RV-List Archive Browser

RV-Archive.digest.vol-qg
December 12, 2004 - December 20, 2004

Wow, Dan, what a super web site. I hadn't visited it in a while and am amazed at how it has grown. I have bookmarked this as "must-read". Personally, I am also leaning toward polished, but am getting scared by some of the posted horror stories. What I will probably do is fly it for a while unpainted and unpolished and see just how bad it is. If reflections are real bad, I will paint just enough to eliminate the problem areas, then polish the rest. I don't know if you are old enough to remember WW2 aircraft. These were all unpainted due to the necessity of rapid production and to hold costs down. They did, however, paint the top of the cowl from the wind screen forward. Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (giving new meaning to the term slow-build) http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: http://www.rvproject.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Just another perspective on painting: I've seen RVs painted both ways -- before assembly & flying and after assembly & already flown AND like Dan's unpainted. It is a much easier job to paint it before assembly. You paint in smaller parts and you can more easily do the job yourself rather than pay out big bucks. With your own paint job, you use the saved money for your first couple years of insurance payments (if you can even get insurance.) And you get the pride in saying, I painted it myself just like I built it myself. JMHO. Almost done with 3XG. Going to airport next week. Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty; in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts; in flying a virgin plane never flown before. - Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming ----- Original Message ----- From: <j1j2h3(at)juno.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: http://www.rvproject.com > > Wow, Dan, what a super web site. I hadn't visited it in a while and am > amazed at how it has grown. I have bookmarked this as "must-read". > Personally, I am also leaning toward polished, but am getting scared by > some of the posted horror stories. What I will probably do is fly it for > a while unpainted and unpolished and see just how bad it is. If > reflections are real bad, I will paint just enough to eliminate the > problem areas, then polish the rest. > > I don't know if you are old enough to remember WW2 aircraft. These were > all unpainted due to the necessity of rapid production and to hold costs > down. They did, however, paint the top of the cowl from the wind screen > forward. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwheel
Date: Dec 12, 2004
> > Bearings come out fairly easy, I didn't like how they fit though within the > TW assembly, so I made a spacer for inside, between the bearings much like a > stub shaft inside a preloaded steering drive axel commonly used in today's > cars. > > This allows one to tighten the the tail wheel bolt enough for the bolt to > not spin. > > > But that all said, does anyone know of a valid criteria by which to > determine of a tail wheel is worn out? > > W ========================================= In the case of my RV-3 that I bought with 180 hours on it..... I could not stand the noise being megaphoned by the tail section. Spinning the unloaded tailwheel by hand revealed it was very rough running and wobbly. Really shot. No grease or residue found. Dry as a bone Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Dan, Do you have any pix of your installation? I would like to see it as I would think it would preclude baffle cracking. I am going to be using a IO 360. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
In a message dated 12/11/04 3:37:27 PM Central Standard Time, tcervin(at)valkyrie.net writes: > Has anybody been able to cool an RV with a firewall mounted cooler? >>> Yep- works great. I'll send ya some fotos Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com>
Subject: fuel metering options
Date: Dec 11, 2004
I've got a stumble in rpm as I throttle up past around 1500 which seems to be getting worse and does not respond to idle jet adjustments. I also no longer see an rpm rise at idle cutoff which also doesn't respond to adjustments. And I've got some play in the mixture control post where it seats into the carb body. Sooo... Its probably a good idea to consider having the 'ol MSA overhauled at the next annual; which may present some options. Certainly a bolt-off / bolt-on overhaul of the same carb will be cheapest and easiest. However if there is to be a significant benefit to replacing it with an Ellison or Airflow throttle body or an RSA injection system, this would be a good time to make the switch. So, for anyone whose replaced an MSA with something else - was it worth it? What real life benefits did you see? Sustained inverted flight is not an issue for me. And, since this is a VFR airplane that rarely travels in ice prone conditions, that too becomes just a minor concern. Considering the extra money and work of changing systems (new bracketry, new hoses, new control cables, airbox alterations, etc...) I would want to see some noticeable improvements in power or efficiency. Otherwise, I'll just keep the MSA and not miss a 3-4 weeks of flying. Any comments or suggestions? Andy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
In a message dated 12/12/04 11:35:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time, rv9jim(at)juno.com writes: > > Dan, > Do you have any pix of your installation? I would like to see it > as I would think it would preclude baffle cracking. I am going to be > using a IO 360. > > Jim > Jim, I'm sorry, I don't have at this time. The next time the cowl is off I'll get some. Dan Hopper N766DH RV-7A (Flying since July -- about 80 hours) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: fuel metering options
Date: Dec 12, 2004
> > I've got a stumble in rpm as I throttle up past around 1500 > which seems to be getting worse and does not respond to idle > jet adjustments. I also no longer see an rpm rise at idle > cutoff which also doesn't respond to adjustments. And I've > got some play in the mixture control post where it seats into > the carb body. > > Sooo... Its probably a good idea to consider having the 'ol > MSA overhauled at the next annual; which may present some > options. Certainly a bolt-off / bolt-on overhaul of the same > carb will be cheapest and easiest. However if there is to be Andy, since you don't know what the problem is, why would you not ground it until you can have the carb overhauled, or at least disassembled and inspected? Alex Peterson RV6-A 561 hours Maple Grove, MN http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: Rivet Sizes
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Hey out there, I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head, however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size rivets or the next larger. Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Wing fairing gap seal
In a message dated 12/11/04 5:31:25 PM Central Standard Time, stevea(at)svpal.org writes: > 1. What should the fairing to fuselage gap be in order to hold the > rubber seal in place without any adhesive? (I am not planning on using > adhesive, unless the seal does not stay put in flight.) > >>> Like another lister mentioned, put the seal on the edge of a part and apply it to a perpendicular surface to achieve the desired radius, then measure. Speaking from experience, I'd certainly make it narrower than you think you'll need at first as it is easy to trim more of the fairing away but difficult to add it back if too much is removed! My second fairings fit MUCH better (don't ask!) > > 3. What is the easiest way to install the seal? Put the seal over the > fairing and screw the fairing in place, or screw the fairing in place > first and then slide the seal in. (Some previous posts on this. Most > seem to install both at the same time.) > >>> Tape the seal to the fairing every 4 or 5 inches (on the outside of course!) then install it starting at the rear- cleco then screw like Dan C. sez. If the seal gets tucked under in places slip a credit card between the seal and skin and slide it past the tuck to lift the seal into position. No, this should not debit your account, but you might wish to check anyway. If you want to freak your friends, tell 'em you just have the wings taped on for the first couple of flights til you're happy with the incidence angle (or just go ahead and remove it if this makes your wife nervous...8-) From The Possumworks in TN Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Canopy Question
In a message dated 12/11/04 7:09:27 PM Central Standard Time, davercook(at)prodigy.net writes: > Does the side skirts need any sort of weather-strip adhesive next to the > Plexiglas for waterproofing and if so what did you use? >>> I used proseal 'cause I had some extra laying around, and as you know, it takes days to cure, giving you plenty of time to work with it, clean it off etc...... They sure don't leak! Mark -6A tip-up, 133 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <nyman(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. Thanks Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/11/04
From: James F George <rv4george(at)juno.com>
Bravo Andrew! On my IP ,Juno, I can opt to NOT send the message that I am replying to. Can the rest of us do the same? Jim George ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGray67968(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
My experience as well. According to my inspector......your engine (and mine) is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'. 40 hours....go have fun! Curious.....what's the big hurry anyway? You can learn a LOT about yourself and your RV in 40hrs. Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/ not archive do I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. Thanks Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
My DAR gave me 10 hours within 50 miles of my base airport and then the remaining 30 hours anywhere in the state excluding some specific controlled airspace. Try to get something like this in your Operation Limitations and go have fun! Jerry Calvert RV 6 N296JC Edmond Ok ----- Original Message ----- From: <RGray67968(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > My experience as well. According to my inspector......your engine (and mine) > is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD'. 40 hours....go have fun! > Curious.....what's the big hurry anyway? You can learn a LOT about yourself > and your RV in 40hrs. > Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioValleyRVators/ > not archive do > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power > with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the > inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the > engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour > phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could > use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > Thanks > Steve > MEM > 7QB > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
If you don't have a lycoming data plate on it, you're not likely to convince the Feds that it's a Lycoming built under a TC. After all, van's recommendation is for a Lycoming, not a "xyz....". The 2nd thing is that prop probably doesn't have the AeroSport power engine on it's type certificate either, which is what you actually need to prove to the FAA - That you're using a Type Certificated Engine/Prop Combo. Put a non-TC'd prop on a Lycoming and you're in the same boat. Anyway, that extra 15 hrs. is a breeze. Think of it as another weekend or two of flying! 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 nyman(at)bellsouth.net Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. Thanks Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=WTsPU1dGFfYfe9Th4OuKdsdTr4DmdXq01JdYJKZc4IB2OSCa+JQSpQZ/u3LfzDbGpAVusvamTSbTrTGHFBxTiulMsXygrWeGpFoOVm6sQoWXmofTy/BcgyigYF6Gl+hEVydqdQUYINGG52Bd4z87jzUygnSfQFW8WzoXyek+8Zs;
Date: Dec 12, 2004
From: Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet Sizes
Paul, Consider all drawings and plans callout for a specific rivet length as a helpful guideline and then use the correct length rivet for your application. Continue to (correctly) rely on a rivet gauge to pass a go/no go spec test. The problem you cite is certainly not unique to Van's drawings and on a personal note, was routinely encountered by this retired aerospace worker while referring to blueprint callouts .... building combat jets for a living. Rick Galati Hey out there, I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head, however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size rivets or the next larger. Thanks, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Van's recommendation has nothing to do with whether you get a 25 or 40 hour test period. One could use a Continental, a Franklin, or even a P&W and get the 25 hour since they are certified. Cy Galley EAA Safety Programs Editor Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > If you don't have a lycoming data plate on it, you're not likely to convince > the Feds that it's a Lycoming built under a TC. After all, van's > recommendation is for a Lycoming, not a "xyz....". > > The 2nd thing is that prop probably doesn't have the AeroSport power engine > on it's type certificate either, which is what you actually need to prove to > the FAA - That you're using a Type Certificated Engine/Prop Combo. Put a > non-TC'd prop on a Lycoming and you're in the same boat. > > Anyway, that extra 15 hrs. is a breeze. Think of it as another weekend or > two of flying! > > 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 > nyman(at)bellsouth.net > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power > with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the > inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because > the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 > hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some > documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > Thanks > Steve > MEM > 7QB > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: <nyman(at)bellsouth.net> Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport > Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use > for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase > one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able > to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, > some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > Thanks > Steve > MEM > 7QB As others have stated, technically you should get a 40 hour fly-off. Believe it or not, 40 hours isn't that long, and gives you enough time to do all the things you should do before carrying passengers - get comfortable with the airplane, check out the systems, perform all expected maneuvers, expand the W/B envelope to the worst case situations, do extended flights to check fuel burn, etc. I know of at least one person who spent all 40 "test" hours boring holes in the air, and got a big surprise when he put people and bags in the airplane... KB ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=z9bfNOCBucRc1MUzaJFpyjrIlt9wuDtfBM5ZuQW8CeWP1WDjgC4ROhYTq6U2G9fx1+lz96LsDmIh91rWL3ojytHIy8QflBcFgRpT5wYxeN3hI+0ymRGKUGUhHpGW+2fA3vv6WzMY2UYdyzNZJDvyevgU4dbA6FdjgpDjju2F66M;
Date: Dec 12, 2004
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Oil Cooler Location
My 2 cents worth. Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders. If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking. Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is hard on the oil cooler. Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som e kind with out losing efficiency. Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. --------------------------------- Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Thicker baffle material for cooler
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Local 8 builder/flyer just had to repair the cracked baffle material after less than 100 hours TT because of his baffle mounted cooler - like everyone else usually does at some point. But he remarked that the replacement baffle material he ordered from Vans was thicker than the original material. It irked him because he said he called Van's and told them to begin with that in his opinion the material was too thin to support the loads. They assured him all would be well. He is a retired aircraft manufacturing manager for Boeing so he has more than a clue about such things. Take a look at your baffle material around that area and if it's not at least .063 call up Van's and see if they don't have new thicker replacement material or consider making your own with thicker material. lucky -------------- Original message -------------- > > > My 2 cents worth. > > > Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack > eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including > Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support > the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use > a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle > mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher > cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with > Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders. > > > If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil > cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine > mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and > brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with > a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a > smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC. > The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius > and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The > firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and > firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and > less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the > hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking. > > > Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the > baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know > some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW. > Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines > sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine > vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is > hard on the oil cooler. > > > Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal > airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt > transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular > cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both > a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking > air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for > oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the > key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 > sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts > it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 > in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the > filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from > a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som > e kind > with out losing efficiency. > > > Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq > area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what > the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles > I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works > but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder > you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure. > OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a > function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the > back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the > cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire > reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. > > > The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important. > It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" > bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This > is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the > expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical > 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as > it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you > own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage > of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the > transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the > baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, > consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max > (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. > > > > --------------------------------- > Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. > > > > > > Local 8 builder/flyer just had to repair the cracked baffle material after less than 100 hours TT because of his baffle mounted cooler - like everyone else usually does at some point. But he remarked that the replacement baffle material he ordered from Vanswas thicker than the original material. It irked him because he said he called Van's and told them to begin with that in his opinion the material was too thin to support the loads.Theyassured him allwould be well. He is a retired aircraft manufacturing manager for Boeing so he has more than a clue about such things. Take a look at your baffle material around that area and if it's not at least .063 call up Van's and see if they don't have new thicker replacement material or consider making your own with thicker material. lucky -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: My 2 cents worth. Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders. If you feel you must mo unt it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking. Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is hard on the oil cooler. Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling dra g). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som e kind with out losing efficiency. Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what the actual effective area of the co oler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. --------------------------------- Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Excellent Post! I have decided to go with the firewall mount thanks to many replies to my question both off and online. Boy I hate to do fiberglass but believe I can come up with a funnel type design using metal. How large should the air inlet be... 3" ? Where is the best baffle location to tap for the air supply and not suffer cool air to the engine or undue drag? Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler Location > > > My 2 cents worth. > > > Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will > crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, > including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage > metal to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older > Mooneys, I have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil > cooler installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient. > They may work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas > from experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony > B. and other builders. > > > If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the > oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not > vibrating) engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use > Adel clamps and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the > vibrating rear baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the > Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the > baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or > horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no abrupt transitions > in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall mount is > good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall > crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and > less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is > the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking. > > > Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, > the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation > max. I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the > average is LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight > of the oil lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor > produced from engine vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... > It is going to crack and is hard on the oil cooler. > > > Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal > airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt > transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge > rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air > is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling > drag). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You > don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a > big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air > box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake > air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by > smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The > oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So > a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a > circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som > e kind > with out losing efficiency. > > > Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 > inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am > not sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts > are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the > engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and > valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are > trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function > of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta > pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle > should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use > a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is > a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. > > > The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is > important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square > shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a > poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can > get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets > are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. > Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good > cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition > out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the > OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from > baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is > abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider > using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max > (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. > > > --------------------------------- > Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
My DAR made me find a TCDS with the engine AND prop together which I could do because of a Lyc data plate and normal Hartzell. With a Superior and new Hartzell just accept the 40 hrs and ask for the largest test area you can get. I was the first locally to ask for and get a 200nm radius around a local VOR exclusive of Class B&C. Subsequently others have gotten even larger areas. The DAR has little or no discretion on the hours but does have on the area... But you have to ask. Greg Young > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at > Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. > The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I > will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is > technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 > hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, > some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > Thanks > Steve > MEM > 7QB > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet Sizes
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I went to the -7 also but I had the pneumatic squeezer, I might not have if I didn't though. I also ran out of -7 and had to borrow some because of that so you might want to check how many you have first. Greg > > Hey out there, > > I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The > rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head, > however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size > shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead > of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet > spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size > rivets or the next larger. > > Thanks, > Paul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "sportpilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com>
Subject: aileron travel
Date: Dec 12, 2004
I just finnished up the wings and was checking out motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others I was moving the alierons back and forth and it seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go past the point but its rubbing although nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past the skin at the gap flairing.. Danny.. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
Date: Dec 12, 2004
For what it's worth, here's a photo of the oil cooler setup on my old Mooney 201. It's exactly what "gmcjetpilot" described. http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/firewall.jpg This one shows the "duct" built into the baffles. http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/baffle.jpg I did not use this method on my RV-7 & IO-360-A1B6. I used the bandaid method (mounted on the baffle with lots of reinforcement) and am happy with it. ;-) I wasn't content with the idea of the engine moving around and the oil cooler mount/duct being stationary. Just my personal perspective on it. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler Location > > > My 2 cents worth. > > > Don't mount the oil cooler directly to the rear baffle, because it will crack eventually. It happened to me, and many other RV's have this issue, including Van's airplanes. Some guy's put extra braces and heaver gage metal to support the cooler, but this is a band-aid. Some of the older Mooneys, I have seen, use a clever idea I'll describe below. Also oil cooler installations, whether baffle mounted or not, are not efficient. They may work but at the cost of higher cooling drag. I have a few ideas from experience and what I read in Speed with Economy by Kent Paser, Tony B. and other builders. > > > If you feel you must mount it to the rear baffle, consider supporting the oil cooler near the baffle but just off it, using the fixed (not vibrating) engine mount tubes as an OC support. (You can weld tabs or use Adel clamps and brackets). Connect the OC, which is now fixed, to the vibrating rear baffle with a short flexible duct (rectangular like the Mooney) or a round duct with a smooth ID. This is a variation between the baffle and firewall supported OC. The cooler can be vertical or horizontal as long as you use a generous radius and no abrupt transitions in the duct. The less you turn the air the better. The firewall mount is good but has the draw back of a longer duct, oil lines and firewall crowding. Regardless of how you mount it, you will have higher drag and less efficiency if not engineered well. I think the baffle mounted OC is the hardest to make efficient, regardless of baffle cracking. > > > Bottom line, if the OC is mounted and supported directly to the baffle, the baffle will crack at some point, usually 200-400 hours of operation max. I know some may write they have 10,000 hours on theirs, but the average is LOW. Consider the weight of an OC and the oil in it, the weight of the oil lines sprung weight including oil in them, the G factor produced from engine vibration, especially start/shutdown, fatigue...... It is going to crack and is hard on the oil cooler. > > > Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som > e kind > with out losing efficiency. > > > Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. > > > The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. > > > --------------------------------- > Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net>

Subject: EMag
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Hi All, I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag setup as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to be true. This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS factor involved in installation. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2004
From: sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Oh its an rv9a I am building > > I just finnished up the wings and was checking out > motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others > I was moving the alierons back and forth and it > seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the > skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go > past the point but its rubbing although > nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight > of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it > breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull > back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? > what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about > 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past > the skin at the gap flairing.. > > Danny.. > > > _- > _- > _- > ==================================================================== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DWENSING(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, RGray67968(at)aol.com writes: > your engine (and mine) > is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD' My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power. Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours! Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
It's really up to the DAR... I had an O320 and wood prop and I got 30 hours... -Bill no not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: <DWENSING(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, RGray67968(at)aol.com writes: > your engine (and mine) > is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD' My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power. Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours! Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: EMag
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Have a look at the Matronics aeroelectric list recent archives. There has been some discussion there - mostly quite favorable. Terry I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag setup as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to be true. This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS factor involved in installation. Darwin N. Barrie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 12, 2004
In this case you obviously have a rebuilt/overhauled/new lycoming built by AeroSport power. The ones in question are his new "Experimental" Engines which are NOT new/rebuilt/overhauled Lyc's. Aerosport Power builds both overhauled/rebuilt Lycs as well as full Experimental engines. Two totally different things in the eyes of the feds. Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DWENSING(at)aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One In a message dated 12/12/04 2:52:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, RGray67968(at)aol.com writes: > your engine (and mine) > is NOT a Lycoming....it's an 'Aero Sport Power LTD' My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power. Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours! Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: aileron travel
In a message dated 12/12/2004 4:53:46 PM Central Standard Time, sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com writes: once it breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? >>>>>> Make absolutely sure it is NOT the aileron bellcranks or pushrod end bearings or the pushrods themselves touching anything- also check clearances where the pushrods go through the rear spars and the rods from the sticks where they go through the seat ribs and side skins... On a -6A these clearances are very tight- if you are building something else, your mileage may vary.... It took quite a while in a very quiet hangar to find out that a rivet in my Navaid servo rod bearing was barely brushing the bellcrank mounting angle- time well spent IMHO! From The PossumWorks in TN Mark ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Albert Gardner" <spudnut(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Date: Dec 12, 2004
On the RV-9A: Aileron travel is limited by the positive stops. They will only limit up travel so until you get the wings hooked together through the stick you won't have any limit on down aileron. Also, the amount of total travel is usually greater than the stops will eventually limit it to, so until the stops are installed you may be seeing more travel (and therefore some binding) than you will end up with. Albert Gardner RV-9A 872RV Yuma, AZ >> >> I just finnished up the wings and was checking out >> motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others >> I was moving the alierons back and forth and it >> seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the >> skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go >> past the point but its rubbing although >> nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight >> of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it >> breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull >> back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? >> what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about >> 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past >> the skin at the gap flairing.. >> >> Danny.. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net>
Subject: Autopilot istallation instructions
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and installation instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has been mentioned, the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand wing. A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one shown in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the divergence of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the arms look like they are about 1/4 inch longer. The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a right hand installation? Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Autopilot istallation instructions
Date: Dec 12, 2004
It may not be of much significance but having the servo in the right wing would help balance the pitot installation in the left wing both from a weight and complexity standpoint. Dick Sipp #40065 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> Subject: RV-List: Autopilot istallation instructions > > Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and > installation instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has > been mentioned, the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand > wing. > > A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one > shown in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the > divergence of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the > arms look like they are about 1/4 inch longer. > > The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize > that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, > did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a > right hand installation? > > Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
If YOU cannot prove that all ADs are complied with, that the engine and prop meets the TCDS, the DAR should give you 40 hours even if you have the data plate and prop. One thing that causes many engines in homebuilts to not meet the TCDS is the removal of a mag and installation on an EXPERIMENTAL ignition system. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,610 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- My O-360 has a Lycoming data plate but the engine is from AeroSport Power. Have Hartzell C/S prop matched to Lycoming O-360. Still got 40 hours! Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: Re: EMag
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Darwin, I too am considering Emag . . . I also monitor the AeroElectric list mentions . . . there was some general discussion a while back but not much "personal experience" that I recall?! I am also interested in any feed back! Regards, Bob Christensen RV-8 Builder - SE Iowa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> Subject: RE: RV-List: EMag > > Have a look at the Matronics aeroelectric list recent archives. There has > been some discussion there - mostly quite favorable. > > Terry > > > I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover from the Crossflow > experience. I am planning ahead and am seriously considering the Emag setup > as opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. www.emagair.com > > Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost appears to be too good to be > true. This is nearly a wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS > factor involved in installation. > > Darwin N. Barrie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 12, 2004
Subject: Re: Rivet Sizes
Paul, I can think of two things which may cause the rivets to seem too short. One would be if all the pieces were not laying flat together, if there are several layers to rivet through. Another thing would be if the hole(s) were oversize, possibly due to drilling out the rivet and redoing it. The rivets themselves enlarge the holes when they are driven, even if you do a perfect job of drilling them out. If you have drilled a rivet out, you may well have to use a longer rivet to fill the hole, and get a good shop head. Sometimes its better to accept a less than perfect shop head to avoid getting into this situation. Experience will help make that decision for you. Regards, Dan Hopper RV-7A In a message dated 12/12/04 1:24:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time, rice737(at)msn.com writes: > Hey out there, > > I have just started to rivet together the rear spar for the horz. stab. The > > rivets shown on the drawings aren't long enough to make a proper shop head, > however in the preview plans it specifically states that the rivet size > shown on the plan is correct. I have started to put in the -7 rivets instead > > of the the -6 rivets in order to obtain a shop head that passes both rivet > spec test. Anybody run in the same problem and did you use the plan size > rivets or the next larger. > > Thanks, > Paul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2004
From: Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org>
Subject: Re: Autopilot istallation instructions
clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org Actually, it will help balance the PILOT that is in the left seat. One person in the airplane instead of 2 significantly changes the balance of the airplane. Dave -6 So Cal Richard Sipp wrote: >...would help balance the pitot installation in the left wing... > > > >>The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize >>that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, >>did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a >>right hand installation? >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
Lucky, I asked this same ? to John Stark and he said you can split 3 times with out any concern for appreciable signal degradation on a serial split. I have had to split on several devices. Mike S8 Wiring. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky Subject: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two different sources but also wanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time. But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal is connected to then that pole acts as a always hot "T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time. That can be accomplished by putting both systems' wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawrence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliability? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in low RFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- > > > Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial > lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial > lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the > single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal > ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have > gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical > engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? > LOL...) > > Paul Dye > > > --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote: > > I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but > I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance > GPS and the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this > on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I > still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. > > > > What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going > to be wired up? > > > > Thanks, > > Lucky > > > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > GRT_EFIS-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two different sources but alsowanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time.But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal isconnectedto then that pole acts as a always hot"T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time.That can be accomplished by putting both systems'wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawrence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliability? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in lowRFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? LOL...) Paul Dye --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote: I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance GPS a nd the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going to be wired up? Thanks, Lucky http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GRT_EFIS-unsubs cribe(at)yahoogroups.com http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Autopilot istallation instructions
Date: Dec 13, 2004
You may have already figured this out, but they probably sent you hardware for installing in the right wing while you have install documentation for the left. That is what happened to me. Now after installing it in the left, I think it is better to install in the right because of the pitot. When I contacted Tru Trak/Tru Trac, they happily sent me the left wing install bracket with no questions. That is good customer support after the sale. They could of saved me a few hours however by sending the correct documentation for the bracket they sent me in the first place however. Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty; in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts; in flying a virgin plane never flown before. - Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> Subject: RV-List: Autopilot istallation instructions > > Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and installation instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has been mentioned, the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand wing. > > A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one shown in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the divergence of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the arms look like they are about 1/4 inch longer. > > The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a right hand installation? > > Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RVer273sb(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Subject: Re: EMag
I am very satisfied with the M-mag and the P-mag I have installed on my RV4. I don't think you can go wrong with their product or the company. They have made several changes since mine that make installation even easier. Stewart ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JT Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Re: Aircraft Insurance: USAA
Date: Dec 13, 2004
USAA is a broker just like NationAir, Falcon, and anyone else whom you'd talk to about aviation insurance (except AVEMCO the direct writer). JT (former Army officer and USAA member) ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current & ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do provide Aviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let you know what I find out. > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing what you know? > Thanks, > Lucky > > USA Toll-Free 1-800-343-1547 > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > Aviation Insurance > > > The Sky's the Limit > >From coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask when you shop for coverage: > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots flying the aircraft? > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do provideAviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let you know what I find out. > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing what you know? > Thanks, > Lucky > > > USA > > Toll-Free > > 1-800-343-1547 > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > >
>
Aviation Insurance
> > The Sky's the LimitFrom coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask when you shop for coverage: > > > > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots flying the aircraft? > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: N174TY Flies!
