current crop are very $$$, but there used to be a good source of nice
grips at a reasonable price.
Thanks,
Lyle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
| Subject: | air oil separator |
You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator.
try http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/hboilbreather.php
cut 2.5" hole in front or back face, fill with Stainless Steel Pot
scrubbers(do not use any plastic or corrodeable wools).
http://sneakykitchen.com/fullerbrush/fuller_products/kitchen.htm
or
http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/food_beverage/food_service/node_GSX
8YGLK7Pgs/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_GS56SL819Pge/bgel_GSNMFHCK49bl/gvel_GS2JDJ
L946gl/theme_us_foodservices_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html
repatch link
Use fine mesh SS screen on bottom oil return outlet.
Proseal back together, pop rivet as needed, read previous post about outlet
and inlet tube lengths and position. If you get one without some overlap I'd
send it back.
So far no drops of oil on ground or belly or the airplane's belly. And I
been chasing a lot of upside down white puffy hazy areas the last few days.
W
PS, this also means I no longer have to wash my belly with avgas, that's a
relief... my armpits were really gettin' scratchy and dry.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Davis" <rvpilot(at)access4less.net> |
| Subject: | RV-8 Canopy Latch |
RV-8 Builders,
I still have some Rv-8 Canopy Latches available. For a write up with pictures go
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/rv8-latch.html
Best regards, Bill Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/03/04 |
>
>
>In a message dated 12/4/2004 4:14:26 AM Central Standard Time,
>rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>The basic point remains, you need more power to maintain the same CAS at a
>higher altitude.
>
>Jim Oke
>Wpg., MB
>
>
>I beg your pardon if I show my ignorance here.
>
>2100RPM/23"MP = 9.5GPH (most of the time --varies slightly with temps), and
>this shows about 165KIAS on the ASI in my F1 (not calibrated by any means).
>This seems to be the case at 2000'MSL or 8000'MSL. I do see a
>difference in GS
>(increases with altitude), if the wind factor is removed.
>
>This seems to refute the 'takes more power at altitude' argument: I get an
>increase in GS with no increase in fuel flow...and I have always thought fuel
>flow in GPH x ~14 = HP when operating LOP for the 8.5 comp engines.
>
>Now, in looking at the P&W R985 power charts, it shows a lower MP (and fuel
>flow) at higher altitudes to get the same power -- I recall this is due to
>the lower ambient pressure in the crankcase..along with the lower
>ambient pres
>seen by the exhaust system.
>
>So, it would seem that the power chart tells us that it takes a lower fuel
>flow to get the same power at a higher altitude...so, if the flow remains
>constant, you would be seeing a power increase?
>
>It's getting a bit nebulous now... 'splain it to me (again), Lucy. What I
>have seen in 6000hrs of flying tells me higher = faster = cheaper,
>at least on
>longer trips where the extra fuel for the climb can be eliminated by the
>greater efficiency of flight at a higher altitude.
>
>It may be that flying higher in a turbo- or supercharged engine starts to
>allow the blower to use some percentage of the produced HP to
>operate the blower
> itself -- could this be the source of the higher power required to fly at
>the same CAS at 22,000MSL? I recall the automotive blower folks
>telling me that
>a blown engine uses more fuel per HP when under boost...but the efficiency
>charts for the big round motors doesn't show that same drop off...
>
>So, help me understand this, one more time...
>
>Cheers
>Mark
Mark,
What engine do you have? Some sort of 260 hp O-540, if I recall
correctly. What mods does it have?
If you take a close look at the published power charts for piston
engines, you will note that the power output for a given rpm and MP
increases with altitude. I don't completely understand the reasons,
but it is at least partially due to the fact that the lower exhaust
back pressure helps the engine breath better. Looking at the power
chart for an O-360, I see that 2100 and 23" is about 65% power at
2,000 ft, and about 72% power at 8,000 ft, assuming standard
temperatures. I would expect that the percent power for an O-540
would vary similarly with altitude.