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Tom, CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !! Chuck & Dave Rowbotham RV-8A >Subject: RV-List: N174TY Flies! >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:04:10 -0800 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Auto Pilot choices
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I want to put at least a wing leveler, (Im recent Rv6a driver) as the plane has a mind of its own and wanders off with the least bit of distraction. I have ben told that Tru Track is popular, but the builder of this plane was considering a Trio EZ Pilot. the brochure looks tempting. It of course is a single servo, but seems to have above average performance shown in the brochure. Anyone have one, or have experience with it? charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; b=X+5gDKzQY+vJlEknn3QRGAcOBiyaGWMb9AkuzB5RJQg0GbZ7wAizmtbQ34NYBcD1d2DX1o0/4Rgf9C1FVJfVrUT7X7PcFmr328HjfrVp1Qq8ez26qHnh7lle8OpENRGf64oldp0tl6wLhA99BwY/Mi9h4pzkNIbuCwX+leq13HIReceived: by 10.54.51.57 with SMTP id y57mr1441618wry;
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Steve, you better check with Hartzell, I was told this fall by one of their engineers that the blended airfoil prop is not approved on the angle-valve engines for vibration/stress reasons. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. wrote: > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > Thanks > Steve > MEM > 7QB > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
The -M1B is the parallel valve with forward facing injector. > > Steve, you better check with Hartzell, I was told this fall > by one of their engineers that the blended airfoil prop is > not approved on the angle-valve engines for vibration/stress reasons. > > Regards, > Bob Japundza > RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > > wrote: > > > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at > Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Mckenna" <mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Oil Cooler Location
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I believe the Oil cooler mounted on the rear baffle is met with high pressure air not high velocity air. This do to the effect of the cowl plenum acting just like the carb air box you described. The cowl plenum has already converted the high velocity air, from the small cowl inlets, to high pressure air on top of the cylinders and at the OC on the rear baffle. This in theory is why the #3 or #4 cylinder should not be starved of cooling air flow as well. Mike Mckenna 260 hrs on baffle mount OC, no cracks so far. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler Location Internal airflow drag and details are important and ignored. The internal airflow in the typical oil cooler installation has sharp corners, abrupt transitions and uses convoluted scat tube for ducts. Also a huge rectangular cutout near the #4 cylinder that is often used for cooler air is poor, from both a cylinder cooling standpoint and aerodynamics (cooling drag). You are taking air away from an already hot #4 or #3 cylinder. You don't need 26 sq inches for oil cooler air, you need pressure. Making a big rectangular cutout is not the key. For example look at Van's carb air box, it uses a small inlet area, say 6.5 sq inches to supply Carb intake air. It takes the high velocity air and converts it to pressure, by smoothly transitioning to a larger area. (filter is approx 45 in sq). The oil cooler should be similar in concept, of course without the filter. So a 2.5-3 inch diameter area will be enough, but you can't just go from a circle to a rectangle with out a diffuser of som e kind with out losing efficiency. Many use a very large oil cooler cutout in the baffle, matching the 26 inch sq area/dimension as the OC. This also makes the baffle weak. I am not sure what the actual effective area of the cooler is, but some cutouts are in the baffles I have seen are 1/2 to 2/3rds the total area of the engine cowl inlets. It works but is draggy and you risk hot spots and valve problems on you adjacent cylinder you are taking air from. You are trying to convert air velocity into pressure. OC efficiency is a function of airflow mass across the cooler, which is a function of the delta pressure across it. The air-inlet for the OC air in the back of the baffle should have a smooth large radius, like the inlets in the cowl. Also use a duct with a smooth ID to connect the oil cooler. Wire reinforced SCAT is a poor choice, and is more critical for a longer duct. The adapter/transition on the oil cooler, where the duct attaches is important. It should be like a funnel without abrupt angles. The square shallow "box" bolted directly to the Oil Cooler, like Vans sells, is a poor transition. This is very turbulent. If you supply extra air you can get enough cooling but at the expense of drag. Van's engine cowl inlets are larger than needed for a typical 150-180 hp RV, so you have extra air. Again it works but is not as efficient as it can be. Key is to have good cooling with the minimum air. Suggest making you own oil cooler transition out of fiberglass, like other builders. An advantage of NOT supporting the OC directly by the baffle is you have room to make the transition from baffle to oil cooler. The oil cooler bolted directly to the baffle is abrupt. Even if you do bolt directly to the rear of the baffle, consider using some transition air box, use the min inlet area not max (experiment), and radius the inlet. Keep Cool G. ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; b=Nn3EDui/i/XxpMR3ejHb+MULRu/UPpFe+r9+H2naVrTxMyEpMSKAiySvQl7qenUpteGNUi3Byx14INEdQLpT752eGytjggL2HzD7WBNeMupuiwiFfSrsUVXqMrwO4s8031gLmG5S3bbjLFBLMA0JV7RI+bSOVlP17mTOjb8pQagReceived: by 10.54.5.60 with SMTP id 60mr1737415wre;
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
My bad, I had never heard of that particular dash number so I assumed it was a slant valve. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > The -M1B is the parallel valve with forward facing injector. > > > > > > > Steve, you better check with Hartzell, I was told this fall > > by one of their engineers that the blended airfoil prop is > > not approved on the angle-valve engines for vibration/stress reasons. > > > > Regards, > > Bob Japundza > > RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at > > Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Pilot choices
Date: Dec 13, 2004
In response to which auto pilot ( Tru Trak vs. Trio ) is better -- you should give some consideration to longer term support. I am saying, consider this risk also and not just the function and price. That is not a show stopper considering the big picture as far as $$ is concerned. As I look at it, base the decision on what works well, is proven, is supported/guaranteed by a strong company, and can be upgraded if that is desirable at a later time. Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" > > I want to put at least a wing leveler, (Im recent Rv6a driver) as the plane > has a mind of its own and wanders off with the least bit of distraction. I > have ben told that Tru Track is popular, but the builder of this plane was > considering a Trio EZ Pilot. the brochure looks tempting. It of course is a > single servo, but seems to have above average performance shown in the > brochure. Anyone have one, or have experience with it? charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: HAL KEMPTHORNE <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Autopilot istallation instructions
Eustace Bowhay wrote: Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware............... for a RV 7 installation in the left hand wing. . What would be the advantage of a right hand installation? I blindly installed my servo in the left wing even further making the airplane heavy on the left when flown solo. It isn't much but mine is out at the wing tip. Maybe I should install an ADF on the right side :-) K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now. PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Pilot choices
Charles Heathco wrote: > > I want to put at least a wing leveler, (Im recent Rv6a driver) as the plane > has a mind of its own and wanders off with the least bit of distraction. I > have ben told that Tru Track is popular, but the builder of this plane was > considering a Trio EZ Pilot. the brochure looks tempting. It of course is a > single servo, but seems to have above average performance shown in the > brochure. Anyone have one, or have experience with it? charlie heathco Yes, 120 hours with the EZ-Pilot and the fine bunch of guys at Trio Avionics who enthusiastically support it: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/EZ_Pilot.htm Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: Auto Pilot choices
Hi Charlie, I've got a Trio, but I'm not flying yet. There are a few features that the Trio has that really sold me, like the 180 turnaround capability if you get into IMC. The support from the company is excellent. I had a couple of install questions, and they got right back to me. Also, they came out with newer hardware, and upgraded my unit for a very nominal fee. Sam has a lot of stuff on the EZ Pilot, and he has been flying with it: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/EZ_Pilot.htm Mickey >I want to put at least a wing leveler, (Im recent Rv6a driver) as the plane >has a mind of its own and wanders off with the least bit of distraction. I >have ben told that Tru Track is popular, but the builder of this plane was >considering a Trio EZ Pilot. the brochure looks tempting. It of course is a >single servo, but seems to have above average performance shown in the >brochure. Anyone have one, or have experience with it? charlie heathco -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 QB Wings/Fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sandifer Eric <Eric.Sandifer(at)siemens.com>
Subject: RV-3 Engine Mount for sale
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I have a brand-new conical RV-3 mount from Van's that has been epoxy primed. Please let me know if interested. Eric Sandifer This message and any included attachments are from Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. and are intended only for the addressee(s). The information contained herein may include trade secrets or privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, or have reason to believe you are not authorized to receive it, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender by e-mail with a copy to Central.SecurityOffice(at)shs.siemens.com Thank you ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I was told a couple of weeks ago it's in test but not approved yet for the angle valve engines. So is a new blended airfoil prop for that engine. check the archives. I was told they should have some definitive info by late January and their goal is to have something for Van's and others to market for SnF 05. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- > > Steve, you better check with Hartzell, I was told this fall by one of > their engineers that the blended airfoil prop is not approved on the > angle-valve engines for vibration/stress reasons. > > Regards, > Bob Japundza > RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > > wrote: > > > > I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power > with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the > inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the > engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour > phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could > use to show my DAR would be helpful. > > > > Thanks > > Steve > > MEM > > 7QB > > > > > > > > > > > > Iwas told a couple of weeks ago it's in test but not approved yet for the angle valve engines. So is a new blended airfoil prop for that engine. check the archives. I was told they should have some definitive info by late January and their goal is to have something for Van's and others to market for SnF 05. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: Bob J Steve, you better check with Hartzell, I was told this fall by one of their engineers that the blended airfoil prop is not approved on the angle-valve engines for vibration/stress reasons. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: I have installed a Superior XP I0-360-M1B6 built by Bart at Aero Sport Power with the new Hartzell blended airfoil prop. The DAR I plan to use for the inspection has indicated that I will have to do a 40 hour phase one because the engine is technically exprerimental. Has anyone been able to get a 25 hour phase one with this or a similar combination? If so, some documentation I could use to show my DAR would be helpful. Thanks Steve MEM 7QB htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <nyman(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Thanks to everyone that replied on and off list. I really don't mind having to fly a full 40 hours. I just wanted to get the airplane home. Call me a wuss, but my impatience to be finished and flying has made me get builder assistance to complete the construction in COS. Do you suppose the DAR would give me a test area from CO to TN? ;-) If anyone is contemplating builder assistance, I can highly recommend Loyd Remus and Bill Von Dane in Colorado Springs. Also, if you are thinking about having an instrument panel built, I have had a very good experience with Aerotronics in Billings, MT. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard on the instrument panel, but it sure is pretty. I was able to completely install and wire the plug and play panel in 5 days. I have become pretty good at soldering thanks to some tips from Bill and a master at crimping. Amazingly enough, when we hit the master switch everything worked and no smoke. Looking forward to first flight next month. Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Ask the DAR if the local FSDO will accept a short period of hours, say 10, at the local airport, then approve a ferry permit to allow you to take the airplane home. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nyman(at)bellsouth.net Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One Thanks to everyone that replied on and off list. I really don't mind having to fly a full 40 hours. I just wanted to get the airplane home. Call me a wuss, but my impatience to be finished and flying has made me get builder assistance to complete the construction in COS. Do you suppose the DAR would give me a test area from CO to TN? ;-) If anyone is contemplating builder assistance, I can highly recommend Loyd Remus and Bill Von Dane in Colorado Springs. Also, if you are thinking about having an instrument panel built, I have had a very good experience with Aerotronics in Billings, MT. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard on the instrument panel, but it sure is pretty. I was able to completely install and wire the plug and play panel in 5 days. I have become pretty good at soldering thanks to some tips from Bill and a master at crimping. Amazingly enough, when we hit the master switch everything worked and no smoke. Looking forward to first flight next month. Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=K3QtfhwJTwARUq9tTY4N78nlSTzopk4GgQRzdNDInzs3lZudXt2RIsimWoc9MFO2rUR/la3gncC8nT7RUqFlBOADyedK8OCi5qk3RrOvUQxe+wXEbfvXWlb2Qs3X1IwCsaz6IIk1JrSQAC0/gSoyvYosXUv9aAZOMJlhtGMTdhI;
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Richard Lundin <rlundin46(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: EMag
I guess I missed it. What was your Crossflow experience? Rick --- "Darwin N. Barrie" wrote: > > > Hi All, > > I will hopefully be buying an ECI IO360 if I recover > from the Crossflow experience. I am planning ahead > and am seriously considering the Emag setup as > opposed to conventional mags or electronic ignition. > www.emagair.com > > Is anyone out there using these yet? It almost > appears to be too good to be true. This is nearly a > wash cost wise with conventional mags with not BS > factor involved in installation. > > Darwin N. Barrie > Chandler AZ > > > > 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: "Ollie Washburn" <ollie-6a(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Auto Pilot choices
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Works great for me and follows the GPS where ever I want to go. Ollie---6A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> Subject: RV-List: Auto Pilot choices > > I want to put at least a wing leveler, (Im recent Rv6a driver) as the > plane > has a mind of its own and wanders off with the least bit of distraction. I > have ben told that Tru Track is popular, but the builder of this plane was > considering a Trio EZ Pilot. the brochure looks tempting. It of course is > a > single servo, but seems to have above average performance shown in the > brochure. Anyone have one, or have experience with it? charlie heathco > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: flopper latch
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
Guys, I need an elegant way to latch my flopper canopy to the roll bar so I can taxi with the flopper about 1/2 way open. Anyone have pictures of a working latch? Or can you describe a good technique other than holding it with my third hand... which I don't have. BTW, I don't mean a few inches open for ventilation. I've got that covered. I mean open such that I can stick my head out and look down either side of the plane. Ground visibility over the nose of this thing is not the best. Yeah, s-turns, I know all about them, save your breath. I want to have the OPTION of taxiing with the lid open so I don't run over a baby stroller at Oshkosh or taxi into a hole on some grass strip. Vince F-1H Rocket, N540VF http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kathleen (rv7)" <kathleen(at)rv7.us>
Subject: Autopilot istallation instructions
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I went for the right wing with the TruTrak, but I did have a hesitation, since my husband will fly from the right seat and was mildly concerned about "right-wing-heavy". Then I remembered it is MY airplane, so I set it up to work for me. That helped decide to stick with the right wing. Here is a pic or 2 of the installation in case you want to look at it. http://rv7.us/daily041009%20w.htm Kathleen Evans www.rv7.us ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com>
Subject: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Have you flyers out there had trouble with the U-810/808 wheel pant brackets cracking?? Attaway Air sells steel versions of these parts and I'm curious if there really is a problem with these cracking after awhile. If so, I think I'll just go ahead and order a set. Matthew Brandes, Van's RV-9A (Finish Kit) EAA Chapter 868/91/1329 www.n523rv.com <http://www.n523rv.com/> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rolf Unternaehrer" <rolf@microsource-inc.com>
Subject: Prop Extension
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Hello Members, My 2 1/4" Prop Extension from Vans does not fit. The Prop Flange "nubs" are nominally 3/4" and they measured about half a tenth under: average of the 4 (wich protrude thru the flywheel)came out to 0.7496. But the very nice looking, beautifully anodized Prop Extenuation has holes that are too small. They are difficult to measure accurately with only a set of calipers, but as best as I can tell, they are 2 1/2 thou too small. That seams like too much of an interference fit. What say you all? Rolf (trying to hang prop) PS The archives have nearly nothing on this subject; just a question of how to get a stuck extension off! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net>
Subject: Autopilot installation instructions
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Just talked to Jim at Tru Trak regarding the difference between the 7 &10 wing weldments and he advised they are going to make a drawing specifically for the 10, trying to get it out next week. Eustace Bowhay ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Aircraft Insurance: USAA
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I called and talked to Shannon today at USAA. I got $50K builders insurance which includes anything up to starting the engine. I'll haggle that or change it when the time comes but it does include the move as long as I move it and not professionals, strangely enough, and at the airport while hangaring it. I am paying $500. I think $60K was $541. Liability was like another $250. Didn't seem worth it so I didn't get it though it might be required when moved to the airport per airport rules.. There's a $200 deductable and it's through USAIG (NOT AIG). Then I threw out a hypothetical worst case number for full flight RV 8 tailwheel coverage thinking it can only get better from here: I forgot my notes at work but I think that asked if I had 200 hours overall, 40 hours tailwheel, and 5 hours dual in an RV with a CFI what would it would cost. About $2000 through AIG (not USAIG) with the 5% AOPA discount was the answer. That was for $1M each person liability, $70K to $80K Hull, and some other stuff I can't remember. But it's better than the $2700 or whatever figure I thought I read on this list. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- > > USAA is a broker just like NationAir, Falcon, and anyone else whom you'd > talk to about aviation insurance (except AVEMCO the direct writer). > > JT (former Army officer and USAA member) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lucky" > To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" > > Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA > > > > > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current & > ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > provide Aviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > you know what I find out. > > > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > what you know? > > Thanks, > > Lucky > > > > USA Toll-Free 1-800-343-1547 > > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > > > > Aviation Insurance > > > > > > The Sky's the Limit > > >From coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the > USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, > and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a > pilot. Contact Us. > > > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > when you shop for coverage: > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > flying the aircraft? > > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military > members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > provideAviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > you know what I find out. > > > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > what you know? > > Thanks, > > Lucky > > > > > > USA > > > > Toll-Free > > > > 1-800-343-1547 > > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > > > > > > > method=post> > > Aviation Insurance > > > > The Sky's the LimitFrom coverages for hull damage and liability to medical > payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, > personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We > understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. > > > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > when you shop for coverage: > > > > > > > > > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > flying the aircraft? > > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > > > > > > > > > I called and talked to Shannon today at USAA. I got $50K builders insurance which includes anything up to starting the engine. I'll haggle that or change it when the time comes but it does include the move as long as I move it and not professionals, strangely enough, and at the airport whilehangaring it. I am paying $500. I think $60K was $541. Liability was like another $250. Didn't seem worth it so I didn't get it though it might be required when moved to the airport per airport rules.. There's a $200 deductable and it's through USAIG (NOT AIG). Then I threw out ahypothetical worst case number for full flight RV 8 tailwheel coverage thinking it can only get better from here: I forgot my notes at work but I think that askedif I had 200 hours overall, 40 hours tailwheel, and 5 hours dual in an RV with a CFIwhat would it would cost. About $2000 through AIG (not USAIG) with the 5% AOPA discount was the answer. That was for $1M each person liability, $70K to $80K Hull, and some other stuff I can't remember. But it's better than the $2700 or whatever figure I thought I read on this list. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "JT Helms" USAA is a broker just like NationAir, Falcon, and anyone else whom you'd talk to about aviation insurance (except AVEMCO the direct writer). JT (former Army officer and USAA member) ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY(at)COMCAST.NET> To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do provide Aviation service. The ir minute blurb is copied below. They probably don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let you know what I find out. If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing what you know? Thanks, Lucky USA Toll-Free 1-800-343-1547 Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT Aviation Insurance The Sky's the Limit From coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask when you shop for coverage: Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots flying the aircraft? Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do provideAviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let you know what I find out. If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing what you know? Thanks, Lucky USA Toll-Free< /NOBR> 1-800-343-1547 Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT Aviation Insurance The Sky's the LimitFrom coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask when you shop for coverage: Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots flying the aircraft? Does t he policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? ch Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hull, Don" <Donald.C.Hull(at)nasa.gov>
Subject: Finding polished airplanes in SAR
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Reminds me of a Sky King episode where kidnapped Penny used a mirror in an upstairs window to get Sky's attention in the Songbird. You young whippersnappers can just delete this post. You have to be over 50 to remember Sky King! Don -----Original Message----- From: Jim Oke [mailto:wjoke(at)shaw.ca] Subject: Re: RV-List: Finding polished airplanes in SAR IMHO, the single best "crash kit" item - assuming we are talking about things that will help someone spot you from the air - would be a mirror. Shiny surfaces are highly visible from the air and, if they flash at you, are real attention getters. One of the aimable "rescue mirrors" so-called because you look through a partially silvered area and direct the reflection in a particular direction would be ideal. A blank or otherwise compact disc is a reasonable (and very cheap) substitute. OK, a mirror will not help at night or in overcast conditions but that's when an ELT comes in. Jim Oke RV-3, RV-6A Wpg., MB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: E-Mag
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Well, as I have stated before, I'm concerned that they (E-Mag, as well as the other two systems) are not providing a CHT input to the varible timing equation. This is far more important than is MAP since MAP is not really a critical factor in a non-supercharged engine and can be roughly estimated, and in fact is by their non-MAP system. On the other hand CHT (the most critical limiting factor in a tightly cowled aircooled engine), is most easily and effectively controlled by timing, and in fact the only certified FADEC units, TCM Aerosance and Unison LASAR, in fact do use CHT for just that purpose. I have suggested this to them and they have very politely blown me off. If they were to design such a mod I would buy the entire package in a second though. In my humble experience the reason we have certification standards is because they reflect a reliability factor that I choose to not ignore if at all possible. This is one case where the engineers who have gotten stuff certified, did so by determining the most critical reliability factors and then integrated those elements into the product design. To ignore that seems silly when it is just so easy to make a small product change to follow those who have obviously done a lot more work to bring their certified product to market. W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard McCraw" <rmccraw(at)wcvt.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Steve, if you elect to get a ferry permit, you may need to check with your insurance company. I remember reading "somewhere" (always the most dangerous source) that operations under ferry permits are not always covered. Source may have been Aviation Consumer. ... So, before clicking Send, my conscience got the better of me and I checked a little further. The following link (http://www.americanschoolofaviation.com/Aircraft_and_Pilots_Insurance.htm) contains someone's policy; the language excludes ferry flights without prior approval. Here's another supporting source: http://www.suttonjames.com/articles/myths.html. Click and search for "ferry." If I could only find my own policy, I'd check it, too. The perils of moving... Rick A-36, RV-7 emp -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One Ask the DAR if the local FSDO will accept a short period of hours, say 10, at the local airport, then approve a ferry permit to allow you to take the airplane home. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nyman(at)bellsouth.net Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One Thanks to everyone that replied on and off list. I really don't mind having to fly a full 40 hours. I just wanted to get the airplane home. Call me a wuss, but my impatience to be finished and flying has made me get builder assistance to complete the construction in COS. Do you suppose the DAR would give me a test area from CO to TN? ;-) If anyone is contemplating builder assistance, I can highly recommend Loyd Remus and Bill Von Dane in Colorado Springs. Also, if you are thinking about having an instrument panel built, I have had a very good experience with Aerotronics in Billings, MT. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard on the instrument panel, but it sure is pretty. I was able to completely install and wire the plug and play panel in 5 days. I have become pretty good at soldering thanks to some tips from Bill and a master at crimping. Amazingly enough, when we hit the master switch everything worked and no smoke. Looking forward to first flight next month. Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Prop Extension
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I think that you'll find that one of the studs that the prop was supposed to sit on-if the extension was not needed-is slightly larger than the others. There should be one hole in the extension that will fit it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf Unternaehrer" <rolf@microsource-inc.com> Subject: RV-List: Prop Extension > <rolf@microsource-inc.com> > > Hello Members, > > My 2 1/4" Prop Extension from Vans does not fit. The Prop Flange "nubs" > are > nominally 3/4" > and they measured about half a tenth under: average of the 4 (wich > protrude > thru the flywheel)came out to 0.7496. > But the very nice looking, beautifully anodized Prop Extenuation has holes > that are too small. > They are difficult to measure accurately with only a set of calipers, but > as > best as I can tell, > they are 2 1/2 thou too small. That seams like too much of an interference > fit. > > What say you all? > > Rolf (trying to hang prop) > > PS The archives have nearly nothing on this subject; just a question of > how > to get a stuck extension off! > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I seem to recall that Van's once had to do a slightly different from expected flight area. They were within hours of the 8 (???) having its time flown off and OSH was approaching fast. Seems (IIRC) that they got a NARROW, well-defined path from Oregon to Wisconsin. The time may have been finished by the time they got to OSH. Another friend was also looking into a similar approach on the East Coast. So there seems to be some precedence. On the other hand, yet another friend flew the 40 hours off for his experimental in about 1 week!!! He had great weather, loved flying it, is a "professional" flyer (military and commercial) and wanted to "get it done". So each day he managed to get in 5-6 hours of flying and if anything needed to be modified he and his partner did it in the evenings. So there are possibilities. James > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard McCraw > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 7:04 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > > Steve, if you elect to get a ferry permit, you may need to check with your > insurance company. I remember reading "somewhere" (always the most > dangerous source) that operations under ferry permits are not always > covered. Source may have been Aviation Consumer. > > ... > > So, before clicking Send, my conscience got the better of me and > I checked a > little further. The following link > (http://www.americanschoolofaviation.com/Aircraft_and_Pilots_Insur > ance.htm) > contains someone's policy; the language excludes ferry flights > without prior > approval. > > Here's another supporting source: > http://www.suttonjames.com/articles/myths.html. Click and search for > "ferry." > > If I could only find my own policy, I'd check it, too. The perils of > moving... > > Rick > A-36, RV-7 emp > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > > Ask the DAR if the local FSDO will accept a short period of hours, say > 10, at the local airport, then approve a ferry permit to allow you to > take the airplane home. > > Bruce > www.glasair.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > nyman(at)bellsouth.net > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One > > > Thanks to everyone that replied on and off list. I really don't mind > having to fly a full 40 hours. I just wanted to get the airplane home. > Call me a wuss, but my impatience to be finished and flying has made me > get builder assistance to complete the construction in COS. Do you > suppose the DAR would give me a test area from CO to TN? ;-) If anyone > is contemplating builder assistance, I can highly recommend Loyd Remus > and Bill Von Dane in Colorado Springs. Also, if you are thinking about > having an instrument panel built, I have had a very good experience > with Aerotronics in Billings, MT. I'll be the first to admit that I > went overboard on the instrument panel, but it sure is pretty. I was > able to completely install and wire the plug and play panel in 5 days. > I have become pretty good at soldering thanks to some tips from Bill and > a master at crimping. Amazingly enough, when we hit the master switch > everything worked and no smoke. > > Looking forward to first flight next month. > Steve > MEM > 7QB > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edward Cole" <edwardmcole(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Jeff Rose Ignition for sale-New
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Listers, I have a new, still in the box Jeff Rose Ignition system for Sale. Purchased from GBI a while back. $700 . Please respond offline to edwardmcole(at)comcast.net Ed Cole RV6A N2169D Flying RV6A N648RV Finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2004
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Prop Extension
I think that is only for one stud that goes into the ring gear. All of the studs beyond the ring gear should be the same dimensions Jerry Scott Jackson wrote: > >I think that you'll find that one of the studs that the prop was supposed to >sit on-if the extension was not needed-is slightly larger than the others. >There should be one hole in the extension that will fit it. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rolf Unternaehrer" <rolf@microsource-inc.com> >To: >Subject: RV-List: Prop Extension > > > > >><rolf@microsource-inc.com> >> >>Hello Members, >> >>My 2 1/4" Prop Extension from Vans does not fit. The Prop Flange "nubs" >>are >>nominally 3/4" >>and they measured about half a tenth under: average of the 4 (wich >>protrude >>thru the flywheel)came out to 0.7496. >>But the very nice looking, beautifully anodized Prop Extenuation has holes >>that are too small. >>They are difficult to measure accurately with only a set of calipers, but >>as >>best as I can tell, >>they are 2 1/2 thou too small. That seams like too much of an interference >>fit. >> >>What say you all? >> >>Rolf (trying to hang prop) >> >>PS The archives have nearly nothing on this subject; just a question of >>how >>to get a stuck extension off! >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Slow build switch to QB
From: "" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2004
All, I could not get ahold of Vans today (kept getting that damn voicemail), but I thought others might be able to help. Due to a job change and move from Austin to Kansas City, I have no clear picture on when I will again have a garage/workspace to resume building. Wings are completely done, and fuselage is scheduled to be delivered 12/27. I have now decided that I may "cheat" and go ahead and order the QB fuse (since I likely won't be building for 6 months anyway). I know I need to send the center section back...can anyone tell me exactly which parts need to go back and how best to send them? I know the two gold center pieces...what about the smaller anodized tabs or fuselage angle? Thanks, Scott www.scottsrv7a.com Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net>
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
Date: Dec 13, 2004
> Boy I hate to do fiberglass but believe I can come up with a funnel > type design using metal. How large should the air inlet be... 3" ? Where > is > the best baffle location to tap for the air supply and not suffer cool air > to the engine or undue drag? What worked for me was to build a tapered transition out of .032 aluminum. Then I cut up the Van's adaptor I had bought and riveted it onto the tapered part for the final transition to the 3" duct. I am using a Positech (later model) cooler mounted on the firewall with a 3" scat tube to the back baffle above the #3 cylinder. Be aware of the need to get at the oil dipstick (guess who had to move his scat tube). I also built a cockpit controlled butterfly valve to shut off the airflow in winter and it works just as I hoped. I fly in temperatures from -25F to +90F and can always keep my oil temp in the 170-200 degree F range. I have flown from a frozen Canada to a temperate New Mexico in a day so the cockpit adjustment really is useful. As for fiberglass, that would work well too. I built a nice hot air distribution manifold for my interior using the lost foam process. Curt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 13, 2004
I had a similar deal with both my RV6's. My planes are based at an airport that is nearly against the inner ring of the underneath the above Minneapolis Class "B" airspace. The Feds gave me a "Corridor" from my airport to my flyoff area which was located outside the Class B Airspace Area entirely (so I could do that high altitude fun stuff)! Anyway, just my experience. 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 James E. Clark Subject: RE: RV-List: 25 hour Phase One I seem to recall that Van's once had to do a slightly different from expected flight area. They were within hours of the 8 (???) having its time flown off and OSH was approaching fast. Seems (IIRC) that they got a NARROW, well-defined path from Oregon to Wisconsin. The time may have been finished by the time they got to OSH. Another friend was also looking into a similar approach on the East Coast. So there seems to be some precedence. On the other hand, yet another friend flew the 40 hours off for his experimental in about 1 week!!! He had great weather, loved flying it, is a "professional" flyer (military and commercial) and wanted to "get it done". So each day he managed to get in 5-6 hours of flying and if anything needed to be modified he and his partner did it in the evenings. So there are possibilities. James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "FRED LAFORGE" <fred.laforge(at)verizon.net>
Subject: #103 Rocket ride
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Thanks for the ride Tom, that was amazing. What an airplane. I`m gonna pound a lot of rivets now. Fred LaForge RV-4 0-360 CS EAA Tech Counselor ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Subject: Battery Box
Date: Dec 13, 2004
Has anyone designed a home brew battery box for the PC680 or similar sized batteries for the -9A or -7A that they would be willing to share? I thought I would look into it before I went with Van's kit. Thanks, Pete ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: Re: Tailwheel
Date: Dec 14, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> Subject: RV-List: Tailwheel -snip- >> But that all said, does anyone know of a valid criteria by which to > determine of a tail wheel is worn out? > > W > I don't have the answer to that, but I will say that after 1120 hrs. my angle of attack while sitting on the ground is increasing! The biggest problem is that with the original style tail gear, the threaded portion that hangs down sure gets caught on things a lot easier. I got hung up this weekend on one of those cables that are used for tie downs. It stopped me real quick(was only going a couple of mph). I guess I'm carrier qualified! So for me, it's probably time. I'll measure the tire diameter the next time I'm at the hangar if you are interested. Ivan Haecker -4 1120 hrs. S. Cen. TX > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Auto Pilot choices
Date: Dec 14, 2004
Charlie, We started out with the TruTrak wing leveler and then added the Alt hold. Been very happy with the units, from both performance and support prespectives, for over 150 hrs. Chuck & Dave Rowbotham RV-8A >From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV-List: Auto Pilot choices ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: Gary Zilik <zilik(at)excelgeo.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Box
Buy the PC680MJ and your halfway there. The MJ stands for Metal Jacket and this jacket is what Van's uses for the battery box. The PC680MJ battery is supplied with the metal jacket and is glued into the box with RTV and can be removed easily using a chip chaser to to cut battery loose. A couple of added pieces of angle and you have a battery box ready to mount on the firewall. Or take a look at this http://www.odysseybatteries.com/pc680hd.htm Gary Pete Howell wrote: > > Has anyone designed a home brew battery box for the PC680 or similar sized > batteries for the -9A or -7A that they would be willing to share? I thought > I would look into it before I went with Van's kit. > > Thanks, > > Pete > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JT Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Re: Aircraft Insurance: USAA
Date: Dec 14, 2004
USAIG has not been competitive on homebuilts in the past. With all the changes (Phoenix pulling back) leaving us with fewer competitors, apparently USAIG's formerly non-competitive prices are now competitive. I never would have thought that they'd compete on coverages like that for homebuilts. It's never been a forte of theirs. That's great. I've got a query in to my USAIG underwriter to get the low-down on what types of things they will/won't do. (i.e. some companies want to only write builders risk coverage if the person building it has the experience they're looking for to cover it when flying.) As for the ballpark you got for AIG coverage, that is pretty easy for them to say now. I gave realistic figures for what I've seen for coverage for the type of pilot I was queried about from my experience with over 1200 RVs insured. I did not include an AOPA discount in any of my previous indications as not all are members. That would be a nice surprise for those who are. AIG does a 5% discount for AOPA members on any type of plane. JT ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA > > I called and talked to Shannon today at USAA. > > I got $50K builders insurance which includes anything up to starting the engine. I'll haggle that or change it when the time comes but it does include the move as long as I move it and not professionals, strangely enough, and at the airport while hangaring it. I am paying $500. I think $60K was $541. Liability was like another $250. Didn't seem worth it so I didn't get it though it might be required when moved to the airport per airport rules.. > > There's a $200 deductable and it's through USAIG (NOT AIG). > > Then I threw out a hypothetical worst case number for full flight RV 8 tailwheel coverage thinking it can only get better from here: I forgot my notes at work but I think that asked if I had 200 hours overall, 40 hours tailwheel, and 5 hours dual in an RV with a CFI what would it would cost. About $2000 through AIG (not USAIG) with the 5% AOPA discount was the answer. That was for $1M each person liability, $70K to $80K Hull, and some other stuff I can't remember. But it's better than the $2700 or whatever figure I thought I read on this list. > > Lucky > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > > > USAA is a broker just like NationAir, Falcon, and anyone else whom you'd > > talk to about aviation insurance (except AVEMCO the direct writer). > > > > JT (former Army officer and USAA member) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "lucky" > > To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" > > > > Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA > > > > > > > > > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current & > > ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > > provide Aviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably > > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > > you know what I find out. > > > > > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > > what you know? > > > Thanks, > > > Lucky > > > > > > USA Toll-Free 1-800-343-1547 > > > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > > > > > > > Aviation Insurance > > > > > > > > > The Sky's the Limit > > > >From coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the > > USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, > > and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a > > pilot. Contact Us. > > > > > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > > when you shop for coverage: > > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > > > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > > flying the aircraft? > > > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > > > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > > > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > > > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > > > > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military > > members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > > provideAviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably > > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > > you know what I find out. > > > > > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > > what you know? > > > Thanks, > > > Lucky > > > > > > > > > USA > > > > > > Toll-Free > > > > > > 1-800-343-1547 > > > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method=post> > > > > Aviation Insurance > > > > > > > The Sky's the LimitFrom coverages for hull damage and liability to medical > > payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, > > personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We > > understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. > > > > > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > > when you shop for coverage: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > > > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > > flying the aircraft? > > > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > > > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > > > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > > > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I called and talked to Shannon today at USAA. > > I got $50K builders insurance which includes anything up to starting the engine. I'll haggle that or change it when the time comes but it does include the move as long as I move it and not professionals, strangely enough, and at the airport whilehangaring it. I am paying $500. I think $60K was $541. Liability was like another $250. Didn't seem worth it so I didn't get it though it might be required when moved to the airport per airport rules.. > > There's a $200 deductable and it's through USAIG (NOT AIG). > > Then I threw out ahypothetical worst case number for full flight RV 8 tailwheel coverage thinking it can only get better from here: I forgot my notes at work but I think that askedif I had 200 hours overall, 40 hours tailwheel, and 5 hours dual in an RV with a CFIwhat would it would cost. About $2000 through AIG (not USAIG) with the 5% AOPA discount was the answer. That was for $1M each person liability, $70K to $80K Hull, and some other stuff I can't remember. But it's better than the $2700 or whatever figure I thought I read on this list. > > Lucky > -------------- Original message -------------- > > -- RV-List message posted by: "JT Helms" > > USAA is a broker just like NationAir, Falcon, and anyone else whom you'd > talk to about aviation insurance (except AVEMCO the direct writer). > > JT (former Army officer and USAA member) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY(at)COMCAST.NET> > To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" > > Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Insurance: USAA > > > -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current > ex-military members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > provide Aviation service. The > ir minute blurb is copied below. They probably > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > you know what I find out. > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > what you know? > Thanks, > Lucky > > USA Toll-Free 1-800-343-1547 > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > Aviation Insurance > > > The Sky's the Limit > From coverages for hull damage and liability to medical payments, the > > USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, personalized attention, > and a highly trained staff of professionals. We understand your needs as a > pilot. Contact Us. > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > when you shop for coverage: > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > flying the aircraft? > Does the policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or > tie-down space? > > Just an FYI for USAA insurance members (ie, qualified current ex-military > members). I was on their web site this morning and saw they do > provideAviation service. Their minute blurb is copied below. They probably > don't do the underwriting but it's at least worth looking into if you > haven't already. If their airplane insurance is anything like their car > insurance it probably can't be beat now that Phoenix is out. Since just > about every military officer is a usaa member, they surely have dealt with a > LOT of pilots and pilot questions/demands. I'll call Monday myself and let > you know what I find out. > > If anyone's already insured by them on the list, would you mind sharing > what you know? > Thanks, > Lucky > > > USA > > Toll-Free< > /NOBR> > > 1-800-343-1547 > Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. CT > > > > method=post > >
Aviation Insurance
> > The Sky's the LimitFrom coverages for hull damage and liability to medical > payments, the USAA General Agency can provide competitive quotes, > personalized attention, and a highly trained staff of professionals. We > understand your needs as a pilot. Contact Us. > > Before purchasing aviation insurance, it is important to look at some of > the contract coverages that are not always so obvious. Besides comparing > hull and liability coverage and premium, these are some questions to ask > when you shop for coverage: > > > > > Can other pilots fly my aircraft? If so, what are the requirements? > How much expense reimbursement will the policy allow for other pilots > flying the aircraft? > Does t > he policy provide coverage for the use of a non-owned aircraft? > Does this company provide legal representation if I'm sued? > What rating has A.M. Best assigned to this insurance company? > Is there premises liability coverage for the hangar or tie-down space? > > > ch Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
Yep; replaced the nosewheel brackets on my 6A twice already... these parts take a lot of punishment when you taxi through a pothole; the entire weight supported by the wheel can be transferred to the pant and brackets if the pothole or ditch is just the right size for the tire to drop into. Vibration loads on rough strips don't help the aluminum last a long time either. -BB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: Trio
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> Subject: RV-List: Auto Pilot choice C, suggest you check the archives, lots on both Trutrak and Trio. I don't agree that customer support will tell you much because the two top contenders both have great support. Both are also developing really neat features, although I think I like some of the display features of the trio better than the trutrak. The Trio will display all the data stream that it is reading from the GPS, so if you are in a different screen on your GPS, like changing your DRCT TO you can leave it there until you actually hit the current way point then push the last button to activate the new waypoint in the GPS. The Trio will display the data while the GPS is not. I don't know if the Trutrak does the turn anticipation like the Trio does, but if your GPS has this in the data stream its an awesome feature. It virtually eleminates the need for a procedure turn or vectors to the next heading. The darned thing just turns early and pegs the next track line within one tick everytime. The one advantage the Trutrak has is an integrated two axis AP, but it is my understanding that the Trio guys are hard at developing the altitude solutions as well. If I were to buy right now I would probably still go with the Trio because I like the features it offers and I don't need anything other than the alt hold for the other axis. That said, though, if you really want two axis with vertical management capabilities go with the full boat of the Trutrak. If you are not in a hurry though, I would wait a while and see what features the Trio guys come up with on their newest developments. W ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: Bill VonDane <bill(at)vondane.com>
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
RV-6 builder Robby Attaway sells stainless steel brackets... I don't have them, but have heard good things about them... http://www.attawayair.com/rv6_products.htm -Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: <SportAV8R(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Wheel pant brackets cracking? Yep; replaced the nosewheel brackets on my 6A twice already... these parts take a lot of punishment when you taxi through a pothole; the entire weight supported by the wheel can be transferred to the pant and brackets if the pothole or ditch is just the right size for the tire to drop into. Vibration loads on rough strips don't help the aluminum last a long time either. -BB ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: Bill VonDane <bill(at)vondane.com>
Subject: -8 rear weldment dimensions...