The true airspeed for a given aircraft should be proportional to the
cube root of (power divided by air density), assuming the weight and
prop efficiency are unchanged. 165 KCAS at 2,000 ft is about 170
KTAS. The density ratio at 2,000 ft is 0.943 and at 8,000 ft it is
0.786 (density ratio is the air density at this condition divided by
the air density at sea level, standard day conditions). So, if your
aircraft does 179 KTAS on 66% power at 2,000 ft, it should do about
170 X the cube root of (.72/65 X .943/.786) = 187 KTAS, which is 166
KCAS. So, your observations are consistent with what I would expect.
If you can find a power chart for your engine, figure out some rpm
and MP combinations so you can test with the same power at 2,000 and
8,000 ft, then you should find that you get a lower CAS at the higher
altitude.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
One reason that engines are more efficient at higher altitude that I haven't
seen listed here has to do with pumping loss. Pumping loss is fundamental to
how piston engines operate, and is one reason why diesel engines are more
efficient than gasoline engines. The diesel has no throttle plate, so it has no
(or actually very little) pumping loss. The same applies when you are able to
operate your aircraft engine at higher altitude. When you open the throttle
all the way the pumping loss (nearly) disappears. This is also one of the
reasons that a car that is geared higher (lower RPM) is more efficient that one
with a lower gear ratio. With the lower gear ratio, a lot of the power the
engine makes gets wasted sucking on that nearly closed throttle. (Please don't
give me a lecture on pressure vs. suction!) There are other reasons that have
already been stated here, but I'm only trying to make the point that low
pumping loss is one contributor to high altitude efficiency.
Dan Hopper
N766DH
RV-7A (Flying since July -- about 80 hours now)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
> I was on the road without e-mail access since early in this thread.
> It looks like Ed's questions have been pretty much answered, I think.
>
> One comment on your plan Alex - if you want the same power at
> different altitudes, the MP will be a bit lower at the higher
> altitude.
Kevin, is this because of lower pumping losses at higher altitudes?
(throttle not inducing as much inefficiency is another way of stating this)
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 558 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
http://www.rvproject.com/20030605.html has some info on the teak grips that
Michael makes. Good stuff, feels good to the touch, functional, yadda
yadda. ;-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "lyle" <lyleedda(at)telus.net>
Subject: RV-List: Stick grips
>
> Listers,
> Anybody know of a supplier of nice wooden grips that Van
used to sell ?
> The current crop are very $$$, but there used to be a good source of
nice grips at a reasonable price.
>
> Thanks,
> Lyle
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
>
>
>> I was on the road without e-mail access since early in this thread.
>> It looks like Ed's questions have been pretty much answered, I think.
>>
>> One comment on your plan Alex - if you want the same power at
>> different altitudes, the MP will be a bit lower at the higher
>> altitude.
>
>Kevin, is this because of lower pumping losses at higher altitudes?
>(throttle not inducing as much inefficiency is another way of stating this)
>
Alex,
I don't claim to completely understand why piston engines make more
power at altitude for the same rpm and MP, but I've seen this on
every power chart or power table that I've studied. Lower pumping
losses and lower exhaust back pressure are both part of the reason,
but I don't know the relative contributions of these two items, nor
do I know what other factors might be involved.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Ford" <jackoford(at)theofficenet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
Another consideration relating to pumping losses is exhaust back pressure.
There is less atmospheric resistance to the exhaust exiting at high
altitude.
Jack Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
>
>
> One reason that engines are more efficient at higher altitude that I
haven't
> seen listed here has to do with pumping loss. Pumping loss is fundamental
to
> how piston engines operate, and is one reason why diesel engines are more
> efficient than gasoline engines. The diesel has no throttle plate, so it
has no
> (or actually very little) pumping loss. The same applies when you are
able to
> operate your aircraft engine at higher altitude. When you open the
throttle
> all the way the pumping loss (nearly) disappears. This is also one of the
> reasons that a car that is geared higher (lower RPM) is more efficient
that one
> with a lower gear ratio. With the lower gear ratio, a lot of the power
the
> engine makes gets wasted sucking on that nearly closed throttle. (Please
don't
> give me a lecture on pressure vs. suction!) There are other reasons that
have
> already been stated here, but I'm only trying to make the point that low
> pumping loss is one contributor to high altitude efficiency.