Any -8 builders near their airplanes at the moment? I was hoping top get some measurements of the weldment between the seats... Contact me off list please... -Bill bill(at)vondane.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2004
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
I haven't had the brackets crack yet, but the bolts holding the brackets to the axle (on the main gears) keep working loose. This happens within about 20 to 30 landings. I don't have the wood dampeners. Will they help this problem? Also, there was a post a few weeks ago about balancing the fairings. The Grumman fairings have lead weights in the front of them. It seems like these 2 things might help. I can see where letting the bolts get loose would lead to more problems. I fly out of a grass strip. Do others have this same problem? Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
I've had to tighten the main pant bracket bolts _really tight_ a few times to prevent the work-loose problem (live on a grass strip here, and it is definitely a vibration issue.) -BB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
Date: Dec 14, 2004
Just an FYI, but make sure you don't install the wheel pant brackets with Nyloc nuts. They will for sure come loose sooner or later just due to the heat from braking. However, if you never use the breaks obviously it won't be as big of a deal, but likewise flying of a bumpy short grass strip, mine were also loose until I switched to nice high temp nuts (no nyloc's). Been tight now for 200+hrs. Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of SportAV8R(at)aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Wheel pant brackets cracking? I've had to tighten the main pant bracket bolts _really tight_ a few times to prevent the work-loose problem (live on a grass strip here, and it is definitely a vibration issue.) -BB ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=1bO7XPL/icUqsjf8GBXGH1xec0wfrhyMortCmI314/39gHRHphlb/srX/XU0hmfRHZbkMU7FiBbP0R0w6FAt++zFaxFFXAVt5KcUWSCoVJKLd4u2oGFHK0vjb3dsVeq5tvWcme4O3yATZj8/B/j1RV+aaUgVIaSux2HGRq2+w3E;
Date: Dec 14, 2004
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
My reference to band-aid and baffle reinforcement was not a put down. I dont think an aerospace structural engineer could do better. I have seen many builders design great looking supports for their OC, and no doubt it works good - lasts a long time. My experience was not so good. Let me know in 200-400 hours what you think. Also I did not mean to imply pressure at the rear baffle is not available to do cooling work, just that airflow in the cowl at the rear baffle may not be directed ideally to go thru the OC just bolted up to the rear baffle (without some help). OCs mounted directly to the baffle work OK and get the job done, but there are advantages to other methods. If it works it works. I feel better pressure recovery and efficiency is available. Plus (possible) baffle cracking, oil cooler cracking and reduced cylinder head cooling are (3) good reasons to consider NOT bolting up directly to the baffle. Isolating the OC can be done with little or no extra weight. I have done both OC mounts and prefer to mount it off the engine mount and connect it with a short flexible duct. Design of the duct-work needs to be done properly to work well. When I moved my OC off the baffle. I went from a 9row to a 7row OC. Oil temps stayed the same (190F) and climb #4 CHT was better by (20F), about 380-390F. Consider not mounting the cooler directly to the baffle or firewall, but to the engine mount tubes. Use Adel clamps, or if you are a welder, add a few mounting tabs. (3) mounting points are plenty. You don't have to make it Hell-for-Stout like when mounting it on a shaking baffle. It also can be at any crazy angle you want, within reason, to fit between the tubes. Less baffle reinforcement offsets the duct-work weight. Maintenance was restricted to the L-Mag. However it's easy to move the OC, w/ 3 bolts and a clamp. Oil line route allows cooler to swung up and forward, out-of-way. How much Mag service is needed? Do you have a L-Mag? Baffles are crack prone anyway, even without the weight (oil cooler) hanging on it. The back rear baffle is not real stiff or is totally un-supported. Adding a diagonal brace to the engine case split line bolt & heaver gage sheet metal will help no doubt, but the Lyc shakes like a wet dog. Nuff said. Two people I know of had #4 valve problems (burnt, sticking), and their OC was mounted adjacent on the baffle. I think taking air away from the head area, at the most critical area, may not be ideal. I have no data, just empirical evidence. With a short duct connection, the OC inlet on the baffle can be located away from the cyl head, plus isolate it from vibration. Maintenance on many items is vibration related. On my RV-7 I am trying to improve on things repair on the RV-4, like baffles and Vans carb airbox, which needs a brace on the forward part to help support and stop vibration movement. ( The carb airbox tends to crack the plate where it bolts on the carb - vibration, flat plate in bending, cutouts, stress concentrationCRACKS.) [Note: interesting picture Dan sent on this thread. It shows a box (plenum) of ample volume to act like a reservoir. I think OCs mounted direct to baffle would have improved cooling with an offset volume or box. Only a Scientific Wild Ass Guess (SWAG).] From Dan: http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/firewall.jpg This one shows the "duct" built into the baffles. http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/baffle.jpg (thats a big hole) Anyway you mount it, it can work; Use a good quality oil cooler like SW and (CHT) gage (not Westach/Westberg). Have fun . Cheers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Oil Cooler Location
Date: Dec 14, 2004
> >From Dan: > > http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/firewall.jpg > > This one shows the "duct" built into the baffles. > > http://images.rvproject.com/m20j/images/engine/baffle.jpg (thats a big hole) I forgot to mention...on that Mooney 201 with the firewall-mounted oil cooler, I had consistently high oil temps in all ambient temps above 51F (below 51F was never a problem, but that was the magic number). I often had to open the cowl flaps in cruise during the summer. Usually just opened to the "in trail" position, but occasionally opened further. It was a pain (lost speed!). That oil loved to run hot. I'm not suggesting it had anything to do with firewall versus baffle mouting, just wanted to throw this data point out there. YMMV Something else I've been saying I'm gonna do one of these days but still haven't gotten around to is making heat shields for a few spots on the exhaust where it comes close to the sump, and also where it comes close to cylinder #1. I've been told and believe that the proximity of the exhaust to the sump in these spots contributes to higher oil temps, especially in the climb. I figure a little aluminum standoff shield between there can go a long way. We'll see. Need to stop flying for a day or two in order to work on the plane...fly...or work? Hm.... ;-) Hard to rationalize when there's not a "problem" to solve per se. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
Date: Dec 14, 2004
Dan, My bolts are safety wired per the plans. Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Wheel pant brackets cracking? > > > I haven't had the brackets crack yet, but the bolts holding the brackets > to > the axle (on the main gears) keep working loose. This happens within > about 20 > to 30 landings. I don't have the wood dampeners. Will they help this > problem? Also, there was a post a few weeks ago about balancing the > fairings. The > Grumman fairings have lead weights in the front of them. It seems like > these 2 > things might help. I can see where letting the bolts get loose would lead > to > more problems. I fly out of a grass strip. Do others have this same > problem? > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2004
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
In a message dated 12/14/04 7:31:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time, tcervin(at)valkyrie.net writes: > Dan, My bolts are safety wired per the plans. > Tom > in Ohio > Tom, The bolts that I am having trouble with are the 3 bolts that mount the inner main fairing bracket to the brake mounting flange. My plans didn't show any safety wire there. Have they changed? I thought about using castle nuts with cotter keys. Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
Date: Dec 15, 2004
I have a RV6-A so perhaps there has been a change in the plans. Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Wheel pant brackets cracking? > > In a message dated 12/14/04 7:31:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > tcervin(at)valkyrie.net writes: > >> Dan, My bolts are safety wired per the plans. >> Tom >> in Ohio >> > > Tom, > > The bolts that I am having trouble with are the 3 bolts that mount the > inner > main fairing bracket to the brake mounting flange. My plans didn't show > any > safety wire there. Have they changed? I thought about using castle nuts > with > cotter keys. > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
vansairforce(at)yahoogroups.com (RV yahoo)
Subject: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch
Date: Dec 15, 2004
To round out the email chain on the question of Can you split the GPS signal up and still have the signal reliable. More specifically, can I "hotwire" the GPS signal to two or more devices simultaneously the answer is YES based on the email I got back. I should be able to split the signal and send it to at least 3 different devices and I can switch Autopilot sources using the SPDT ON-ON type micro-switch wired the way I mention below. Lucky -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Jerry Hansen" <jerry-hansen(at)cox.net> Subject: FW: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:10:47 +0000 Hello, Lucky: (I occasionally lurk on the RV List and just saw these posts) Our experience with the GPS signals from most GPS receivers is that your proposed hookup will not appreciably degrade the signal, and it should work just fine. Best regards, Jerry Hansen Trio Avionics, Inc. Phone: 619-448-4619 http://www.trioavionics.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch Lucky, I asked this same ? to John Stark and he said you can split 3 times with out any concern for appreciable signal degradation on a serial split. I have had to split on several devices. Mike S8 Wiring. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky Subject: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two different sources but also wanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time. But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal is connected to then that pole acts as a always hot "T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time. That can be accomplished by putting both systems' wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawrence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliability? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in low RFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- > > > Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial > lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial > lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the > single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal > ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have > gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical > engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? > LOL...) > > Paul Dye > > > --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote: > > I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but > I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance > GPS and the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this > on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I > still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. > > > > What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going > to be wired up? > > > > Thanks, > > Lucky > > > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > GRT_EFIS-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two different sources but alsowanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time.But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal isconnectedto then that pole acts as a always hot"T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time.That can be accomplished by putting both systems'wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawrence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliability? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in lowRFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? LOL...) Paul Dye --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote: I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance GPS a nd the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going to be wired up? Thanks, Lucky http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GRT_EFIS-unsubs cribe(at)yahoogroups.com http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ To round out the email chain on the question of Can you split the GPS signal up and still have the signal reliable. More specifically, can I "hotwire" the GPS signal to two or more devices simultaneously the answer is YES based on the email I got back. I should be able to split the signal and send it to at least 3 different devices and I can switch Autopilot sources using the SPDT ON-ON type micro-switch wired the way I mention below. Lucky -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Jerry Hansen" jerry-hansen(at)cox.net Subject: FW: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:10:47 +0000 Hello, Lucky: (I occasionally lurk on the RV List and just saw these posts) Our experience with the GPS signals from most GPS receivers is that your proposed hookup will not appreciably degrade the signal, and it should work just fine. Best regards, Jerry Hansen Trio Avionics, Inc. Phone: 619-448-4619 http://www.trioavionics.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) om Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch -- RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" Lucky, I asked this same ? to John Stark and he said you can split 3 times with out any concern for appreciable signal degradation on a serial split. I have had to split on several devices. Mike S8 Wiring. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky Subject: RV-List: Re: [GRT_EFIS] Re: Autopilot GPS source switch -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two differ ent sources but also wanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time. But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal is connected to then that pole acts as a always hot "T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time. That can be accomplished by putting both systems' wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawrence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliab ility? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in low RFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? LOL...) Paul Dye --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy(at)c... wrote: I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance GPS and the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going to be wired up? Thanks, Lucky http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GRT_EFIS-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ That's only part of the solution, as Sam points out, and why I asked the question to the list in the first place because I couldn't see the switch solving the other part of the problem. I want the autopilot to be driven by two different sources but alsowanted the switch to serve as a "T" for the Lawrence GPS seriel output to drive the GRT all the time.But I had some coffee and realized that if I tie the GRT's GPS seriel in line to the same pole that the Lawrence GPS output signal isconnectedto then that pole acts as a always hot"T" to allow the GPS signal to always find it's way to the GRT all the time.That can be accomplished by putting both systems'wires into the same connector before crimping (or solder contact before soldering). Now it's a day later and when I look at this I don't even see the need for the DP as Paul points out. I think this would work with a SPDT switch like Paul does. The main ? now is that if I have the switch in the position where the Lawr ence is feeding both systems the GPS signal out of the same wire and power source, by splitting it's output what am I going to do to the signal quality and ultimately reliability? Probably none with these modern systems and short wire runs and minimal conductor exposure in lowRFI environments. But anyone know for sure? -------------- Original message -------------- Real easy Lucky - a simple DPDT mini toggle switch with the serial lines hooked up to teh "outside" contacts and the autopilot serial lines connected to the middle poles. (I actually only switched the single serial line and not the grounds, as I am using a common signal ground for all of the serial lines in the system, so I could have gotten by with a SPDT switch - but then again, I'm an aeronautical engineer by training, and not a EE...what do I know about electrons? LOL...) Paul Dye --- In GRT_EFIS(at)yahoogroups.com, luckymacy@ c... wrote: I don't have my GPS yet (not sure if that actually would help) but I want to buy a switch that will let me select between my Lowrance GPS a nd the GRT EFIS output to drive my Trio autopilot and I saw this on someone's website. If I have the Lowrance driving the autopilot I still want it to also feed the EFIS. Can't find it now. What switch type am I looking to purchase and what's actually going to be wired up? Thanks, Lucky http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: GRT_EFIS-unsubs cribe(at)yahoogroups.com http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ================================================================= ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org>
Subject: Inter-cylinder baffles
clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org Does anyone know how big the baffle opening should be underneath the cylinders? I'm using the inter-cylinder baffles that came with my O-360 (the donor airplane was a Mooney) and Van's baffle kit. The distance between the inter-cylinder baffle and the section of Van's baffle that curves around the cylinder is about 2" on #1,2 and 4 but on #3 (the hottest cylinder) the opening is over 3". I'm wondering if this might be contributing to #3 being too hot. Anyway, it would be interesting to find out what the normal opening is and the size of the inter-cylinder baffle itself since mine are the only ones I've seen. I found nothing in the archives on this subject. Dave -6 So Cal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Tail Wheel wear
Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote: > > Has anyone put a "big boy" (Maule or Scott) tailwheel on a RV? I'm not > flying yet but the one from Van's doesn't look very robust! > Looks can be deceiving! :-) The Vans tailwheel is a stout piece (the one on my RV-6 has endured torture........) that is sometimes used on other designs due to its strength and simplicity. Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Inter-cylinder baffles clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Talk to Sam James. He seems to be an expert on this subject and can out dimensions for this stuff off the top of his head. http://www.jamesaircraft.com )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Bristol" <bj034(at)lafn.org> Subject: RV-List: Inter-cylinder baffles clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org > > Does anyone know how big the baffle opening should be underneath the > cylinders? I'm using the inter-cylinder baffles that came with my O-360 > (the donor airplane was a Mooney) and Van's baffle kit. The distance > between the inter-cylinder baffle and the section of Van's baffle that > curves around the cylinder is about 2" on #1,2 and 4 but on #3 (the > hottest cylinder) the opening is over 3". I'm wondering if this might be > contributing to #3 being too hot. > Anyway, it would be interesting to find out what the normal opening is > and the size of the inter-cylinder baffle itself since mine are the only > ones I've seen. I found nothing in the archives on this subject. > > Dave -6 So Cal > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Blomgren" <jackanet(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Airseal- lower cowl to baffle inlet floor
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Builders, What is your successful method, each time when installing the finished lower cowl with its riveted-on Airseals, getting the extended Airseals up through the specified 3/8" gaps and onto the top side of the baffle inlet floors? Am I missing something? (See pages 4 & 5 for parts 2 and 10, Right @ Left Front Air Inlet Floor in Van's Cowl Baffle Kit - Installation Guide.) Thanks, Jack, RV-8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Subject: Re: Wheel pant brackets cracking?
In a message dated 12/14/04 11:02:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time, stein(at)steinair.com writes: > I'll try this hint again.....Use the High Temp Self Locking Nuts.... > > They don't come loose, don't melt, and you don't have to fiddl with cotter > keys, etc.. > > Cheers, > Stein Stein, Thanks. I did read and plan to take your advice. Sorry, I forgot to thank you. I did mention your name to Dan C. in an offlist email, so I am listening. The worst part is that I have to jack the plane up and remove the wheels to get to the heads of the bolts. And, as you know, its cold up here! Dan H. RV-7A N766DH ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Have you checked the bearings? I had an old one and found it had frozen after just a couple of flights. Vans has switched to a different style. Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 150 hours Chicago/Louisville ----- Original Message ----- From: "sportpilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com> Subject: RV-List: aileron travel > > I just finnished up the wings and was checking out > motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others > I was moving the alierons back and forth and it > seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the > skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go > past the point but its rubbing although > nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight > of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it > breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull > back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? > what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about > 15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past > the skin at the gap flairing.. > > Danny.. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Autopilot istallation instructions
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Remember it may be a good idea to drill through the tap'd installation holes on the servo and replace with bolts/nuts. I didnt trust loc-tite. Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 150 hours Chicago/Louisville ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> Subject: RV-List: Autopilot istallation instructions > > Just received my servos from TruTrak and included is all the hardware and > installation instruction manual with some excellent pictures and as has > been mentioned, the drawings for a RV 7 installation in the left hand > wing. > > A couple of questions come to mind, the WD421 L is not the same as the one > shown in the 7 drawing. The difference being their is a difference in the > divergence of the two arms, looks like around 4-5 degrees and also the > arms look like they are about 1/4 inch longer. > > The other is all the info pertains to a left hand installation. I realize > that the right hand installation is probably a mirror image of the left, > did I miss something when I ordered them. What would be the advantage of a > right hand installation? > > Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "davercook" <davercook(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Listers Any thoughts on the difference between the Superior XP-360 and the Mattituck TMX-360. The TMX is $1000 less and closer to my home (less shipping cost).I know lots of people like AeroSport but they are a long way away from Florida. Also, Superior will be increasing price as of Jan. 1st. Or is ECI a better or cheaper way to go. I don't know who distributes the ECI engine.There web site only indicates parts available. Thanks Dave Cook Looking for Windmill for RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <nyman(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 25 hour Phase One
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Yeah, we did ask if a ferry permit was a possibility and were told no way. If I get some good weather in COS in late January and early February, I should be able to get the 40 hours flown off pretty quickly. I'm used to spending a lot of time in the air, so 5 or 6 hours a day shouldn't be too dificult, if we don't run in to any big problems. Steve MEM 7QB ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: I would like more info on XP vs TMX engines
--- In XP-360Forum(at)yahoogroups.com, "mahlon_r" wrote: The XP-360 engine uses Superior Millennium standard cast cylinders. The standard cast cylinder has a through hardened cylinder barrel. The XP 360 engine is also available with Superior Millennium Investment cast cylinder's for an additional $1200.00. The TMX engine uses the ECI Nickel Carbide cylinder as the standardly supplied unit. The TMX engine is also available with Millennium standard cast cylinders at no additional charge. The TMX engine can be supplied with Superior Millennium Investment cast or Textron Lycoming cylinders at an additional charge. The track record of all of the above cylinders is very good. They all have different key benefits. The Nickel Carbide bores, on the ECI cylinder, have the best wear rates and can't rust. Superior's through hardened barrel comes in a close second on wear and is better that Lycoming Nitrided barrel as far as rust goes. The Superior Millennium Investment cast cylinder offers the best protection from cylinder head cracking, especially and most notably in the very high hours of use, normally in the second TBO run of 2500 hours plus. The ECI Nickel Carbide cylinders , the Superior Standard cast cylinder and the Lycoming cylinder all use sand cast cylinder heads. These heads are not as resilient to head cracking as the investment cast heads but normally will go at least one TBO run of 2000 hours or more without major cracking. Good Luck, Mahlon --- In XP-360Forum(at)yahoogroups.com, " " wrote: > > What cylinders are generally used on the 2 engines? Does either use > the ECI Nickel+Carbide cylinders, and what has been the service > record of those cylinders? > > Thanks. --- End forwarded message --- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Danny, Check the rivets on the outboard end of the rear spar. It seems to me that one of them caused some slight rubbing on mine. Notice that a flush rivet is called for on the bottom one. Dan Hopper RV-7A Fininshed and flying in N-Central Indiana. > I just finnished up the wings and was checking out > >motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others > >I was moving the alierons back and forth and it > >seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the > >skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go > >past the point but its rubbing although > >nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight > >of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it > >breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull > >back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? > >what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about > >15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past > >the skin at the gap flairing.. > > > > Danny ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: Re: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Dave, Like you I explored most of the alternatives. I ended up buying a TXM-360. As long as they are built properly all of these O-360 lookalikes should be nearly identical. I like the Mattituk's price and I trust Mahlon . . . and there is a huge company behind him. I don't have mine yet . . . still about a month off. Regards, Bob Christensen RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa ----- Original Message ----- From: "davercook" <davercook(at)prodigy.net> Subject: RV-List: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360 > > Listers > Any thoughts on the difference between the Superior XP-360 and the Mattituck TMX-360. The TMX is $1000 less and closer to my home (less shipping cost).I know lots of people like AeroSport but they are a long way away from Florida. Also, Superior will be increasing price as of Jan. 1st. Or is ECI a better or cheaper way to go. I don't know who distributes the ECI engine.There web site only indicates parts available. > Thanks > Dave Cook > Looking for Windmill for RV-6 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