>
> Dan Hopper
> N766DH
> RV-7A (Flying since July -- about 80 hours now)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
lyle wrote:
>
>Listers,
> Anybody know of a supplier of nice wooden grips that Van used to
sell ?
> The current crop are very $$$, but there used to be a good source of nice
grips at a reasonable price.
>
>Thanks,
>Lyle
>
>
>
Vans still sells them, I just bought two!
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | richard dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: air oil separator |
Thanks Wheeler ane Mark for your responses. Sure sounds good for $38 and
a litttle modification. I also like the sounds of your results.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
Wheeler North wrote:
>
>You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator.
>
>
>try http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/hboilbreather.php
>
>cut 2.5" hole in front or back face, fill with Stainless Steel Pot
>scrubbers(do not use any plastic or corrodeable wools).
>
>http://sneakykitchen.com/fullerbrush/fuller_products/kitchen.htm
>or
>http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/food_beverage/food_service/node_GSX
>8YGLK7Pgs/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_GS56SL819Pge/bgel_GSNMFHCK49bl/gvel_GS2JDJ
>L946gl/theme_us_foodservices_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html
>
>repatch link
>
>Use fine mesh SS screen on bottom oil return outlet.
>
>Proseal back together, pop rivet as needed, read previous post about outlet
>and inlet tube lengths and position. If you get one without some overlap I'd
>send it back.
>
>So far no drops of oil on ground or belly or the airplane's belly. And I
>been chasing a lot of upside down white puffy hazy areas the last few days.
>
>W
>
>PS, this also means I no longer have to wash my belly with avgas, that's a
>relief... my armpits were really gettin' scratchy and dry.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: air oil separator |
I like this idea but wonder if it's something that requires periodic
maintenance. Specifically the pot scrubber and the mesh over the return
port. If they got clogged or sludged up it could become problematic. For
example, even with the cleanest oil changed frequently, I imagine the pot
scrubber will sludge up a bit over time. And if the steel mesh on the
return port were blocked, the cannister would essentially just fill up with
sludge. Worst case, it would be a shame if the air/oil separator became
essentially blocked and caused a crank seal blowout.
I do like the idea, though. I think patching the hole with a plate that is
removable (with screws & nutplates) would be a good approach. Every year at
annual condition inspection time you open it up, remove the scrubber,
soak/clean it, clean the inside of the cannister, etc. Something like that.
I guess the only question would be whether to use the cork gasket, or just
proseal (kidding!). ;-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: air oil separator
>
> You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator.
>
>
> try http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/hboilbreather.php
>
> cut 2.5" hole in front or back face, fill with Stainless Steel Pot
> scrubbers(do not use any plastic or corrodeable wools).
>
> http://sneakykitchen.com/fullerbrush/fuller_products/kitchen.htm
> or
>
http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/food_beverage/food_service/node_GSX
>
8YGLK7Pgs/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_GS56SL819Pge/bgel_GSNMFHCK49bl/gvel_GS2JDJ
> L946gl/theme_us_foodservices_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html
>
> repatch link
>
> Use fine mesh SS screen on bottom oil return outlet.
>
> Proseal back together, pop rivet as needed, read previous post about
outlet
> and inlet tube lengths and position. If you get one without some overlap
I'd
> send it back.
>
> So far no drops of oil on ground or belly or the airplane's belly. And I
> been chasing a lot of upside down white puffy hazy areas the last few
days.
>
> W
>
> PS, this also means I no longer have to wash my belly with avgas, that's a
> relief... my armpits were really gettin' scratchy and dry.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glenn Brasch <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fire Suppression System |
Has anyone installed a fire suppression system/bottle, and if so what
brand? I searched the archives and saw some arguments pro and con, but
that was about it. A friend has a system in a Glasair and it looks like
cheap insurance to me. Thanks in advance. Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: [RV-8] First Flight |
Jim,
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: Jim Daniels <jwdanie(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: RV-8(at)yahoogroups.com
>To: RV-8(at)yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [RV-8] First Flight
>Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:32:57 -0700
>
>
>Finally! RV8 N204X made its first flight this morning. Totally
>uneventful (as I had hoped it would be) with .7 on the clock and a
>perfect landing to boot. I stayed close, circling the field at 9000'
>(3K AGL) getting a feel for the airplane. After about 30 minutes, I
>did some slow flight and then descended for a landing. Just a couple
>minor items - CHT1 high (removed the baffle air block for front
>cylinders), oil temp a little low (165) and 1/2 ball off in yaw (leave
>for later).
>
>
>Jim Daniels
>81540
>Albuquerque, NM
>http://home.comcast.net/~jwdanie/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BillRVSIX(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | painted parts against canopy? |
Hello just wondering if I have to be careful with the type of paint I use to
paint the parts (Skirts) that attach to the canopy. "paint against canopy."
Thanks Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonEavesRV6" <DonEavesRV6(at)midsouth.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: air oil separator - No Steel Wool Needed |
I've been flying for 250+- hours with the Aircraft Spruce P/N 10570 Air Oil
Separator -
And it has worked very well-
Without the steel wool -
If you primarily want to keep the belly clean -
Add a piece of steel conduit / pipe to the overflow air end of the above
air oil separator -
Attach it to an exhaust pipe - let the end stick into the exhaust opening -
Any oil that exits will be vaporized. - Works for me and several others I
know -
My problem with steel wool is the possibility that a piece may get into the
engine -
If you don't have the room for this separator or the money for the expensive
one -
Just use the conduit method - That also works - You just have to add oil
between oil changes -
Additionally - If you don't fly long legs keep the oil level On a 0320 /
0360 between 5 - 6 Qts.
Don Eaves
RV6 Flying 250-+ Hours
A&P, Technical Counselor, RV Builders Assistant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: air oil separator
>
> You mention the "bilinski mod" to an ACS air/oil separator.
>
>
> try http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/hboilbreather.php
>
> cut 2.5" hole in front or back face, fill with Stainless Steel Pot
> scrubbers(do not use any plastic or corrodeable wools).
>
> http://sneakykitchen.com/fullerbrush/fuller_products/kitchen.htm
> or
> http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/food_beverage/food_service/node_GSX
> 8YGLK7Pgs/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_GS56SL819Pge/bgel_GSNMFHCK49bl/gvel_GS2JDJ
> L946gl/theme_us_foodservices_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html
>
> repatch link
>
> Use fine mesh SS screen on bottom oil return outlet.
>
> Proseal back together, pop rivet as needed, read previous post about
> outlet
> and inlet tube lengths and position. If you get one without some overlap
> I'd
> send it back.
>
> So far no drops of oil on ground or belly or the airplane's belly. And I
> been chasing a lot of upside down white puffy hazy areas the last few
> days.
>
> W
>
> PS, this also means I no longer have to wash my belly with avgas, that's a
> relief... my armpits were really gettin' scratchy and dry.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Cowl skin screw spacing |
RV-3/4 builders: anyone remember what spacing they used on the screws that
hold the top forward fuselage cowl skin to the main longerons? RV-3 and -4
plans both call for 2.5" spacing yet when I scrutinize pictures I have of
finished planes it looks like many builder's used tighter spacing. Tighter
space could yield increased buckling with the #8 screw dimples.
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
Subject: RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
Hey is there anyone on here that can give me an estimated HP that would
be required to make a Harmon Rocket go 220knots TAS at say 22000ft. I
have been doing some expensive dreaming. I wanna go faster and higher
but I don't want the complications of a Turbo system. I have some ideas
bur I don't know how much power I will need at this ALT.
Weasel RV-4
Brooksville Ms
Smoothweasel: Your question has piqued my curiosity. Piper claimed a
similar motive when they built the Comanche 400. The idea was to
improve altitude performance without the complexity of turbocharging.