This has been brought up before. When moving the aileron by hand there is what feels like some sort of drag/binding in the last inch of movement.....I think only in the up position. It is at the extreme part of travel and may not be there if you have minimal aileron travel set up. I have max aileron travel set up and can feel this on both ailerons equally. When moving the aileron with the stick everything is smooth. I have been told this is normal. > >Danny, > >Check the rivets on the outboard end of the rear spar. It seems to me that >one of them caused some slight rubbing on mine. Notice that a flush rivet is >called for on the bottom one. > >Dan Hopper >RV-7A >Fininshed and flying in N-Central Indiana. > > > I just finnished up the wings and was checking out > > >motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others > > >I was moving the alierons back and forth and it > > >seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the > > >skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go > > >past the point but its rubbing although > > >nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight > > >of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it > > >breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull > > >back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? > > >what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about > > >15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past > > >the skin at the gap flairing.. > > > > > > Danny > > Scott Bilinski Eng dept 305 Phone (858) 657-2536 Pager (858) 502-5190 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Radomir Zaric" <vitez(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Dave, Here's Mahlon's response to basically the same question I asked the other day: Quote: There are differences between the Lycoming engine, the TMX engine and the XP engine. The three engines are all parallel valve O-360/ IO-360 180 HP engines. On the outside, they all have the same footprint and other than paint scheme, you would be hard pressed to see the difference between them. Internally there are some differences in features between each of them and an O/IO-360 engine, from Lycoming or that Vans sells. I will compare them to a Lycoming, using it as the constant, and showing what is different between the two engines and a Lycoming to show the differences between the three. In some cases, the features may be offered in both the TMX and XP but not in the Lycoming. If the feature isn't listed, then you can assume the three are basically the same with regard to each other. The TMX engine differs from a standard Lycoming Engine by including the following features internally: Dynamically balanced VAR crankshaft for engine smoothness and durability. Static bay balance to within 2 grams for engine smoothness and durability. O ringed thru both passages in the crankcase to prevent the common thru bolt oil leaks that occur later in the engines life. Camshaft bearing bore, oil pressure relief notches machined in the crankcase to prevent the common Lycoming backbone oil leak, later in the engine's life. Nickel Carbide Cylinder bores for rust protection, durability and outstanding oil consumption rates. Pressure spray camshaft lobe and tappet face lubrication provided from dedicated oil nozzles, to help prevent camshaft lobe spalling issues common to Lycoming style engines. Solid crankshaft nose bore design on fixed pitch models for added strength and removal of some RPM restrictions associated with hollow crankshaft engine models and some fixed pitch propellers. Universal, installer calibrated dipstick, for exact custom oil quantity indications regardless of aircraft or application. Easy access oil filter adapter for cleaner and easier oil filter changes. Positive crankshaft front thrust lubrication to help prevent crankshaft front thrust/crankcase pick up and galling. 1 year parts and labor warranty on the complete engine and accessory. 2 Years on the cylinders. The XP-360 differs from a standard Lycoming engine by including the following features: Balanced oil pressure passages in the crankcase to remove minor oil pressure variations found between various points within the engine. Pressure crankshaft front thrust lubrication to help prevent crankshaft front thrust/crankcase pick up and galling. Increased strength crankcase web to help prevent web cracks in the crankcase. Dynamically balanced VAR crankshaft for engine smoothness and durability. Static bay balance to increase engine smoothness and durability. Superior designed camshaft lobe profile to reduce valve train loads to help with cam lobe spalling and improve economy. Tri metal main and rod bearings for better bearing wear. 1year parts and labor warranty. That is the difference between the three of them. I know it is likely difficult for you to understand all of the changes between them, please feel free to contact me if you need a more comprehensive explanation of all of the differences. The XP360 engine is an excellent engine and we would be happy to assemble, test and supply one to you! I would be confident to fly behind one. The warranty on an XP engine is controlled and administered by Superior Air Parts not Mattituck. The TMX engine is also an excellent product, it is more customizable that the XP engine. Obviously, I would fly behind one of them too. I can quote pricing using 100 percent Superior parts, partial superior parts or our normally supplied parts. We can incorporate and supply an engine that has all of the features of both the XP and the TMX if you want to go that way. In most cases, it does affect the price of the engine when we vary from our standardly supplied engine but not always. Examples are that if you wanted Millennium cylinders on the TMX engine, the price of the engine stays the same. However, if you wanted a TMX engine with all Superior Parts but that incorporated all or most of the TMX engine features as well as the Superior features it currently adds approximately $1300.00 to the standard TMX pricing. The TMX engine warranty is administered and controlled by Mattituck. If you compare the stock XP360 and the stock TMX engine you need to decide which features are the most important to you and or which features accomplish the same results in a better fashion and what that all costs you. Then you will have the solution to the problem of which one to buy. The pricing of the TMX basic engines is as follows, there are many options and configurations also available anb they can be quoted on a individual basis: TMX O-360 for fixed Pitch is currently priced at $17,990.00 TMX O-360 for constant speed is currently priced at $18,490.00 TMX IO-360 for Fixed Pitch is currently priced at $19,590.00 TMX IO-360 for constant speed is currently priced at $20,190.00 TMX IO-360 for fixed pitch speed with forward facing sump $21,790.00 TMX IO-360 for fixed pitch speed with forward facing sump $22,390.00 We would love to supply your engine regardless of which way you want to go! TMX or XP we can service your needs either way. Good Luck, Mahlon ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Couvillon" <wcouv(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 15, 2004
I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool oil in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be lubing squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that could degrade with oil. Is this wrong? Is there anything I can do to occasionally clean and lube this thing....oh by the way, it is a rebuilt 214 squeezer from the Yardstore. Thanks, Will #91056 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Gary Zilik <zilik(at)excelgeo.com>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Scott, If your referring to the 6 model then what your feeling is the bellcrank/aileron pushrod going just over-center when the aileron is in full down position. Next time you have your inspection plate off take a look at the geometry and you'll see what I mean. When you push the aileron up by hand your working against this slight over-center condition. You won't feel this in the stick because the geometry of the stick's pushrod is almost 90 degrees to the bellcrank when this occurs. Check it out next annual. Gary Scott Bilinski wrote: > > This has been brought up before. When moving the aileron by hand there is > what feels like some sort of drag/binding in the last inch of > movement.....I think only in the up position. It is at the extreme part of > travel and may not be there if you have minimal aileron travel set up. I > have max aileron travel set up and can feel this on both ailerons equally. > When moving the aileron with the stick everything is smooth. I have been > told this is normal. > > > >> >>Danny, >> >>Check the rivets on the outboard end of the rear spar. It seems to me that >>one of them caused some slight rubbing on mine. Notice that a flush rivet is >>called for on the bottom one. >> >>Dan Hopper >>RV-7A >>Fininshed and flying in N-Central Indiana. >> >> >>>I just finnished up the wings and was checking out >>> >>>>motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others >>>>I was moving the alierons back and forth and it >>>>seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the >>>>skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go >>>>past the point but its rubbing although >>>>nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight >>>>of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it >>>>breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull >>>>back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? >>>>what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about >>>>15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past >>>>the skin at the gap flairing.. >>>> >>>> Danny >> >> > > > Scott Bilinski > Eng dept 305 > Phone (858) 657-2536 > Pager (858) 502-5190 > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 15, 2004
The only problem I've seen/heard of for "hard to squeeze" is if you have too little gap between dies (starts squeezing the rivet before the plunger and cam inside have moved enough to get good leverage to squeeze. Squeezer develops most "oomph" in last bit of travel. As far as lub, I occasionally put white grease on cam and bottom of plunger that rides on it; and put 2 drops of Marvel Mystery Oil (or oil of your choice) in air line fitting just like the air drill every once in a while. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Couvillon" <wcouv(at)hotmail.com> Subject: RV-List: Lubricating my pneum squeezer? > > I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool oil in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be lubing squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that could degrade with oil. Is this wrong? Is there anything I can do to occasionally clean and lube this thing....oh by the way, it is a rebuilt 214 squeezer from the Yardstore. > > Thanks, > > Will #91056 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Gary Zilik <zilik(at)excelgeo.com>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
I heard through the grapevine that you should not oil the squeezer in the air line as the oil will break down the leather seal. Lubriplate on the cam and and plunger is good practice. The only time I have had problems squeezing rivets were operator error. Too much beer, dies adjusted to short/long, not enough air pressure (forgot to turn compressor on) etc... Gary David Carter wrote: > > The only problem I've seen/heard of for "hard to squeeze" is if you have too > little gap between dies (starts squeezing the rivet before the plunger and > cam inside have moved enough to get good leverage to squeeze. Squeezer > develops most "oomph" in last bit of travel. > > As far as lub, I occasionally put white grease on cam and bottom of plunger > that rides on it; and put 2 drops of Marvel Mystery Oil (or oil of your > choice) in air line fitting just like the air drill every once in a while. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Couvillon" <wcouv(at)hotmail.com> > To: > Subject: RV-List: Lubricating my pneum squeezer? > > > >> >>I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is > > starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure > whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool > oil in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be > lubing squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that > could degrade with oil. Is this wrong? Is there anything I can do to > occasionally clean and lube this thing....oh by the way, it is a rebuilt 214 > squeezer from the Yardstore. > >>Thanks, >> >>Will #91056 >> >> > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 16, 2004
It's more likely because the squeezer doesn't achieve full strength until the last 1/16" of its travel. With some longer rivets the squeezer doesn't get to the last 1/16" travel because it can't produce enough power in the earlier part of it's travel. In such cases I make it a 2 part process and at first only partially squeeze all the rivets and then adjust the squeezer to set the rivet properly and finish the job on the second pass. My instructions that came with my Avery squeezer also said not to put oil in the air line. Greg > > I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool oil in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be lubing squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that could degrade with oil. Is this wrong? Is there anything I can do to occasionally clean and lube this thing....oh by the way, it is a rebuilt 214 squeezer from the Yardstore. > > Thanks, > > Will #91056 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
I have the 8 model. That feeling has been there for the past 236 hrs and has not changed. None of the aileron linkage is touching anything through its entire motion on either side. I have also checked other 8's and they feel the same way. > >Scott, > >If your referring to the 6 model then what your feeling is the >bellcrank/aileron pushrod going just over-center when the aileron is in >full down position. Next time you have your inspection plate off take a >look at the geometry and you'll see what I mean. When you push the >aileron up by hand your working against this slight over-center >condition. You won't feel this in the stick because the geometry of the >stick's pushrod is almost 90 degrees to the bellcrank when this occurs. >Check it out next annual. > >Gary > >Scott Bilinski wrote: > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com> > > > > This has been brought up before. When moving the aileron by hand there is > > what feels like some sort of drag/binding in the last inch of > > movement.....I think only in the up position. It is at the extreme part of > > travel and may not be there if you have minimal aileron travel set up. I > > have max aileron travel set up and can feel this on both ailerons equally. > > When moving the aileron with the stick everything is smooth. I have been > > told this is normal. > > > > > > > >> > >>Danny, > >> > >>Check the rivets on the outboard end of the rear spar. It seems to me that > >>one of them caused some slight rubbing on mine. Notice that a flush > rivet is > >>called for on the bottom one. > >> > >>Dan Hopper > >>RV-7A > >>Fininshed and flying in N-Central Indiana. > >> > >> > >>>I just finnished up the wings and was checking out > >>> > >>>>motion ect.. and wanted to ask , any of you others > >>>>I was moving the alierons back and forth and it > >>>>seemslike its kinda binding ever so slightly on the > >>>>skin are those suppose to be rubbing?> it will go > >>>>past the point but its rubbing although > >>>>nothing is scratching the alieron skins it seems too tight > >>>>of tolarence whats the story on that.. once it > >>>>breaks over past on the down swing its very hard to pull > >>>>back up through the tight spot.. any idea? solutions ? > >>>>what is the degree of movement needed I got a message about > >>>>15 to 17 degree's the problem is when it goes fully up past > >>>>the skin at the gap flairing.. > >>>> > >>>> Danny > >> > >> > > > > > > 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
From: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter(at)jpainter.org>
Will: > I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is > starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure > whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool oil > in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be lubing > squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that could > degrade with oil. Is this wrong? Is there anything I can do to occasionally > clean and lube this thing....oh by the way, it is a rebuilt 214 squeezer from > the Yardstore. I don't know about your squeezer, but I can tell you that with mine there seems to be a particular point in the movement of the set holder where maximum force is applied -- the work output of the squeezer is not linear. In other words, if my squeezer is not budging the rivet at all, I'll adjust the set holder a little one way or the other, try again and the rivet will begin to set. You'll notice this especially if you use one of the long flat sets for reaching over or under flanges. I have set a couple of rivets with my squeezer where it was necessary to get the rivet to start squeezing, adjust the holder 'out' a little more, then squeeze the rivet the rest of the way. Oh yeah...I *always* use my squeezer at 90PSI. As for the lubrication question....I hope you heard wrong! ;-) Hope That Helps, Jamie -- Jamie D. Painter RV-7A wings (tanks done!!!) N622JP (reserved) http://rv.jpainter.org ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
I considered both. XP-360 is great. I went with the TMX however. I spent two days at Mattituck watching them put my engine together. I have to report they know what they are doing. Time well spent watching Dan at Mattituck who has been putting Lycoming's together for 25 years. He has all the tools and knows how to use them. And a nice guy. After seeing the double checking and rechecking they go through, I feel very comfortable with my decision. All parts are FAA PMA certified and NEW. And, I saved money that can be spent for fuel or whatever -- It is Christmas time! and I need to get something nice for my wife. Moving to airport this weekend. Hope to start it up in a few weeks. Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > Listers > > Any thoughts on the difference between the Superior XP-360 and the > Mattituck TMX-360. The TMX is $1000 less and closer to my home (less > shipping cost).I know lots of people like AeroSport but they are a long way > away from Florida. Also, Superior will be increasing price as of Jan. 1st. > Or is ECI a better or cheaper way to go. I don't know who distributes the > ECI engine.There web site only indicates parts available. > > Thanks > > Dave Cook > > Looking for Windmill for RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rolf Unternaehrer" <rolf@microsource-inc.com>
Subject: Re:Prop Extension
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Thanks to those of you who e-mailed, you know who you are! I did connact Vans, and got a a response from Gus. (I had asked him for specs as well) Quote: "The prop extensions are supposed to be a tight fit, you don't want any play there at all, so it is usual to draw it down over the lugs as the bolts are tightened. It won't just slip over them and it is hard to remove once it is on. We don't specify the size of the holes, that is determined by the manufacturer, so you would need to contact them to know if they are undersize. We don't have the manufacturing spec. Saber Manufacturing (TX) 817-326-6293 Vans" End Quote So... I installed the extension, in front of the "flywheel", using 3 hardware store bolts to pull it in place. The torque required was actually light... only about 50 - 60 in-lbs to get the extension to move. Found this interesting program on the web called TORKsense, which is capable of of calculating nearly everything there is, whith regard to bolts! I back calculated the FORCE which resulted from the 50-60 in-lbs of torque and got 500-600 lbs of force. Well, that is the high end of a "transition" fit, and the low end of an "Interferance" Fit. Perhapse an H6-k6 or H7-n6 for you Mech. Engr. types. Figured there might be some inquiring minds out there that just needed to know this! Rolf (RV6 starting to fit cowl...) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "davercook" <davercook(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Thanks for all the information received on the options for engines. I think I may go with the TMX -360 It seems to fit my needs and no price increase in the near term. The XP-360 will be going up Jan.1st. according to e-mail from Bill Peterson. Dave Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: "davercook" <davercook(at)prodigy.net> Subject: RV-List: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360 > > Listers > Any thoughts on the difference between the Superior XP-360 and the Mattituck TMX-360. The TMX is $1000 less and closer to my home (less shipping cost).I know lots of people like AeroSport but they are a long way away from Florida. Also, Superior will be increasing price as of Jan. 1st. Or is ECI a better or cheaper way to go. I don't know who distributes the ECI engine.There web site only indicates parts available. > Thanks > Dave Cook > Looking for Windmill for RV-6 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Radomir Zaric" <vitez(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 15, 2004
Hey Stormy, Good to see ya' on Sunday. Stanton's is always fun. Superior is increasing prices on their XP-360's to: The new XP-360, 1 year warranty pricing is as follows: IO-360-A1A2 21,700.00 Vertical sump IO-360-B1A2 22,400.00 " IO-360-A1AA2 22,700.00 Horizontal sump IO-360-B1AA2 23,400.00 " O-360-A1A2 20,500.00 Vertical sump O-360-B1A2 21,200.00 " Add 1000.00 for 3 year warranty XP-360 Plus Roller cam engine, 3 year warranty: IO-360-A5A2 24,850.00 Vertical sump IO-360-B5A2 25,550.00 " IO-360-A5AA2 25,850.00 Horizontal sump IO-360-B5AA2 26,550.00 " O-360-A5A2 23,650.00 Vertical sump O-360-B5A2 24,350.00 " Prices take effect for engines ordered after 12-31-2004. And as a "refresher" TMX prices are: TMX O-360 for fixed Pitch is currently priced at $17,990.00 TMX O-360 for constant speed is currently priced at $18,490.00 TMX IO-360 for Fixed Pitch is currently priced at $19,590.00 TMX IO-360 for constant speed is currently priced at $20,190.00 TMX IO-360 for fixed pitch speed with forward facing sump $21,790.00 TMX IO-360 for fixed pitch speed with forward facing sump $22,390.00 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Speed 3 Guy" <speed3guy(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 15, 2004
William, I bought my rebuilt squeezer from Clear Air. Here's what they said in the documentation: "The air cylinder on a pneumatic squeezer has a leather piston and is packed with special grease. Oiling the cylinder will wash away the grease and allow the leather piston to rub directly against the aluminum cylinder wall. This will cause excessive wear in a relatively short period of time." I had a hard time convincing myself to believe that, but I suppose it makes sense. Guy I am about 80% through the empennage and have noticed that my squeezer is starting to have a little trouble setting the larger -4 rivets. I am unsure whether this is due to the fact that I have not been putting any air tool oil in it. I remember reading on one of these posts that I should not be lubing squeezers with air tool oil because of some internal structure that could degrade with oil. Is this wrong? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "lui" <8418signco(at)ev1.net>
Subject: Mitchell Tach for Sale
Date: Dec 15, 2004
For sale: 2-1/4 MECHANICAL TACH WITH HOURMETER Non lighted, use standard tachometer shaft and housing. Manufactured by Mitchell Instrument. Now TSO'd. Driven from tach cable. New, never used or installed. $180 + shipp. Contact Luis @ 8418signco(at)ev1.net . First come. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Kunkel" <rvator(at)socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 15, 2004
It's a fact - the light oil will wash away the grease. The grease is specifically designed for the interaction of the leather piston and the aluminum body of the tool. The grease is also highly water resistant to account for condensation in the air lines. As someone else posted, use a good quality grease from time to time on the bottom of the cam, the bottom of the set holder, and the body of the set holder itself. Doesn't have to be a lot, just enough to lubricate the set holder's passage through the base of the yoke and to help overcome the friction between the set holder and the cam. By the way, if anyone's in the market for a pneumatic squeezer and/or yokes, we've got a number of different specials running on the web site. We hope all of you, and yours, have a safe and happy Holiday Season! Blue Skies! Fred W. Kunkel CLEAR AIR www.clearairtools.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Speed 3 Guy" <speed3guy(at)comcast.net> Subject: RE: RV-List: Lubricating my pneum squeezer? > > > William, > > I bought my rebuilt squeezer from Clear Air. Here's what they said in the > documentation: "The air cylinder on a pneumatic squeezer has a leather > piston and is packed with special grease. Oiling the cylinder will wash > away the grease and allow the leather piston to rub directly against the > aluminum cylinder wall. This will cause excessive wear in a relatively > short period of time." > > I had a hard time convincing myself to believe that, but I suppose it > makes > sense. > > Guy > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Couvillon" <wcouv(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 16, 2004
Thanks to all for the replys. As I thought, I was not supposed to be oiling it...that is good. But, I was only running it at 60 psi. I wish they sold manuals with these rebuilt ones. I guess others have had the same issues with the 1/8 rivets in that I was having to get the rivet started, then reset the set and squeeze again...sometimes a couple of times. I thought that this was a problem, but it looks like others were having to do the same. Thanks again, Will #91056 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 16, 2004
Will, one more thing - about operating pressure: I used to use about 80 psi but learned to run it up near "max" - 115psi. - Back in 1998 or so, when I was working on my empennage and dimpling with the squeezer, the dimples had a slight depression around each dimple, out to about the size of a dime or nickle. We had an exchange on this list and two of us ran some tests and confirmed that the dies don't fully "flatten" the area around the dimple when you run "lower" pressures. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Couvillon" <wcouv(at)hotmail.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer? > > Thanks to all for the replys. As I thought, I was not supposed to be oiling it...that is good. But, I was only running it at 60 psi. I wish they sold manuals with these rebuilt ones. I guess others have had the same issues with the 1/8 rivets in that I was having to get the rivet started, then reset the set and squeeze again...sometimes a couple of times. I thought that this was a problem, but it looks like others were having to do the same. Thanks again, > > Will #91056 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Subject: Wannabe turned Gonnabe
From: alan(at)reichertech.com
As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's when this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order for an RV-8 tail kit. Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! - Alan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
Subject: Re: Lubricating my pneum squeezer?
Date: Dec 17, 2004
If one has unknowingly been oiling a pneum squeezer, what should be done to rectify the situation? Should it be disassembled and the leather piston re-greased? If so, what kind of grease? I bought a used squeezer off eBay and my son has been using it on his RV7A, and I want to use it when he's done, so it's got to last a while! If anyone has a good set of operating and maintenance instructions for these devices, posting them to this list would be a godsend for those of us who bought used - with no such documentation. I'd be willing to scan/type them into electronic format and post them. Dennis Glaeser ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 17, 2004
I would like to hear from those flying IFR with Dynon, GMT or BMA EFIS. The good, the bad, and the ugly! I look like the way to go but how many have be tested in actual IFR conditions? What's you back-up? Thanks, Bob Christensen RV8 Builder - SE Iowa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 17, 2004
I have a dual Grand Rapids EFIS system. I've flown it IFR including a 15 minute trip (unplanned) through some wx that was reported to be level 2/3 TS. That wild ride was the kind that some people pay big money at amusement parks. The unit(s) were rock solid throughout as well as several hours to/from the wx. Nonetheless, I'm installing a Mid Continent AI with the internal backup battery. This gives me multiple levels of redundancy. Dual EFIS if one fails, TruTrak A/P if both EFIS fails, then AI backup (one hour) if all electrical is lost. It's hard to be enthused about hard IFR in any of the EFIS without 30-50 hours of VFR flying experience to know there are no 'anomalies' that'll show up at the worst time. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Maureen & Bob Christensen Subject: RV-List: IFR EFIS I would like to hear from those flying IFR with Dynon, GMT or BMA EFIS. The good, the bad, and the ugly! I look like the way to go but how many have be tested in actual IFR conditions? What's you back-up? Thanks, Bob Christensen RV8 Builder - SE Iowa ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 17, 2004
I now have 300 hours on a Dynon D-10. I fly lots of IFR. My unit has been back to the factory twice. I believe those problems may have been caused by the lack of a snubber diode on my starter relay and I have resolved that. I have done all the software upgrades including the 1.10, I have not updated to 1.12 yet. I have been cautious about recommending the D-10 to others as a primary IFR instrument, but I have used it myself. I have a limited amount of experience with ver. 1.10, but so far it seems to address all of the concerns I had about the previous versions. If it continues to work as it has, I think I be comfortable recommending it for IFR. The brightness, form factor, and all the other aspects of the D-10 are excellent, and if the new software has truly fixed the glitches, Then the Dynon is a Great solution. Even though I removed my horizon, I have stopped short of ripping the vacuum system out of my airplane, but with the 1.10, I am very close to doing that. My back up is a Nav-aid auto pilot/ Turn coordinator. I would not recommend much IFR in an RV without an autopilot. If the Dynon quit, I would turn on the autopilot and fly the airplane with the GPS or the turn knob. Tailwinds Doug Rozendaal RV-4 Flyer NC Iowa The price is really a bargain for all you get with the D-10 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net> Subject: RV-List: IFR EFIS > > > I would like to hear from those flying IFR with Dynon, GMT or BMA EFIS. > > The good, the bad, and the ugly! > > I look like the way to go but how many have be tested in actual IFR > conditions? > > What's you back-up? > > Thanks, > Bob Christensen > RV8 Builder - SE Iowa > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Engine builder feedback
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Much has already been written about Mahlon at Mattituck and Bart at Aerosport- stellar comments. What can be said about Eagle Engines and American Propeller in Redding? You may respond off list if you wish, but would like very candid feedback. Thank you, Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2004
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: prop bushing diameter, 200hp?