The late Dick Schreder described the result as "flying like a F6F with a
full bomb load". The analysis of speed, power and altitude looks good
to me as Kevin and others know their business. I would add that
experimental evidence says that with normally aspirated engines the
power decreases more rapidly than does the drag with increasing
altitude. If Kevin's figures are in the ballpark, then probably more
that 300hp, perhaps as much as 350 sea level hp might be required. What
sort of engine do you envision, rotary perhaps?
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Air/oil separator |
Well,
to get into my thinking on the subject a little more...
One concern was the SS inside aluminum with moisture is a galvanic situation
but I decided it probably isn't one that is too great given the heating it
gets every flight. I did choose to make this with out any gaskets, using
proseal and pop rivets with the intent in mind of opening it after a year or
so and see what's what. The original one had some small water/oil goop in
it, but it was not too bad after 800 hours of use.
Also the screen area is about 3 square inches which is about 144 times the
area of the oil drain outlet.
One concern I had was what happens on a very cold day prior to this thing
warming up, and I finally decided it would be warming up fairly fast given
that it gets most of its heat from the blowby. But that is the reason I
liked the idea of a PRD installed, and I may make a version II out of the
old one I removed.
The other question I have yet to answer is how to deal with the moisture
that this unit collects. It would be nice to know how much comes from the
blowby by products and how much is drawn back in via case cooling after shut
down. It would also be neat if there was a way for it to dry the air as it
is drawn back into the engine.
Its interesting how much manufacturing effort there is to preoil an engine,
but little to no effort at preventing internal moisture during cool down,
all in spite of the fact that the manufacturer's all contend that corrosion
is the number one cause of shortened engine life.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Air/oil separator |
In a message dated 12/05/2004 2:40:34 PM Central Standard Time,
wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us writes:
The other question I have yet to answer is how to deal with the moisture
that this unit collects. It would be nice to know how much comes from the
blowby by products and how much is drawn back in via case cooling after shut
down. It would also be neat if there was a way for it to dry the air as it
is drawn back into the engine.
>>>
Hi Wheeler- Seems all the moisture gets evaporated out and only oil stays in
the separator. On mine I've got a removable gasketed cover attached with
screws for inspection and cleaning, but so far the scrubbers just get oily. The
drain does NOT go back to the sump, but to a separate hose with a petcock on the
bottom of it that gets drained each oil change. The most I've drained is
maybe 6 ounces, which was after some particularly bad aileron rolls (neg-G) and
maybe 3 times the amout normally seen. Purty darn clean belly, too!
I'll send ya some fotos...
From The PossumWorks
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=piTUFXsd1UuAMZMrGEmwVHQ8uC7aBD6ripx1C+wWvye5IPvhFgzwQjsmvpvEzRvl+dLaVUxRGY813wByjNPVCRzkfGlsMxBtYyWIZ+1dhaI6OPi89WztZZIoGjf6OI1eqWTYafHa6GPh5Eunj0vzzSvRxU3EcfX54ap+UTXffYU;
| From: | Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Rv-List Power Required |
Power vs manifold pressure or altitude is a linear
relationship. At 22,000' the normally aspirated
manifold pressure would be less than 13", thus a
normally aspirated engine would produce slightly less
than 50% power (or right around that, given the
increase in efficiency vs altitude).
Many of the IO-540's that people are having built for
the Rockets produce well over 300 hp at Sea Level,
actually around 330 or so. With that kind of power,
220 KTAS at 22,000 feet would probably be achievable,
or you would at least get very close to those numbers.
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
--- Gordon or Marge Comfort wrote:
> I would add that
> experimental evidence says that with normally
> aspirated engines the
> power decreases more rapidly than does the drag with
> increasing
> altitude. If Kevin's figures are in the ballpark,
> then probably more
> that 300hp, perhaps as much as 350 sea level hp
> might be required. What
> sort of engine do you envision, rotary perhaps?
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Suppression System-items from my personal archive |
I've attached 3 articles saved off of www.H3R.com website (1.800.249.4289),
plus 3 e-mails with initial ideas on "how to mount".
These will be stripped off by the RV-list so sending direct to you, Glenn.
Anyone else, contact me direct & I'll fwd this e-mail to you with
attachments.
I'm planning on a Halon system in my RV-6.
David Carter
Nederland, Texas
Canopy frame
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fire Suppression System
>
> Has anyone installed a fire suppression system/bottle, and if so what
> brand? I searched the archives and saw some arguments pro and con, but
> that was about it. A friend has a system in a Glasair and it looks like
> cheap insurance to me. Thanks in advance. Glenn in Arizona -9A fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cold/Lean Cylinders |
Listers,
I'm having a problem with #3 cylinders running cold & lean while
flying in cold air. The engine is a carbureted O-320-D1A with 9:1
compression pistons with a fixed pitch prop, and Van's standard air
box, on an RV-6A.
The problem seems to occurs when the outside air temp is cold (below
32*F) AND when I'm at a PARTIAL throttle setting (2350 RPM). As soon as
I begin to lean the fuel under these conditions, #3 & #4 cylinder EGT's
begin to FALL. At the same time #1 & #2 cylinders EGT's begin to rise
(as expected). Warm or Hot air operations seem to cause the same
problem, but they are not as pronounce: The #3 & #4 EGT's first rise,
then fall as the mixture is leaned, but they are the first to run lean
at the partial throttle condition. Cold air seems to cause these
cylinders to run lean earlier in the leaning process (If they are
already running leaner than #1 & #2 cylinders, then they would lean
FIRST, or run LEANER in colder air prior to the leaning process, and
actually run leaner as the fuel supply is limited).
This would indicate that #3 & #4 cylinders are running leaner in cold
air.. And as these cylinders EGT falls, so does their CHT's. I've seen #
4 cylinder (the coldest) fall BELOW 200*F with an outside air temp of
15*F, resulting in a rough running engine. Under these outside air
conditions, I MUST run at full rich, and full throttle, in order to keep
the #3 & #4 CHT's above 200 *F.
The problem doesn't exist at full throttle conditions (while running
in cold air). All CHT's & EGT's are within reason: within 25* for CHT's
& within 100* for EGT's. It's only when I come off of a full throttle
condition that I am having this problem. Flying at 11,000' at full
throttle, I don't see this happening, even when the engine is leaned all
temps are about the same. It also doesn't happen at full throttle
climbs, even while leaning during the climb. It only happens at less
than full throttle conditions (2/3 throttle typically, 2300 - 2350
RPM's).
I've tested all intakes for cracks and air leaks. I've even made sure
that the intake path from the carb to the sump intake area was smooth
(Opened up Van's cable bracket carb hole to smooth out the air flow. It
sits between the sump and the carb).
This seems to be an intake fuel distribution problem while running at
a partial throttle condition. Has anybody seen this type of issue on an
RV before? Does anybody have a solution for this problem?
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
320 Hrs in 14 Months :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Molex connectors |
Since no one answered this question from a few days ago I'm going to give it
another try. I just know there a resident electrical genius monitoring this
list!
Ivan Haecker -4 1100 hrs. S. Cen. TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: RV-List: Molex connectors
>
> Listers,
> Can someone in the know tell me if .062" molex terminals are capable of
handling the current flow required for a taillight/strobe unit in the rudder
or are the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
> Thanks,
> Ivan Haecker
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connectors |
Go to http://www.aeroelectric.com/ and either contact Bob Nuckhols
directly or hit the aeroelectiic list for the answer to your question.
Along with free advice, you can get all your electrical needs from Bob too.
Linn
H.Ivan Haecker wrote:
>
>Since no one answered this question from a few days ago I'm going to give it
>another try. I just know there a resident electrical genius monitoring this
>list!