For someone who's flying an angle valve IO-360 with 1/2" diameter prop bolts: What outside diameter are your prop drive lugs (bushings) where they enter the prop hub? 5/8" like the 320's, or 3/4"? Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: Wannabe turned Gonnabe
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to devote to building. David ----- Original Message ----- From: <alan(at)reichertech.com> Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe > > > As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's when > this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. > > After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of > the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and > just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order > for an RV-8 tail kit. > > Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! > > - Alan > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Wannabe turned Gonnabe
Date: Dec 17, 2004
The 8's a tweener. Uses the same wing as the 7. Some parts of the empennage are identical. The fuse might not be as pre-punched but it's pre-punched enough to be relatively easy. It ain't no 6 or 4, that's for sure. I had the same thoughts way back when and glad I decided to go with the 8. -------------- Original message -------------- > > Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? > > The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for > RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 > takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to > devote to building. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe > > > > > > > > As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's when > > this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. > > > > After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of > > the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and > > just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order > > for an RV-8 tail kit. > > > > Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! > > > > - Alan > > > > > > > > > > The 8's a tweener. Uses the same wing as the 7. Some parts of the empennage are identical. The fuse might not be as pre-punched but it's pre-punched enough to be relatively easy. It ain't no 6 or 4, that's for sure. I had the same thoughts way back when and glad I decided togo with the 8. -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to devote to building. David ----- Original Message ----- From: <ALAN(at)REICHERTECH.COM> To: Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe -- RV-List message posted by: alan(at)reichertech.com As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's whe n this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order for an RV-8 tail kit. Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! - Alan _- = List Related Information ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Wannabe turned Gonnabe
Date: Dec 17, 2004
The 8's a tweener. Uses the same wing as the 7. Some parts of the empennage are identical. The fuse might not be as pre-punched but it's pre-punched enough to be relatively easy. It ain't no 6 or 4, that's for sure. I had the same thoughts way back when and glad I decided to go with the 8. -------------- Original message -------------- > > Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? > > The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for > RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 > takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to > devote to building. > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe > > > > > > > > As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's when > > this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. > > > > After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of > > the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and > > just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order > > for an RV-8 tail kit. > > > > Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! > > > > - Alan > > > > > > > > > > The 8's a tweener. Uses the same wing as the 7. Some parts of the empennage are identical. The fuse might not be as pre-punched but it's pre-punched enough to be relatively easy. It ain't no 6 or 4, that's for sure. I had the same thoughts way back when and glad I decided togo with the 8. -------------- Original message -------------- -- RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to devote to building. David ----- Original Message ----- From: <ALAN(at)REICHERTECH.COM> To: Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe -- RV-List message posted by: alan(at)reichertech.com As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's whe n this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order for an RV-8 tail kit. Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! - Alan _- = List Related Information ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Trying to install the ES Alternator 60A Kit from Van's on my Lycoming 0-320. It is an older case (conical mount) that does not have the 'boss mount' for the alternator bracket which was supplied with the kit. I am using the 'case mount' alternator bracket that came with engine. The pulley on the alternator and the flywheel are NOT lining up! The alternator pulley groove is approx. 3/16 to 1/4" AFT of the flywheel belt groove. Anybody got a suggestion how I can solve this problem. If a different alternator is required, I would prefer an internally regulated alt. with a minimum of 40 AMPS. Thanks in advance. Jack Lockamy Camarillo, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Aviator" <navcad58(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 17, 2004
I have not seen too many posts from you since your posts on the type 4 VW engine conversion. How are you feeling now that you have had some time to recover? There is a new Yahoo Group for a VW powered plane that may amuse you http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CX4/ How is the RV coming along? Regards, George ----- Original Message ----- From: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> Subject: RV-List: Alternator mounting problem > > Trying to install the ES Alternator 60A Kit from Van's on my Lycoming 0-320. It is an older case (conical mount) that does not have the 'boss mount' for the alternator bracket which was supplied with the kit. I am using the 'case mount' alternator bracket that came with engine. The pulley on the alternator and the flywheel are NOT lining up! The alternator pulley groove is approx. 3/16 to 1/4" AFT of the flywheel belt groove. > > Anybody got a suggestion how I can solve this problem. If a different alternator is required, I would prefer an internally regulated alt. with a minimum of 40 AMPS. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jack Lockamy > Camarillo, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2004
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wannabe turned Gonnabe
Why discourage someone even if it is a slow build? My old fashioned drill every hole RV-6 only took me twenty months from first hole to flying. Half of that time was waiting for parts as the RV-6 kit was not even completely finished when I started mine. I am now getting close to 16 years of flying my old drill every hole buck every rivet RV. Jerry(can't believe it has been that long) Springer David Carter wrote: > >Is the RV-8 pre-punched for faster assembly as much as the RV-7? > >The difference between build time for an RV-6 and an RV-7 is HUGE! (less for >RV-7). I thought the RV-8 was same "limited" pre-punch as RV-6. If the -8 >takes as long as the -6, I hope you are either young or have lots of time to >devote to building. > >David > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <alan(at)reichertech.com> >To: >Subject: RV-List: Wannabe turned Gonnabe > > > > >> >> >>As a teenager, I was at Oshkosh with my father in the early 1970's when >>this fellow, Richard VanGrunsven, introduced something called an RV-3. >> >>After watching the kitplane movement over the years, the development of >>the RV series, getting my pilot license in 2000 after numerous delays, and >>just moving into a new house with a big basement, I just put in an order >>for an RV-8 tail kit. >> >>Gads! What have I done? :-) Here goes a 3+ year adventure! >> >>- Alan >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 17, 2004
> Trying to install the ES Alternator 60A Kit from Van's on my > Lycoming 0-320. It is an older case (conical mount) that > does not have the 'boss mount' for the alternator bracket > which was supplied with the kit. I am using the 'case mount' > alternator bracket that came with engine. The pulley on the > alternator and the flywheel are NOT lining up! The > alternator pulley groove is approx. 3/16 to 1/4" AFT of the > flywheel belt groove. > > Anybody got a suggestion how I can solve this problem. If a > different alternator is required, I would prefer an > internally regulated alt. with a minimum of 40 AMPS. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jack Lockamy Jack and others, I'd be interested in knowing what you expect to power that requires a 60 amp alternator. I have a lot of stuff in my plane, and with everything running, I see about 40 amps (430, 327, 340, Century A/P, pitot heat, all the lights, Lasar, boost pump, etc.). I suppose when I transmit on the radio the draw might go over 40, but that is transient, and the battery can cover. Additionally, pitot heat and landing lights generally won't be on simultaneously, two relative power hogs. Alex Peterson RV6-A 561 hours Maple Grove, MN http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Santa Maria (CA) Fly-in Weekend (April 22-24 2005) - SMXgig
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Hello everyone! With Matt Dralle's blessing (thank you, Matt!), I'm pleased to post this announcement for a terrific aviation fly-in weekend. SMXgig (in Santa Maria, CA) has become the year's largest face-to-face get-together of electronically networked aviators. We hope you'll plan to attend because we expect this year's gig to be the best ever. People come from all over the country (and sometimes overseas) to attend, and most of the sessions qualify for FAA Wings cards. The dates are April 22-24, 2005 (Friday-Sunday). It's a lot of fun, and a great chance for pilots from all over to mingle and share aviation stories, ideas, etc. I have had quite a few inquiries about SMXgig, especially from several groups, so I anticipate that it's going to fill up this year. The sessions are still being developed, but I will post an update when we have the roster of speakers and their sessions. The announcement below contains most of the crucial information, and you can get the rest from the website (www.smxgig.org). If you have any questions at all, just let me know, and thanks! ~Cory Emberson KHWD cory(at)smxgig.org >>>NOTICE TO AIRMEN<<< The Seventeenth Annual SMXgig April 22-24, 2005 PRE-REGISTRATION SMXgig 2005 will be held from April 22-24, 2005, at the Santa Maria, CA, Radisson, right on the airport ramp. Because of the anticipated demand, we'll start registration soon, and are now taking pre-registration reservations with a small ($50 per person) deposit. The deposit may be paid by check, PayPal, and all major credit cards. Of course, if the unexpected occurs and you're not able to make SMXgig after all (sniff!), your deposit will be fully refundable within the refund window (usually about two weeks before the gig). Your pre-registration and deposit will guarantee your SMXgig reservation. As soon as I have the rest of the program finalized, we'll start the regular registration process. If you believe you can make it, please reserve your spot with this pre-registration form. First come, first served! The hotel is otherwise sold out during that weekend, so it will be nice to know you've got a place in line. You do *not* need to register with the hotel - just give me your preferences, and I will take care of the reservations. SUPERSONIC SURVIVOR Hanging in the straps of his parachute and feeling the cold night air on his face, Brian Udell felt as if a freight train had collided with his body. As he struggled to inflate his life preserver before plunging into the icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean, he realized it had shredded with the force of the supersonic windblast. With his teeth and one functioning arm, Brian feverishly retrieved a one-man life raft that hung from a fifteen-foot lanyard off his right hip only seconds before entering the water. After popping back to the surface like a bobber on a fishing line, the salt water made him painfully aware of the open wounds, cuts, and scrapes that were strewn over his broken body. The thought of blood pouring into the water inviting sharks for a late night meal motivated him to attempt to get into the partially inflated raft. As he kicked his legs, Brian's lower limbs felt as though only a thread attached them. Exhausted and unable to enter the raft, thoughts of death quickly consumed his mind. Knowing he would be unable to survive the night under the extreme conditions, Brian began to pray. The next several hours of survival and the many months of excruciating rehabilitation deliver an almost unbelievable story. Brian holds the record for surviving the highest speed ejection from a U.S. Fighter Aircraft at nearly 800 MPH. He survived four grueling hours 65 miles off the Atlantic Coast in 60-degree water, 5-foot seas, and 15 MPH winds at night. Brian's determination, perseverance, faith, and sheer will to survive is unparalleled. His story of survival, recovery, and return to the Strike Eagle is an inspiration to everyone. Brian is a very accomplished aviator. He began flying at age nine and took his first cross-country flight at age ten. Since that time he has accumulated over 4000 hours in a variety of both civil and military aircraft. He was one of only sixty candidates across the United States selected to attend the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program. Brian graduated number one in his class and was awarded the Air Training Command - Commanders Cup Trophy. Brian was one of the first Lieutenants selected to fly the F-15E Strike Eagle. He graduated from Strike Eagle training and received the top academic award. Brian went on to his operational unit where he became an Instructor, Mission Commander, and Air to Ground Top Gun winner. He has flown over 100 combat missions in Southwest Asia and logged nearly 2000 hours in the Strike Eagle. Brian received four Air Medals and three Aerial Achievement Medal for combat missions over the skies of Iraq. Brian's military career spanned ten years. He left the Air Force in 1999 and he is currently a pilot with Southwest Airlines. "Brian Udell kept us spellbound for 45 minutes. You could hear a pin drop, except when he made everyone laugh. The story of his four-hour ordeal was gripping and moving. He certainly won the audience." T. Karr, President Carolina Aero Club Just as in previous years, there will be one flat all-encompassing "gig" fee that covers all events that involve significant out-of-pocket costs for the organizers. The fee will be determined with the events is finalized (it should be about $170), and will cover: - Friday afternoon welcome party - Friday evening dinner banquet, featuring Capt. Brian Udell, Supersonic Survivor - Saturday and Sunday tech sessions - Saturday SMX-style BBQ lunch - Saturday evening events (to be announced) - Saturday evening movie extravaganza - Meeting rooms and coffee service at the Santa Maria Radisson - BFUB transportation to (and from) the Saturday evening event Lodging at the SMX Radisson will cost $89.00/night for either a single or double room, which is far below the regular hotel room rate. Be sure you check in as a SMXgig attendee and get the special rate. We have our definitive preference listed with the hotel for rampside rooms - early registration can only help, but of course, the rampside rooms are subject to availability depending on how many existing guests are in those rooms. >>>SMXgig 2005<<< April 22-24, 2005 ELECTRONIC PRE-REGISTRATION FORM When you send your pre-registration, receipt of your deposit will be noted, and your registration updated when the full registration process begins. The credit card information for your hotel reservation will be requested at that time. Please fill in as completely as possible and send to Cory Emberson via: 1. Email at registration(at)smxgig.org . 2. Fax at: 510.782.0415 3. Regular mail to: Cory Emberson - SMXgig 20511 Skywest Drive Hayward, CA 94541 If youre making your deposit by credit card, and dont feel comfortable emailing that information, please feel free to call me at 510.783.4410. If you get my voicemail, I will return your call. Otherwise, both regular mail or fax are safe. GENERAL INFORMATION Your name: _____________________________ Your email address: ____________________ Your daytime phone: (___) ___-____ Your evening phone: (___) ___-____ This form is: _ an original pre-registration _ an amended pre-registration _ a cancellation How confident are you of attending?: __ almost certain __ probably __ maybe Anticipated arrival date and time: ________ at about ____ Departure date and time: ________ at about ____ How are you getting to SMX?: __ Own plane, type __ N#_____ __ Hitching with_____________ __ Airline flight into_____ Number of attendees in your group: __ Names of others in your group:______________________________ HOTEL RESERVATION INFO Number of rooms: __ Number of persons: __ Special requests: __ King bed __ Queen/Queen bed __ Double/Double bed __ Smoking __ Non-smoking __ Other:____________________ Sharing room with:_____________________________ CREDIT CARD INFO: Card #__________________________ exp.______ PayPal address: bootless(at)earthlink.net ANTICIPATED EVENT ATTENDANCE Number of people in my party who I expect to attend the following events: Friday afternoon welcome party ___ Friday evening dinner banquet: __ Saturday morning technical sessions: __ Saturday lunch barbecue: __ Saturday evening event (TBD): __ Sunday morning technical sessions: __ We look forward to seeing you there! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste(at)danvilletelco.net>
Subject: TruTrak ADI
Date: Dec 17, 2004
I ran accross this tonight while looking for DigiTrak prices. http://www.rvtraining.com/html/new_products.html Pretty interesting! Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Subject: Re: prop bushing diameter, 200hp?
In a message dated 12/17/04 3:46:35 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes: > > For someone who's flying an angle valve IO-360 with 1/2" diameter prop > bolts: > > What outside diameter are your prop drive lugs (bushings) where they > enter the prop hub? 5/8" like the 320's, or 3/4"? > > Thanks, > > Charlie > > Charlie, They are 3/4". On my engine only 4 of the 6 bushings extend into the prop. This is the "K" flange. Dan Hopper RV-7A 200 HP IO-360-C1E6 (with -A1A sump) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 17, 2004
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
Alex, Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the 35 amp alternator is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp alternator making it able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get discharged and then fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from Vans. I prefer that alternator with its "safety factor." Flail away! Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying since July In a message dated 12/17/04 8:00:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time, alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net writes: > Jack and others, > > I'd be interested in knowing what you expect to power that requires a 60 amp > alternator. I have a lot of stuff in my plane, and with everything running, > I see about 40 amps (430, 327, 340, Century A/P, pitot heat, all the lights, > Lasar, boost pump, etc.). I suppose when I transmit on the radio the draw > might go over 40, but that is transient, and the battery can cover. > Additionally, pitot heat and landing lights generally won't be on > simultaneously, two relative power hogs. > > Alex Peterson > RV6-A 561 hours > Maple Grove, MN > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <sears(at)searnet.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 18, 2004
> Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the 35 amp alternator > is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp alternator making it > able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get discharged and then > fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from Vans. I prefer that > alternator with its "safety factor." > > Flail away! > It's OK for Dan to want that extra margin of safety; but, let me say that I don't consider my 35 amp alternator from Van's to be junk. It's worked pretty well, actually. Granted, I don't overload it by turning everything on at once very much; but, I have had everything on and have not had it fail, yet. I plan on using another 35 amp unit in my new -7A because it works for me. Others may need that margin of safety that Dan feels more comfortable with. In that case, use the 60 amp unit. If one is worried about the missing fan, just install a blast tube to keep things a bit cooler. BTW, my Cheetah had a 35 amp unit that was still running strong after a thousand hours of use. That was one reason I picked Van's 35 amp unit. My RV is set up pretty much like what I had in the Cheetah. My -7A will be, also. Well, I guess I may have some newer toys in the panel. :-) Jim Sears in KY RV-6A N198JS (Scooter, first flight on Dec. 19, 1999) RV-7A #70317 (Building wings, inventorying fuselage) EAA Tech. Counselor ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: aileron travel
Date: Dec 18, 2004
> Mine are set to just slightly more travel than the minimum in the plans and > the stick will "shake" very lightly when rolled over to max (L or R) as when > doing an aileron roll. I assume this is the down aileron "stalling", but I am > still not comfortable enough during the roll to look at it (even if I could see > anything). Anyone know if this is what is really happening? If so, I'm > wondering if making the travel greater would help much? I always thought it was just the up-deflected aileron's leading edge sticking out below the wing. What is normally an awesome design trait which helps counteract adverse yaw in normal flight (why you're able to yank and bank with your feet on the floor) is what causes that turbulence at full aileron deflection at high airspeeds. Just my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong! )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 18, 2004
I'm not ....."CONCERNED about having a perfect alternator....". I was hoping someone who also used an "old conical mount engine" with a Van's 60 AMP alternator kit could share with me how they got theirs to fit. A call to Van's Tech Support line revealed Van's sells a separate bracket (not included in the alternator kit) part no. VA-235-PC for $11.00 which bolts to the case parting line bolts on cases without a 'boss' and places the pulleys on the flywheel and alternator in alignment. Maybe I phrased my original question incorrectly. Guess I should have asked if a 60 AMP alternator would be suppling too much electricity for an old conical mount engine. Thanks to those who replied off-list to my post. I can see why others are hesitant to use this list for the purpose it was designed for.... assisting others rather than berate them. I'll slip back to the lurker mode and hope the List Archives have the answer(s) to any future questions. Jack Lockamy Camarillo, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 18, 2004
> Alex, > > Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the > 35 amp alternator > is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp > alternator making it > able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get > discharged and then > fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from > Vans. I prefer that > alternator with its "safety factor." > > Flail away! > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > Flying since July Has anyone on the list had a failure with a 40 amp Denso alternator, as supplied by Aerosport Power or Niagara Air Parts? I specifically am talking about an unmodified, internally regulated, stock unit. I have had no trouble yet, and it fits quite well (the adjusting bracket needed to be cut shorter). Alex Peterson RV6-A 561 hours Maple Grove, MN http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2004
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
sears(at)searnet.com wrote: > > >>Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the 35 amp > > alternator > >>is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp alternator making > > it > >>able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get discharged and > > then > >>fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from Vans. I prefer > > that > >>alternator with its "safety factor." >> >>Flail away! >> > > > It's OK for Dan to want that extra margin of safety; but, let me say that I > don't consider my 35 amp alternator from Van's to be junk. It's worked > pretty well, actually. Granted, I don't overload it by turning everything > on at once very much; but, I have had everything on and have not had it > fail, yet. I plan on using another 35 amp unit in my new -7A because it > works for me. Others may need that margin of safety that Dan feels more > comfortable with. In that case, use the 60 amp unit. If one is worried > about the missing fan, just install a blast tube to keep things a bit > cooler. Or......just buy the same 35 amp alternator *with* the fan (it'll fit just fine) from your local discount auto parts emporium for less than $50. The alternator is NipponDenso as used on 1976-1979 Honda Civic CVCC without air conditioning. A common number you can find in Duralast and other reman alternators is 14184. The Beck/Arnley number is 186-0100. Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with Advance Auto Parts alternator) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Edward Cole" <edwardmcole(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Niagra Airparts has a nice small 40 amp alternator kit which includes all brackets For $225. I installed one on my last annual and am very happy with it. Take a look at their website. Ed Cole RV6A N2169D -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sears(at)searnet.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternator mounting problem > Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the 35 amp alternator > is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp alternator making it > able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get discharged and then > fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from Vans. I prefer that > alternator with its "safety factor." > > Flail away! > It's OK for Dan to want that extra margin of safety; but, let me say that I don't consider my 35 amp alternator from Van's to be junk. It's worked pretty well, actually. Granted, I don't overload it by turning everything on at once very much; but, I have had everything on and have not had it fail, yet. I plan on using another 35 amp unit in my new -7A because it works for me. Others may need that margin of safety that Dan feels more comfortable with. In that case, use the 60 amp unit. If one is worried about the missing fan, just install a blast tube to keep things a bit cooler. BTW, my Cheetah had a 35 amp unit that was still running strong after a thousand hours of use. That was one reason I picked Van's 35 amp unit. My RV is set up pretty much like what I had in the Cheetah. My -7A will be, also. Well, I guess I may have some newer toys in the panel. :-) Jim Sears in KY RV-6A N198JS (Scooter, first flight on Dec. 19, 1999) RV-7A #70317 (Building wings, inventorying fuselage) EAA Tech. Counselor ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "sportpilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com>
Subject: Starting the Quickbuild Fuselage today~
Date: Dec 18, 2004
I know the manual has very little section on the fuselage and the plans cover the whole project, but does anyone know of a website or list of build order for a quickbuild fuse.. I kinda worked here and there on the qb wings and had to go back and undo things but I wanted to avoid this on the fuse section.. anyone have a order of attack on the qb fuselage stuff.. ? or could recommend a an order.. private email is ok.. sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com Danny.. ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=bPJyE5b4FUvNiF+TeSFRFT64LAmPe0JmE19E3T4R1xUuKkNLpl2IVciSPnOvrcNCFtv60/A1hGfIuAk4hkw9agwPx34E8BYSrvJkmxRVD3t6vZZVygZzXb2Gt4rxXinS/sAahbTTMZdNAueGm4fL5ozMxTo9nSKx/HEqRa+CItk;
Date: Dec 18, 2004
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Engine builder feedback
I called Eagle Engines in Redding Ca. Their web site is http://www.eagleengines.com/Xtreem.htm OR http://www.eagleengines.com/Facilitengine.htm and click on XTREEM 360 There are great pictures of Randy Griffin's engine being built up at Eagle's shop on his web pages below: http://www.rv-8.com/RandyGriffin.htm#Engine Randy gave them high marks. I talked to Eagle (sorry don't recall his name, I think Tim?). The Gentleman I talked to was very pleasant, he is an RV builder, knowledgeable, answered all my questions with excellent info and advice. He is sending me an extensive info pack and said someone would follow up in a few weeks to make sure I got it. Eagle's flexibility is great. They will build your engine anyway you like, including Hi-Comp pistons or what ever you want. (They are building an engine using the P-Mag/E-Mag for a customer right now.) The pictures on their web site, show a first class shop and operation; I really like that they have a test stand/cell. They go through the trouble of mounting a Hydraulic prop and governor for the 1.5 hour break-in on those engines using them (vs a fixed test club). They feel this improves break-in. Eagle also has a companion prop shop that looks like they also do excellent work including custom finishes. (Hartzell Grey just won't do when you can have a Red, White and Blue work of art on the fan ;-) I was going to buy an engine parts kit and build it myself with an A&P/AI friend. The deciding factor for NOT doing this and having it built-up by a shop is: warranty, the shops experience and facilities and initial break-in on a stand. The last item is very important to me. I like the idea of having time on the engine at high power settings and checked throughly before flying it behind a new airframe. However, there is money to be saved doing it yourself? The basic ECI kit is around $13,500-$14,000 without accessories. Add another $2500-$3000, so the savings my be only $2000 to $3500. I also talked to Mattituck and like the fact they are also flexible would build up an engine with a mix of ECI and Superior parts and also found them very knowledgeable. I think they are also an excellent choice. They have been around awhile. Buying direct form Superior is less flexible and more expensive, especially if you want to change anything from base line. They don't give much credit for Mag's for example if you go with dual lightspeed ignitions. I think any of the big shops, Aerosport, Mattituck, Eagle, America's Aircraft Engines are going to be good, it is a matter of where you live. I don't know anything about Penn Yann Aero and called Ly-con a while back for another engine I needing overhaul, and I had difficulty getting a hold of them. A.E.R.O. aviation only sells the ECI part kit and is not an engine shop. They may be a good choice if you want to do the build-up yourself. The prices between builders are similar, but the best way to go is spec your engine out the way you want, including color, ignition and so on and get a quote. Mattituck has enough info on the web site to price it out including options and credits. I don't think you can go wrong with an engine made up with new ECI or Superior parts. I believe Mattituck prefers the ECI Nickel Carbide cylinders due to high resistance to corrosion. This is a good quality to have with most low use private sport planes. --------------------------------- Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starting the Quickbuild Fuselage today~