>Ivan Haecker -4 1100 hrs. S. Cen. TX
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Molex connectors
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Listers,
>>Can someone in the know tell me if .062" molex terminals are capable of
>>
>>
>handling the current flow required for a taillight/strobe unit in the rudder
>or are the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Ivan Haecker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re:Cold/Lean Cylinders |
Hi Fred,
FWIW - it would seem to me that provided your instrumentation is accurate,
that maybe your carb is providing a leaner than normal mixture, either from
too small a jet or because the float level is set too low. At full
throttle, the extra mixture enrichment could be masking this leanness.
I would disassemble the carb and check float level and jets and passageways.
As a matter of interest, how far out from the panel does the mixture control
get before it starts having a noticeable effect ? My O-320 D1A starts to
run rough when my mixture control is out about 3/4 of an inch.
If everything checks out, and there are no airleaks, you could check the
ignition timing for over-advance.
Cheers
Martin in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connectors |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
Ivan,
The Molex .062 pin should be good to 5 amps and the .093 up to 12 amps,
depending on the number of pins in the connector and the type of housing
but 9 amps seems to be the norm. This info is from the Newark catalog.
Check the specs on the light you're using to see how much current it draws.
Dave
H.Ivan Haecker wrote:
>
>Since no one answered this question from a few days ago I'm going to give it
>another try. I just know there a resident electrical genius monitoring this
>list!
>Ivan Haecker -4 1100 hrs. S. Cen. TX
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Molex connectors
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Listers,
>>Can someone in the know tell me if .062" molex terminals are capable of
>>
>>
>handling the current flow required for a taillight/strobe unit in the rudder
>or are the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Ivan Haecker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List Power Required |
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Peterson<mailto:alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Bulk] RV-List: Rv-List Power Required
> 10. There being no free lunch in this line of business, you
> either need a
> bigger engine or run more fuel through the same engine.
>
Still trying to get a grip on what is happening in this high vs low altitude
thing but I do have a pretty good fix on the actual performance of my RV-4 at
SL and 14,500 ft at 200 mph. At SL I have to burn 16 GPH to do it. At 14,500
I only burn 8.15 GPH at 200 mph (both TAS).
Where is my free lunch coming from?
Tracy Crook
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connectors |
In a message dated 12/05/2004 5:10:02 PM Central Standard Time,
baremetl(at)gvtc.com writes:
are the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
>>>>
I used the biguns just because they gave me a "warmer, fuzzier feeling" about
these connects... (plus, I had some handy and sed "whut the heck...")
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Hi guys
I am seeking advice from the many more knowledeable than me regarding prop
pitch.
I have a clean, straight and light RV6 with the old-style wheelpants and new
O-320 D1A with 160 hp.
The prop is a metal Sensenich with 79 inches of pitch. After calibrating
the tachometer, I get the following figures :
Static RPM - 2224 rpm
Climb RPM - 2236 rpm
Full throttle RPM @ 8,500 feet - 2600 rpm and 21 inches MP
At 2000 feet, 25.5 Inches of MP and 2600 rpm, IAS is around 172kts (198 mph)
So far so good. The prop is optimised for full throttle, 75% power at around
8000 - 8500 feet.
But I generally don't fly at this altitude. At 5000 ft and 65% power the
engine is turning 2450 but with only 21 inches of MP. I have been thinking
about adding one inch of pitch to the prop, making it 80 inches, which is
what Van's is recommending these days, as the engine seems to be lightly
loaded at my normal 65% cruise speeds around 5000 ft.
In other words, am I likely to get cylinder glazing if I run at these low
manifold pressures ?
Should I pitch up a bit and trade some MP for a little less rpm ? What
about if I fit the later pressure recovery wheelpants ? And no, I can't
afford CS.... ;-)
Thanks in advance
Martin in Oz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Molex connectors |
In a message dated 12/5/2004 3:10:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
baremetl(at)gvtc.com writes:
Since no one answered this question from a few days ago I'm going to give it
another try. I just know there a resident electrical genius monitoring this
list!
Ivan Haecker -4 1100 hrs. S. Cen. TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: RV-List: Molex connectors
>
> Listers,
> Can someone in the know tell me if .062" molex terminals are capable of
handling the current flow required for a taillight/strobe unit in the rudder
or are the larger diameter (.093) terminals necessary?