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Danny, I went through the same quandary when my QB came. I went into the slow build section and checked off all the items that had already been accomplished by the QB guys. I do remember marking my manual as "my starting point" but it's at the hanger. I won't be there until Monday. If you have not received some sort of guidance by then I let you know where my start point was when I get back Monday. Steve Struyk St. Charles, MO RV-8, N842S (res.) Engine baffles ----- Original Message ----- From: "sportpilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com> Subject: RV-List: Starting the Quickbuild Fuselage today~ > > > I know the manual has very little section on the > fuselage and the plans cover the whole project, but does anyone > know of a website or list of build order for a > quickbuild fuse.. I kinda worked here and there on the > qb wings and had to go back and undo things but I > wanted to avoid this on the fuse section.. anyone have > a order of attack on the qb fuselage stuff.. ? or > could recommend a an order.. private email is ok.. sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com > > Danny.. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2004
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)consolidated.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
> > > Or......just buy the same 35 amp alternator *with* the fan (it'll fit > just fine) from your local discount auto parts emporium for less than > $50. The alternator is NipponDenso as used on 1976-1979 Honda Civic CVCC > without air conditioning. A common number you can find in Duralast and > other reman alternators is 14184. The Beck/Arnley number is 186-0100. > > Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with Advance Auto Parts alternator) I went to Autozone and bought a Duralast 14184 for about $60 with the fan like Sam mentioned.. It fits perfectly and aligns up with the flywheel pulley perfectly. It has a lifetime warranty. Bad thing is, a lot of Autozones electrical stuff doesn't has long life spans, but they will exchange them indefinitly if you want to keep changing them.. I originally bought Van's alternator kit with the 35 amp alternator. It was Dead on arrival but I didnt find it out for three years since I had ordered it and "shelfed" it. One of the diodes was broken inside. Poor Quality control back at the rebuild shop. It also did not line up real well. Funny thing, both of these were 14184 alternators, but there was a difference. Van's was twice as much money and it was very poorly rebuilt. The Duralast looks very nicely rebuilt for much less money. I am going to buy a spare and "shelf" it again........ just my oppinion Phil, in Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JTAnon(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Subject: Windshield to Canopy joint
I'm in the final stages of fitting the windscreen and canopy on a RV7A slider and I'm confused.=A0 Is this statement in the manual correct? Page 9-12, paragraph 3 (Fitting THe Windscreen) in the manual regarding the meeting point of the windscreen and canopy on a slider states, " ...the height of the canopy frame is adjusted ... so the windscreen portion of the canopy is even with, or slightly lower than the sliding portion of the canopy." While I would like the juncture to be perfect and even, it's not.=A0 But I don't understand why the windscreen would be=A0 lower .=A0 How does one make the fairing work if the canopy is higher?=A0 Is the manual wrong or am I missing something obvious. John McDonnell (wants to fly by spring) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: Alternator mounting problem
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Niagara is also another option. They have a nice 40 amp alternator. More expensive though. I went his route because it included the mounting brackets & hardware. Autozone didn't have a mount for a Lycoming. :) http://www.niagaraairparts.com/ - Larry Bowen, 47.7 Hrs. Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Buchanan [mailto:sbuc(at)hiwaay.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:49 AM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternator mounting problem > > > sears(at)searnet.com wrote: > > > > > >>Its not that you really need 60 amperes. Its just that the 35 amp > > > > alternator > > > >>is junk IMHO. The fan has been deleted from the 35 amp alternator > >>making > > > > it > > > >>able to destroy itself if, say, you let the battery get > discharged and > > > > then > > > >>fly the plane. I have had no trouble with the 60 amp from Vans. I > >>prefer > > > > that > > > >>alternator with its "safety factor." > >> > >>Flail away! > >> > > > > > > It's OK for Dan to want that extra margin of safety; but, > let me say > > that I don't consider my 35 amp alternator from Van's to be junk. > > It's worked pretty well, actually. Granted, I don't overload it by > > turning everything on at once very much; but, I have had > everything on > > and have not had it fail, yet. I plan on using another 35 > amp unit in > > my new -7A because it works for me. Others may need that margin of > > safety that Dan feels more comfortable with. In that case, > use the 60 > > amp unit. If one is worried about the missing fan, just install a > > blast tube to keep things a bit cooler. > > > Or......just buy the same 35 amp alternator *with* the fan > (it'll fit just fine) from your local discount auto parts > emporium for less than $50. The alternator is NipponDenso as > used on 1976-1979 Honda Civic CVCC without air conditioning. > A common number you can find in Duralast and other reman > alternators is 14184. The Beck/Arnley number is 186-0100. > > Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with Advance Auto Parts alternator) > > > ======== > Matronics Forums. > ======== > ======== > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Subject: Re: Windshield to Canopy joint
John, There have been some good "instructions" made available for doing the slider. Hopefully someone else on the list will point you to them more exactly than I can. Otherwise, search the archives and elsewhere on the web. The RVator had a good article also on the slider. The canopy is frustrating enough that all that material is worthwhile reading before its too late. BTW the new "24 Years of the RVator" from Builder's Bookstore (800-780-4115) is a great reference for any RV builder. The canopy article is in there. (There, Andy, is a plug for your generosity!) Dan Hopper RV-7A N766DH (Flying since July -- about 70 hours) In a message dated 12/18/04 6:12:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time, JTAnon(at)aol.com writes: > > While I would like the juncture to be perfect and even, it's not.=A0 But I > don't understand why the windscreen would be=A0 lower .=A0 How does one make > the > fairing work if the canopy is higher?=A0 Is the manual wrong or am I missing > something obvious. > > John McDonnell (wants to fly by spring) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Windshield to Canopy joint
Date: Dec 18, 2004
It's been a while since doing this on my -6A slider but I seem to remember the instruction calling for washers to be put between the canopy and the roll bar frame were the screws go thru to make the joint as even as possible. You will later fill in the resulting gap with some type of filler. I used epoxy resin with micro balloons mix to a paste like consistency to fill in the gap on mine. Scott Frierson RV-6A flying >From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: Windshield to Canopy joint >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:07:14 EST > > >John, > >There have been some good "instructions" made available for doing the >slider. > Hopefully someone else on the list will point you to them more exactly >than >I can. Otherwise, search the archives and elsewhere on the web. The >RVator >had a good article also on the slider. The canopy is frustrating enough >that >all that material is worthwhile reading before its too late. > >BTW the new "24 Years of the RVator" from Builder's Bookstore >(800-780-4115) >is a great reference for any RV builder. The canopy article is in there. >(There, Andy, is a plug for your generosity!) > >Dan Hopper >RV-7A >N766DH (Flying since July -- about 70 hours) > > >In a message dated 12/18/04 6:12:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time, >JTAnon(at)aol.com writes: > > > > > While I would like the juncture to be perfect and even, it's not.=A0 But >I > > don't understand why the windscreen would be=A0 lower .=A0 How does one >make > > the > > fairing work if the canopy is higher?=A0 Is the manual wrong or am I >missing > > something obvious. > > > > John McDonnell (wants to fly by spring) > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=Npf57YcNrjQXZd73V3I5m3G6hiv3bShNHFpRFNQ8jfanYwVRuwWoJn3d1oKgO5Ol0tttcZ+oK33fQkfL7XBOL/otiSKwf0wiXSB/oDs+YztFblkxQxYeQnP53s+pYdbzhs90t7bj9F8VrfgejgoCRDGHNy6lESMBH7mvumJf+B4;
Date: Dec 18, 2004
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IFR EFIS
Flying on Needle-Ball-Airspeed as your only back-up, IFR in a RV is not easy. If that is the plan you should practice doing partial panel (and often). Trying to fly the T&C or T&B flopping around in IMC is a challenge and not fun. I did it once in a RV and was surprised how poor the TC was for control in just a little turbulence. The safety record of a GA aircraft in IMC after the AI fails is poor. Also, an autopilot should be a must for flying IMC in a RV as others have mentioned. The RV will build speed up very fast, if it gets away from you. I worry more about the subtle instrument failure where its not obvious that its cooked. If you don't have another AI (mechanical or electronic) to cross check, you could put yourself into a bad place. Like I said the TC or T&B wags a lot with just a little turbulence, making it a challenge to read much less cross check. The electric AI gyro makes a great backup, but at $4,000, the Mid-Continent backup Attitude Indicator w/ internal battery is a bit pricey. Some may consider a dual Dynon setup, which is great. However it somewhat defeats the idea of the independent gyro platform, isolating you from any unknown Dynon/BMT/GRT electronic quarks or failures. May be EFIS from two different company's for a Primary/Backup AI. This may protect you somewhat from a common problem across a product line. Any way you cut it it will be $$$$$. I think all manufactures of "experimental" EFIS equip recommend they be used with back-up instruments. They may be 100% reliable, but they are not completely fail-safe or have extensive internal fault monitoring. The big iron has 3 of everything and another 3 computers checking it. With all that, they still have a standby electric "peanut" gyro. Hummm. We dont need this level of system redundancy, but it is something to think about. My RV-7 project is using a dynon, but do not intend on flying IFR with it at this time. If I elected to have IFR capability today, I would use an electric powered AI as backup. Aerobatic manuvers are hard on a mechanical gyro as I learned, but you could temporarily remove it to do serious sky thrashing. My IFR RV-4 went through a vacuum pump and the AI in 400 hours. I used it so little for IFR I pulled it all out. Because of the extra money to add a backup, I will go VFR for now. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Jim Younkin and the folks at Tru-Trak have another neat toy coming out at SNF. It is basically a Solid State Turn Coordinator with a horizon bar that is driven by a solid state gyro and a rate of climb aneriod to yield pitch information. Jim Younkin told me about this device a couple years ago and it looks like they are ready to ship it. This could be either a primary ADI or a backup for a experimental EFIS. My airplane will have one of these as soon as I can get one. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Windshield to Canopy joint
Hi John; The situation with the windscreen - slider joint is that it falls on a sloping portion of the canopy (sloping upwards from front to back). Also the plans imply a small gap should exist at this point to cater to small variations in fit and to allow the installation of some sort of compressible sealing material to cut wind noise. The gap is eventually covered by a built up fiberglass strip so it will not be visible from the outside of the aircraft. Anyway, to accommodate the slope and the gap, the forward lip of the slider portion will have to end up above the aft lip of the canopy portion. To aid in achieving this with a minimum of shimming of the plexiglas, the slider tubes should be adjusted to end up a bit higher than the canopy bow tube (they are different diameters as well, as I recall). At the end of the day, the idea is to be able to lay a straightedge across the canopy gap and have it fall as a tangent to the canopy at that point. For shimming purposes, I used a bunch of thin plastic washers cut from an ice cream bucket that were held in place by clecoes through the canopy rivet/screw holes. This looked pretty ugly so I eventually used a "liquid shim" method using a bead of bondo body filler between the plexi and the tube(s). Canopy off, lay in the bondo, put canopy on to settle down on the plastic shim washers, let bondo set, remove plexi, remove washers, add more bondo, repeat, etc. The fit can be adjusted by sanding off filler or adding a bit more as needed. As a bonus, the bondo can be used to give the tube a sort of D cross-section vice a round shape which (subjectively) looks better. Eventually you fill, prime, paint, etc. to taste and then install the canopy plexi. A big caution, of course, is to do some trials with the filler on some scrap plexi to make sure there is no unhappy reaction between the plexi and the filler. Another tip is to look around a local car restoration or parts place for some trunk rubber sealing strip to use in the canopy gap. This stuff comes in a variety of cross-sections and is just right in consistency to compress a bit when locking the canopy closed to act as a seal. That's how I did things on my -6A and the canopy drawings all said RV-7 on them! See http://www.vansairforce.org/projects/okej/ for a few pictures (scroll about 1/3 down for the canopy stuff). Good luck and happy building. Jim Oke Winnipeg, MB RV-6A C-GKGZ ----- Original Message ----- From: <JTAnon(at)aol.com> Subject: RV-List: Windshield to Canopy joint > > I'm in the final stages of fitting the windscreen and canopy on a RV7A > slider > and I'm confused.=A0 Is this statement in the manual correct? > > Page 9-12, paragraph 3 (Fitting THe Windscreen) in the manual regarding > the > meeting point of the windscreen and canopy on a slider states, " ...the > height > of the canopy frame is adjusted ... so the windscreen portion of the > canopy is > even with, or slightly lower than the sliding portion of the canopy." > > While I would like the juncture to be perfect and even, it's not.=A0 But I > don't understand why the windscreen would be=A0 lower .=A0 How does one > make the > fairing work if the canopy is higher?=A0 Is the manual wrong or am I > missing > something obvious. > > John McDonnell (wants to fly by spring) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 18, 2004
Subject: Re: Windshield to Canopy joint
John, What makes that junction work is the slope of the two pieces of plexi. As you start to open the canopy, the rear of the canopy raises on the track, while the front goes about straight back as you start to open it. Because of the slope, the fiberglass fairing attached to the windscreen is like a funnel for the sliding half to fit into. This is how it clears even though the fiberglass is laid up close to it. I put 2 layers of electrical tape and then a release agent on the sliding part before the lay-up. That gave it more than enough clearance. Is this what you are wondering about? As was posted earlier, you want to build the canopy bubble back to a continuous shape with a gap between the two pieces. I shimmed mine with AN3 washers -- both 1/16 and 1/32 thick as needed. The washers are hidden by the fiberglass lay-up and the rubber seal. Dan Hopper RV-7A Slider Flying about 70 hours now. In a message dated 12/18/04 6:12:07 PM US Eastern Standard Time, JTAnon(at)aol.com writes: > While I would like the juncture to be perfect and even, it's not.=A0 But I > don't understand why the windscreen would be=A0 lower .=A0 How does one make > the > fairing work if the canopy is higher?=A0 Is the manual wrong or am I missing > something obvious. > > John McDonnell (wants to fly by spring) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Re: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 18, 2004
I've gotten a peek at these new ADI's coming from Trutrak, and of course I'll be selling them as soon as they start shipping. I can take orders for them fairly soon, but they tell me they won't likely be shipping until Q2 '05. They'll be just like their pictorial pilot, but wil vertical guidance as well, making it a quasi-ADI except solid state and probably more reliable. Their current solid state T&B will run an hour on a simple 9 volt battery!! They aren't the most advanced digital looking things in the world, but if it's coming from Younkin, you will know it's top notch and VERY reliable. He's forgotten more about aircraft flight instruments than most people will ever know. It's just my opinion, but they will be well worth the money when they are shipped. I've been selling a TON of the pictorial T&B's to guys that are flying heavy IFR in a variety of aircraft and they are using them as backups, and good ones at that. FYI, Dynon's are now starting to show up in quite a few certified airplanes. We've been selling quite a number of harnesses to people who've sucessfully been able to install them in certified aircraft, not the least being an FAA FSDO inspector himslef. I personally know of Dynon's installed in 172's, 182's, 210's, Bonanza's, Various Pipers, and a few twins. Also the T-28 crowd along with the YAK/CJ drivers are installing these things at a high rate. Just my 2 cents as usual! Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Doug Rozendaal Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: IFR EFIS Jim Younkin and the folks at Tru-Trak have another neat toy coming out at SNF. It is basically a Solid State Turn Coordinator with a horizon bar that is driven by a solid state gyro and a rate of climb aneriod to yield pitch information. Jim Younkin told me about this device a couple years ago and it looks like they are ready to ship it. This could be either a primary ADI or a backup for a experimental EFIS. My airplane will have one of these as soon as I can get one. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 18, 2004
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: installing fire sleeve - basic question
I have yet to make any oil or fuel hoses and haven't yet seen any uninstalled firesleeve, so I'm starting from zero knowledge here. Can some one please tell me what the order of operations is? Can firesleeve be installed on a completed hose, that is one that has both end fittings installed? Or do you have to slip it on after installing the first fitting and then install the second end fitting? Thanks, -- Tom Sargent RV-6A, firewall. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: installing fire sleeve - basic question
Date: Dec 18, 2004
om, The firesleeve can fit over the end fitting but when it is sized properly it is tight. If you make the lines first, or have them made, just be patient and work the firesleeve over the fittings. Then dab a bit of high tenmp silicone sealer on each and and secure them so that oil and dirt can't get inside. Mike Robertson >From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:24:56 -0700 > > >I have yet to make any oil or fuel hoses and haven't yet seen any >uninstalled firesleeve, so I'm starting from zero knowledge here. > >Can some one please tell me what the order of operations is? Can >firesleeve be installed on a completed hose, that is one that has both >end fittings installed? Or do you have to slip it on after installing >the first fitting and then install the second end fitting? > >Thanks, >-- >Tom Sargent >RV-6A, firewall. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Hi Tom, I couple of years ago I attended the EAA show at Arlington Washington. While there I bought a "ClampTite" tool for making clamps out of stainless steel tie wire. I believe I paid a show price of US. $20.00 at the time. Well worth it! Because the camping medium is tie wire the possible uses for this tool are quite plentiful. Their brochure claims that "if you can get a wire around it you can clamp it tight" So far they have proven to be right. Using this tool for clamping firesleeve has worked out very well. It is hard to describe the tool and the manner of its use but the clamps it makes are very low profile and have no sharp edges to grab clothing or draw blood. The fact that with just a small bit if practice the clamps it produces look really nice is a bonus as well. With this tool you control the number of times the wire surrounds the hose and how tight the wire clamp gets set. By making double wrap clamps for the firesleeve there is no chance of having the wire cut into and damage the firesleeve. How the clamp is secured after setting up the clamp is unique, tidy and very secure. Contact: http://198.63.56.18/pages/order.html Google clamptite and it's there also Camptite tools, Ray Silvey MFG. Co. PO box 414 Shady Cove Or.97539 Direst Orders-800-962-2901 Tel.-(503) 826-4466 As for Using the RTV on the ends of the firesleeve, Yes by all means use it. It is used to stop oils ,cleaning solvents and environmental contaminants from creeping into the ends of the firesleeve.and damaging the otherwise protected hose. There is an actual industrial product that has been designed for that purpose. I expect it is a liquid form of silicone?. I cannot offer a name or contact info for supply source etc. Maybe ACS could find it. I had a small container given to me and it soon set up into a hard rubber mass after coming in contact with air. Very short shelf life!. don't by a large volume. In use it does work better than the RTV. The people who make the firesleeve most likely make the stuff. I have a length of Parker Stratoflex firesleeve but found nothing tangible on the web. Carry on Hoser, {[;-) >From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question >Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:24:56 -0700 > > >I have yet to make any oil or fuel hoses and haven't yet seen any >uninstalled firesleeve, so I'm starting from zero knowledge here. > >Can some one please tell me what the order of operations is? Can >firesleeve be installed on a completed hose, that is one that has both >end fittings installed? Or do you have to slip it on after installing >the first fitting and then install the second end fitting? > >Thanks, >-- >Tom Sargent >RV-6A, firewall. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Hi Tom, I think you will find a page in the ACS catalog that explains quite a bit about hosing.;) I forgot to sign the other email to you, It's 3:00 am., Jim in Kelowna ----- Original Message ----- From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> Subject: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question > > I have yet to make any oil or fuel hoses and haven't yet seen any > uninstalled firesleeve, so I'm starting from zero knowledge here. > > Can some one please tell me what the order of operations is? Can > firesleeve be installed on a completed hose, that is one that has both > end fittings installed? Or do you have to slip it on after installing > the first fitting and then install the second end fitting? > > Thanks, > -- > Tom Sargent > RV-6A, firewall. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George Steube" <at6c(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: IFR EFIS
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Stein, Have you seen any of the paper work being used to install Dynon's in certificated aircraft? Since the FAA has more or less gotten out of the field approval business it would be interesting to see what some FSDOs are accepting. I don't think mine would go for anything less than an STC. Thanks. George -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein Bruch Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: IFR EFIS I've gotten a peek at these new ADI's coming from Trutrak, and of course I'll be selling them as soon as they start shipping. I can take orders for them fairly soon, but they tell me they won't likely be shipping until Q2 '05. They'll be just like their pictorial pilot, but wil vertical guidance as well, making it a quasi-ADI except solid state and probably more reliable. Their current solid state T&B will run an hour on a simple 9 volt battery!! They aren't the most advanced digital looking things in the world, but if it's coming from Younkin, you will know it's top notch and VERY reliable. He's forgotten more about aircraft flight instruments than most people will ever know. It's just my opinion, but they will be well worth the money when they are shipped. I've been selling a TON of the pictorial T&B's to guys that are flying heavy IFR in a variety of aircraft and they are using them as backups, and good ones at that. FYI, Dynon's are now starting to show up in quite a few certified airplanes. We've been selling quite a number of harnesses to people who've sucessfully been able to install them in certified aircraft, not the least being an FAA FSDO inspector himslef. I personally know of Dynon's installed in 172's, 182's, 210's, Bonanza's, Various Pipers, and a few twins. Also the T-28 crowd along with the YAK/CJ drivers are installing these things at a high rate. Just my 2 cents as usual! Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Doug Rozendaal Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: IFR EFIS Jim Younkin and the folks at Tru-Trak have another neat toy coming out at SNF. It is basically a Solid State Turn Coordinator with a horizon bar that is driven by a solid state gyro and a rate of climb aneriod to yield pitch information. Jim Younkin told me about this device a couple years ago and it looks like they are ready to ship it. This could be either a primary ADI or a backup for a experimental EFIS. My airplane will have one of these as soon as I can get one. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Alternator mounting problem
Ron Schreck wrote: > > > > Is this an internally regulated alternator? I have a B & C regulator > already installed in my RV-8 and would be interested in putting one > of these Autozone clones if it will work with the B & C regulator. > > Ron Schreck Gold Hill Airpark, NC > The 14184 is externally regulated, just like the one Vans sells.......cause it *is* the one Vans sells! :-) A good regulator for it is mid-70's Ford from the same place you buy the alternator, 'bout $10. But the high dollar B&C will work, too. ;-) Sam Buchanan ============================= > > Club" > >> >> >> Or......just buy the same 35 amp alternator *with* the fan (it'll >> fit just fine) from your local discount auto parts emporium for >> less than $50. The alternator is NipponDenso as used on 1976-1979 >> Honda Civic CVCC without air conditioning. A common number you can >> find in Duralast and other reman alternators is 14184. The >> Beck/Arnley number is 186-0100. >> >> Sam Buchanan (RV-6 with Advance Auto Parts alternator) > > I went to Autozone and bought a Duralast 14184 for about $60 with the > fan like Sam mentioned.. It fits perfectly and aligns up with the > flywheel pulley perfectly. It has a lifetime warranty. Bad thing is, > a lot of Autozones electrical stuff doesn't has long life spans, but > they will exchange them indefinitly if you want to keep changing > them.. > > I originally bought Van's alternator kit with the 35 amp alternator. > It was Dead on arrival but I didnt find it out for three years since > I had ordered it and "shelfed" it. One of the diodes was broken > inside. Poor Quality control back at the rebuild shop. It also did > not line up real well. > > Funny thing, both of these were 14184 alternators, but there was a > difference. Van's was twice as much money and it was very poorly > rebuilt. The Duralast looks very nicely rebuilt for much less money. > I am going to buy a spare and "shelf" it again........ > > just my oppinion > > Phil, in Illinois > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douglas A. Fischer" <dfischer(at)iserv.net>
Subject: Re: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360
Date: Dec 19, 2004
clamav-milter version 0.80j on mail6.iserv.net Not to advertise for yet another discussion group, there is a forum on Yahoo that is specifically set up for XP-360 engines that seems to be very informative. You may want to check it out. Doug Fischer RV-9A Wings ----- Original Message ----- From: "davercook" <davercook(at)prodigy.net> Subject: RV-List: Superior XP-360 vs Mattituck TMX-360 > > Listers > Any thoughts on the difference between the Superior XP-360 and the Mattituck TMX-360. The TMX is $1000 less and closer to my home (less shipping cost).I know lots of people like AeroSport but they are a long way away from Florida. Also, Superior will be increasing price as of Jan. 1st. Or is ECI a better or cheaper way to go. I don't know who distributes the ECI engine.There web site only indicates parts available. > Thanks > Dave Cook > Looking for Windmill for RV-6 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net>
Subject: Insurance Question