==============================
I beg your pardon, but I answered correctly on 12/01.
GV (RV-6A N1GV, Flying 730hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Cold/Lean Cylinders |
>
> Listers,
>
> I'm having a problem with #3 cylinders running cold &
> lean while flying in cold air. The engine is a carbureted
> O-320-D1A with 9:1 compression pistons with a fixed pitch
> prop, and Van's standard air box, on an RV-6A.
> The problem seems to occurs when the outside air temp is
> cold (below
> 32*F) AND when I'm at a PARTIAL throttle setting (2350 RPM).
> As soon as I begin to lean the fuel under these conditions,
> #3 & #4 cylinder EGT's begin to FALL. At the same time #1 &
> #2 cylinders EGT's begin to rise (as expected). Warm or Hot
> air operations seem to cause the same problem, but they are
> not as pronounce: The #3 & #4 EGT's first rise, then fall as
> the mixture is leaned, but they are the first to run lean at
> the partial throttle condition. Cold air seems to cause these
> cylinders to run lean earlier in the leaning process (If they
> are already running leaner than #1 & #2 cylinders, then they
> would lean FIRST, or run LEANER in colder air prior to the
> leaning process, and actually run leaner as the fuel supply
> is limited).
> This would indicate that #3 & #4 cylinders are running
> leaner in cold air.. And as these cylinders EGT falls, so
> does their CHT's. I've seen # 4 cylinder (the coldest) fall
> BELOW 200*F with an outside air temp of 15*F, resulting in a
> rough running engine. Under these outside air conditions, I
> MUST run at full rich, and full throttle, in order to keep
> the #3 & #4 CHT's above 200 *F.
> The problem doesn't exist at full throttle conditions
> (while running in cold air). All CHT's & EGT's are within
> reason: within 25* for CHT's & within 100* for EGT's. It's
> only when I come off of a full throttle condition that I am
> having this problem. Flying at 11,000' at full throttle, I
> don't see this happening, even when the engine is leaned all
> temps are about the same. It also doesn't happen at full
> throttle climbs, even while leaning during the climb. It only
> happens at less than full throttle conditions (2/3 throttle
> typically, 2300 - 2350 RPM's).
> I've tested all intakes for cracks and air leaks. I've even
> made sure that the intake path from the carb to the sump
> intake area was smooth (Opened up Van's cable bracket carb
> hole to smooth out the air flow. It sits between the sump and
> the carb).
> This seems to be an intake fuel distribution problem while
> running at a partial throttle condition. Has anybody seen
> this type of issue on an RV before? Does anybody have a
> solution for this problem?
>
>
> Fred Stucklen
> RV-6A N926RV
> 320 Hrs in 14 Months :)
Fred, very precise description of your observations. It really seems like
your partial throttle, full rich mixture position fuel flows are too low. I
gather that you don't have a fuel flow meter in the plane. I don't know
much about these carbs, but it sure seems like it is running things too lean
(cold air would make that worse). A fuel flow sensor is not cheap, but I
consider it a must have for proper engine management. The only real look at
the panel during the takeoff roll for me is to verify that I have full fuel
flow to the engine. The leaning process for me is always first by feel,
then by fuel flow, then by egt.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 559 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Dahl" <dahlhouse(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cowl skin screw spacing |
Randy,,,we used two inches on our four to good effect.
CDahl
RV4 kit#26
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: RV-List: Cowl skin screw spacing
>
> RV-3/4 builders: anyone remember what spacing they used on the screws
that
> hold the top forward fuselage cowl skin to the main longerons? RV-3 and -4
> plans both call for 2.5" spacing yet when I scrutinize pictures I have of
> finished planes it looks like many builder's used tighter spacing. Tighter
> space could yield increased buckling with the #8 screw dimples.
>
> Randy Lervold
> www.rv-3.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
November 26, 2004 - December 05, 2004
RV-Archive.digest.vol-qd