Listers, Having hopefully got close to flight, after 5 years, I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first 10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours. That is if the pilot is not the insured. This seems to be just the time you need insurance. My question is do all of the other companies have similar restrictions or is this just an Avemco thing. If not I might be tempted to shop around. TIA Jim Bean RV-8 - close PS- They also want 10 hours of current tailwheel time, which I think is quite reasonable. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Burns" <maburns@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Re: installing fire sleeve - basic question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
An old mechanic showed me how to install firesleeve with compressed air. I was working at the Cessna service hanger in Wichita back in the late 70's. I was a young A&P at the time and had been struggling with the firesleeve on an oil hose for at least 15 minutes. This guy comes over to me and say's "let me show you a trick". I said "please". He takes a air hose with a blow nozzle, sticks it up in one end of the fire sleeve and tells me to put the other end on the oil hose. He tells me to get it started and then put my hand around it and squeeze to trap the air inside. By controlling the amount of air you let out, the firesleeve expands and the extra air escaping makes the firesleeve slide on like a hockey puck on an air table. I was amazed and remember it like it was yesterday. Hope this helps someone. Mark Burns ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question > > om, > > The firesleeve can fit over the end fitting but when it is sized properly > it > is tight. If you make the lines first, or have them made, just be patient > and work the firesleeve over the fittings. Then dab a bit of high tenmp > silicone sealer on each and and secure them so that oil and dirt can't get > inside. > > Mike Robertson > >>From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> >>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: RV-List: installing fire sleeve - basic question >>Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:24:56 -0700 >> >> >>I have yet to make any oil or fuel hoses and haven't yet seen any >>uninstalled firesleeve, so I'm starting from zero knowledge here. >> >>Can some one please tell me what the order of operations is? Can >>firesleeve be installed on a completed hose, that is one that has both >>end fittings installed? Or do you have to slip it on after installing >>the first fitting and then install the second end fitting? >> >>Thanks, >>-- >>Tom Sargent >>RV-6A, firewall. >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Insurance Question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Hi Jim, I believe that's a Avemco underwriting standard. I did an article on insurance for homebuilts for Kitplanes in the Oct 2004 issue, and because Avemco's a direct insurer, which means they deal directly with the customers and develop their own underwriting standards. They're strict. Things may have changed since I did my research, but I'd give JT Helms (VanGuard) a ping on the list, or contact Falcon Insurance to see if their standards are different. best, Cory -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Bean Subject: RV-List: Insurance Question Listers, Having hopefully got close to flight, after 5 years, I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first 10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours. That is if the pilot is not the insured. This seems to be just the time you need insurance. My question is do all of the other companies have similar restrictions or is this just an Avemco thing. If not I might be tempted to shop around. TIA Jim Bean RV-8 - close PS- They also want 10 hours of current tailwheel time, which I think is quite reasonable. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HCRV6(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Subject: Re: Windshield to Canopy joint
In a message dated 12/18/04 3:12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, JTAnon(at)aol.com writes: << Page 9-12, paragraph 3 (Fitting THe Windscreen) in the manual regarding the meeting point of the windscreen and canopy on a slider states, " ...the height of the canopy frame is adjusted ... so the windscreen portion of the canopy is even with, or slightly lower than the sliding portion of the canopy." >> I don't know about the -7 instructions but on my -6 I adjusted the mating line by placing spacers (#6 nylon washers) between the plexi and the bars as required to make them even and this worked well. Harry Crosby Pleasanton, California RV-6, flying, 18+ hours so far. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ross S" <rv7maker(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Insurance Question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Jim, Nationair converted my builders policy to full liability and hull coverage (1M and 100K) with no such requirement. I did need a signoff in a tailwheel RV though. A little under $3000 for a year with me as a very low time pilot -Ross Ross Schlotthauer N703RV Flying www.experimentalair.com >From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Insurance Question >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:40:09 -0500 > > >Listers, > >Having hopefully got close to flight, after 5 years, I requested info >from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours. That >is if the pilot is not the insured. > >This seems to be just the time you need insurance. >My question is do all of the other companies have similar restrictions >or is this just an Avemco thing. If not I might be tempted to shop around. > >TIA Jim Bean >RV-8 - close > >PS- They also want 10 hours of current tailwheel time, which I think is >quite reasonable. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: E-Mag
Date: Dec 19, 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: E-Mag > > >SNIP. > > The E-Mag allows you to turn the timing advance off for the fixed 25 deg timing. However I don't know why you would do this, unless you wanted to compare performance with and without advance. With the engine running, old magnetos are always at 25-degree BTDC, ALL THE TIME. > > >SNIP I would guess that the 25 degree can be turned off when the E-Mag is used during starting of engine so it will fire at TDC. Jerry Calvert RV6 N296JC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>
Subject: Mags Crossed
Date: Dec 19, 2004
I'm embarrassed to admit that I switched the P leads on my mag (toggle) switches which means that I was starting on the right mag only and the left one with the impulse couplings only came on line after the engine was running. It worked that way for 7 starts and then refused to start again and that's when I discovered my mistake. I was under the impression that it would not start without the impulse coupling (which is what did happen) but why did it work for a while. Any thoughts from you A&P's out there? Also, just installed my constant speed prop, sure performs great but makes a lot of noise (and some vibration) below 2350 rpm Anyone else experience this? John RV6A O-320 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mags Crossed
Heh, heh... been there done that. Get this, mine ran a year with my mags reversed! Just kept getting harder and harder to start until finally, nothing. Would just run the battery down. Man! A whole year! Yes sir, that's an Aero Sport Power engine! Bart can sure build 'em! John Furey wrote: > >I'm embarrassed to admit that I switched the P leads on my mag (toggle) >switches which means that I was starting on the right mag only and the left >one with the impulse couplings only came on line after the engine was >running. It worked that way for 7 starts and then refused to start again and >that's when I discovered my mistake. I was under the impression that it >would not start without the impulse coupling (which is what did happen) but >why did it work for a while. Any thoughts from you A&P's out there? Also, >just installed my constant speed prop, sure performs great but makes a lot >of noise (and some vibration) below 2350 rpm Anyone else experience this? > >John >RV6A O-320 > > > > -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mags Crossed
John Furey wrote: > >I'm embarrassed to admit that I switched the P leads on my mag (toggle) >switches which means that I was starting on the right mag only and the left >one with the impulse couplings only came on line after the engine was >running. It worked that way for 7 starts and then refused to start again and >that's when I discovered my mistake. I was under the impression that it >would not start without the impulse coupling (which is what did happen) but >why did it work for a while. Any thoughts from you A&P's out there? Also, >just installed my constant speed prop, sure performs great but makes a lot >of noise (and some vibration) below 2350 rpm Anyone else experience this? > >John >RV6A O-320 > I'm no A&P but here's some thoughts. I'm surprised that it started at all! I'm guessing that you have a new lightweight starter that spins that engine really fast. Fast enough for the new mag to generate enough energy to fire and not kick back. Why did it quit firing? Maybe a low battery ..... or the phase of the moon or ....... the things preventing the continued firing are endless. I'm glad you found the problem ...... must have been good sleuthing on your part!!!! As for the CS prop ..... they usually make more noise the faster they go. The vibration (and some of the noise) may be a mis-wired plug(s) ...... check the firing order. Oops .... out of thoughts on this one. Linn > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com>
vansairforce(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: HR II for sale on Ebay Motors
In case anyone's interested. Here's the shortened URL: *http://tinyurl.com/6ar2h * -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com>
vansairforce(at)yahoogroups.com
Subject: RV-8 for sale on Ebay Motors
Seems to be RV day on eBay: *http://tinyurl.com/6la3m * -- Scott VanArtsdalen Van Arts Consulting Services 3848 McHenry Ave Suite #155-184 Modesto, CA 95356 209-986-4647 Ps 34:4,6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org>
Subject: Re: Insurance Question
clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org Jim, I think this is pretty common. Back when AVEMCO was the official EAA insurance company, you were insured from the first flight if you took part in the EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor programs, because it was proven that there were far fewer accidents during early flight testing when builders took advantage of those programs. I don't know if this is true now with the new insurer but, in my opinion, it should be. Dave -6 So Cal EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor Jim Bean wrote: > >Listers, > >...I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours... > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Insurance Question
Date: Dec 19, 2004
Through Nationair I am listed on several polices as a pilot. And as long as the pilot meets the experience requirements they will cover him/her and the aircraft during the first ten hours. You should check them out. Mike Robertson >From: Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Insurance Question >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:40:09 -0500 > > >Listers, > >Having hopefully got close to flight, after 5 years, I requested info >from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours. That >is if the pilot is not the insured. > >This seems to be just the time you need insurance. >My question is do all of the other companies have similar restrictions >or is this just an Avemco thing. If not I might be tempted to shop around. > >TIA Jim Bean >RV-8 - close > >PS- They also want 10 hours of current tailwheel time, which I think is >quite reasonable. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 19, 2004
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Insurance Question
Jim This is an advantage of joining your local EAA Chapter. EAA has a tech councilor program. This program mandates a minimum of 3 tech councilor visits to inspect your workmanship and offer tips and advice. First inspection must be prior to closing up the wings. Avemco will waive the "no insurance for the first 10 hours" if you complete this program. Better yet is the advantage to you, of having an experienced builder look over your work. Charlie Kuss > >Listers, > >Having hopefully got close to flight, after 5 years, I requested info >from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours. That >is if the pilot is not the insured. > >This seems to be just the time you need insurance. >My question is do all of the other companies have similar restrictions >or is this just an Avemco thing. If not I might be tempted to shop around. > >TIA Jim Bean >RV-8 - close > >PS- They also want 10 hours of current tailwheel time, which I think is >quite reasonable. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
Date: Dec 19, 2004
I believe the "new" insurance thru EAA does but I'll will check and get back to you. Cy Galley EAA Safety Programs Editor Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Bristol" <bj034(at)lafn.org> Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org > > Jim, > > I think this is pretty common. Back when AVEMCO was the official EAA > insurance company, you were insured from the first flight if you took > part in the EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor programs, because > it was proven that there were far fewer accidents during early flight > testing when builders took advantage of those programs. I don't know if > this is true now with the new insurer but, in my opinion, it should be. > > Dave -6 So Cal > EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor > > > Jim Bean wrote: > > > > >Listers, > > > >...I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to inflight. They say OK but > >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the first > >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours... > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
"'owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com '"(at)matronics.com
Subject: Apples to oranges
Date: Dec 19, 2004
BTW, my Cheetah had a 35 amp unit that was still running strong after a thousand hours of use. That was one reason I picked Van's 35 amp unit. My RV is set up pretty much like what I had in the Cheetah. My -7A will be, also. Well, I guess I may have some newer toys in the panel. :-) Folks, you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft units. The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is the temperature in your cowl equal to that? Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal temperatures. In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would never fly one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the same with an autozone unit as well. W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us>
"'owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com '"(at)matronics.com
Subject: E-Mag
Date: Dec 19, 2004
After reading the E-Mag web site, it appeared to me that the E-mag is a straight replacement for a mag in that the timing is fixed and does not advance or retard like an electronic ignition does. Am I mistaken? Even if I'm not, the E-mag sounds better than a standard mag. Doug, The E-Mag has the option, via a switch on the side of the unit somewhere to set it to fixed or varible. They then offer an option to have a MAP input which most likely allows them to follow a slightly more agressive timing curve. In any event, it most probably delivers a slightly hotter, longer, and more consistant spark than does the typical mag, even in fixed mode. The problem is how do I justify spending all that money when I already have two perfectly well running mags flying right now. Particularly when every bit if research I've done, including my own empirical testing, shows that CHT is the most critical thing to be monitoring when using an agressive timing curve on an aircooled engine. But, since I don't want to do the work at designing this, my goal here is to stir up the pot enough to get the market pressure to motivate them to make what I want... ;{) W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Taylor" <mtaylo17(at)msn.com>
Subject: Rocket Tailwheel Linkage
Date: Dec 20, 2004
I've left e-mail and phone messages with Terry Jantzi for one of these for my RV-7, but am getting no response at all. Does anybody know if these are still available? Mark Taylor RV-7 QB www.4sierratango.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com>
Subject: Subject: Engines-List: Another O-290 for sale
Date: Dec 19, 2004
I posted this on the engines list and then figured why not spread it around. Call me if you need any more info. --> Engines-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" Ron wrote: "If our friend still has it, there is a steal on a 0-290 that has been rebuilt by a professional aircraft engine builder. Dyno tested @ 140 HP. It is a certified engine and the last asking price was $10,000. If interested, email Ron at rgdplg(at)radiowire.net" I too have an O-290 which I decided to sell. Please note this is not a certified engine. I bought this from a fellow Chapter 14 club member. It was used until fairly recently in his Tailwind and reportedly has about 65 hours on it since a full rebuild. It was removed when he decided to change to a Jabiru in the hopes (vain) of getting more performance. It comes complete with several spares and engine manuals. There is also a prop and spinner which I am willing to sell with it. It has been filled with 30 weight oil and the bores wiped with STP whilst I have had it. I live in the San Diego area but would be willing to deliver up to a couple of hundred miles. I am asking for $6,000 with the prop and spinner and $5,600 for just the engine. Buyer to pay s & h if required. For any more information please feel free to call me directly at 619 916 8059 or email robshipley(at)gmail.com . Rob Rob W M Shipley N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still! Now planning on a Mazda Renesis engine! Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: corrosion
Date: Dec 20, 2004
My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor corrosion around the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like moisture got under the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical spillage. It is only surface corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an extra good going over with the scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been using alodine just epoxy primer. Does this sound okay? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <sears(at)searnet.com>
Subject: Re: Apples to oranges
Date: Dec 20, 2004
> you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile > unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft > units. They sure do look the same, though. :-) OK, you may be right; but, I still picked my Van's alternator based on what was in my Cheetah. So far, that has worked for me. I've not burned up an alternator in my RV; and, it's a 35 amp unit from Van's. I guess one's milage will vary based on usage and luck. :-) I know I can afford a lot of auto alternators, especially with a lifetime warranty, more than I can afford one aircraft alternator. :-) > The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is > the temperature in your cowl equal to that? I'd have to say they're about the same. If one compares the cowl of a Cheetah to that of an RV, there is very little difference. Both are tight cowls. The cylinder temps I see are pretty darned close. I'd say the cowl internal temps are about the same. Neither has a blast tube for cooling the alternator. > Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run > cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal > temperatures. This is true. I'm not suggesting that one should load up a panel, have a zillion lights, pitot heat, etc. and expect to run on 35 amps. However, one shouldn't consider the 35 amp unit junk because it doesn't have the capacity one really should be using for his/her specific needs. My panel is not overloaded; and, I'm not running pitot heat. I do use my lights, on occasion. So far, I've watched the volt meter and ammeter and have found that the 35 amp unit can hold its own. Maybe it won't do that for long periods; but, the extra loads I put on the battery are short term, anyway. Again, one can use blast tubes to keep it cool for those short period blasts of high energy. I chose not to and have been successful with that. > In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not > great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would never fly > one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the same > with an autozone unit as well. I guess I've really been lucky. I'll admit that I know little about overhauling alternators. Heck, I gave up on working on my own cars, long ago. Too darned complicated for a shade tree mechanic. :-) I do know that I've not had any problems with Van's alternators, nose gear leg, and rudder stirrups when others have reported they have. Either I'm lucky as the Dickens; or, I don't abuse what I've installed. I guess it could be a little of both. :-) Now, I do admit that my voltage regulator is a little flakey; but, it's still working just fine. It's Van's adjustable unit. For a point of reference, yesterday was the fifth anniversary of Scooter's first flight. I now have over 300 hours on the tach. With it's being a bit slow, the hours are probably more like 350+ hours. It still has the original small nose gear and stirrups without gussets. No cracks, yet! :-) Jim Sears in KY RV-6A N198JS (Scooter) RV-7A #70317 (Building wings, inventorying fuse) EAA Tech. Counselor ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: corrosion
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Hi Greg, I would be inclined toward using some Alumiprep (scouring with Scotchbrite while acid etching) and then Alodin before priming. The acid etch and Alodine should have a better chance of treating the already corroded portions. I would be reluctant to bury any corrosion under the prime coat. if the corrosion is deep try to sand it out before treating it. if the part is corroded so bad that the sanding etc. appears to ruin it then a replacement will likely be the next choice. I think that the humidity level in the area quite near the coast where Van's is located is commonly higher than other more inland areas. Van's uses a lot of wood and paper when packing parts for shipping. It might be wise to unpack and unwrap every thing upon arrival to inspect and then store in a warm dry environment. The new plant and its location might be a bit less humid but still getting parts out into a controlled drier environments can't hurt. Jim in Kelowna > > My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor > corrosion around the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like > moisture got under the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical > spillage. It is only surface corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an > extra good going over with the scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been > using alodine just epoxy primer. Does this sound okay? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Notice to carbureted engine users
Date: Dec 20, 2004
0.20 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From: contains an underline and numbers/letters Just wanted to pass along what I thought was a new learning experience for me yesterday. Here's a little background - I have a 4 year old RV-8 with about 688 hrs on engine and airframe. Engine is a 160-hp O-320 with a Marvel Shebler MA-4SPA carb. I had some rough engine issues and it recently it started becoming hard to shut down. I rebuilt the old carb 688 hrs ago, and was looking for an excuse to buy a factory reconditioned one. There it was. Bought one from Kelly Aerospace. Was a first class product, well packaged and assembled. After the quick swap, I fired up the plane and ended up flying 2-3 hrs Saturday with nothing but good performance. Sunday I flew another 2 hrs or so, but noticed a problem while approaching to land. One of my flying buddies was departing, so I decided to asked for the low appch to follow my buddy out of the ATA. When I got full power applied, it began missing about once or twice every second or so. Wasn't enough to cause a noticable loss of power, but made me mad more than anything! I wanted to go fly and I had just dropped a few bills on the new carb. On climb out at the airport, I switched tanks, boost on, changed rpm setting (for some reason), changed power, mag check - the problem never went away while at cruise power in the downwind so I asked for landing clearance. Back at the hanger, I did a power and mag check. Checked for water in the fuel. No problems. About 2 hrs later I made another test flight to confirm my theory, and had no problems. Nor could I reproduce the problem though. Conclusion - I believe, for the first time that I'm aware of in nearly 700 hrs, I had carb ice. With the new, "tighter" carb and induction system (which I coincidentally sealed up with RTV when I swapped carbs), I believe it iced up. Conditions were marginal for ice, IMO - 65F OAT, 28F dewpoint. But the info I found below shows the ice as possible. www.nawcad.navy.mil/flyingclub/ training%20presentations%5CCarburetor%20Ice%5CCarburetor%20Ice.ppt Just something to consider. Bryan Jones Houston, TX ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j
on zoot.lafn.org
Date: Dec 20, 2004
From the man in charge of the EAA insurance. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Mackey" <bmackey(at)falconinsurance.com> Subject: RE: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on zoot.lafn.org > Hello Cy! > > The EAA Plan will provide insurance coverage for first flight provided > the EAA Member participates in the EAA Flight Advisor Program. Anyone > needing assistance or having questions should contact one of the EAA > Plan Specialists at (866) 647-4EAA (4322)...... (Also, there are some > special situations that may come into play so it is important to contact > the EAA Plan.) > > Happy Holidays! If there is anything else I can lend a hand with please > let me know! > > Bob Mackey > Falcon Insurance Agency > Oshkosh, WI > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:01 AM > To: Bob Mackey > Subject: Fw: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on > zoot.lafn.org > > > Can you help? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:39 PM > Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j on > zoot.lafn.org > > > > I believe the "new" insurance thru EAA does but I'll will check and > > get > back > > to you. > > > > Cy Galley > > EAA Safety Programs Editor > > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Bristol" <bj034(at)lafn.org> > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 8:49 PM > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance Question clamav-milter version 0.80j > on > > zoot.lafn.org > > > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > I think this is pretty common. Back when AVEMCO was the official EAA > > > > insurance company, you were insured from the first flight if you > > > took part in the EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor > > > programs, because it was proven that there were far fewer accidents > > > during early flight testing when builders took advantage of those > > > programs. I don't know if this is true now with the new insurer but, > > > > in my opinion, it should be. > > > > > > Dave -6 So Cal > > > EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor > > > > > > > > > Jim Bean wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Listers, > > > > > > > >...I requested info from Avemco about converting not-inflight to > > inflight. They say OK but > > > >have two surprising, to me, restrictions. No hull coverage for the > first > > > >10 hours and no liability to a test pilot for the first 10 hours... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Subject: Re: Apples to oranges
W, I agree with most of what you have said, but I wonder where you heard that the auto ratings of alternators are not for continuous duty? Although my experience working for Delco Electronics on their regulator program dates back to the 1960s, those ratings were for continuous operation. How would the operator of a car know to reduce the load on his electrical system? Alternators are self limiting in their current capacity at a given rpm. (Generators before them had to be protected by a current limiting coil in the voltage regulator.) That's where that amperage rating comes from. We used 6000 rpm as the "standard" test rpm. When loaded slightly greater than their output current rating, the voltage drops causing the field current to drop resulting in a foldback, and that is all you get. Of course, the same thing happens at other rpms, but at different output currents. Lower at lower rpm, and slightly higher at higher rpm. Alternators are designed to have enough cooling air (the fan) that in the under hood environment (about 125 degrees C.) they will not self-destruct regardless of the load. An alternator is approximately 50 percent efficient, meaning that it dissipates about 490 watts internally when it delivers 35 amps at 14 volts. To keep the internal temperature safe, cooling air is required. Many automobile alternators turn backwards when used in an airplane. I think that is why Van's discards the fan. The certificated airplanes that use alternators (that I have seen) still have a fan, and I would highly recommend one for the above reason. Even a reversed fan would be better than none at all. But there are some cars out there that have the right fan, I would expect. Van's 35 amp alternator would be just fine at 35 amps if you can get enough cooling air to it. I'm not sure a blast tube guarantees that, but it may. Another alternative would be to sense the temperature of the diode heat sink and light a warning light on the panel if it overheats so that the field circuit breaker could be turned off. This would be at about 150 degrees C. Not too many of us have time or resources to do this. But, this may be easier than taking the necessary data to assure ourselves that the system is doing the job reliably as installed in our particular airplane. OK, sorry folks, but I had to jump in here. Of course just IMHO. Regards, Dan Hopper RV-7A N766DH (Flying with Van's 60 amp alternator, even though I don't need even 35 amps!) > Folks, > > you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile > unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft > units. > > The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is > the temperature in your cowl equal to that? > > Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run > cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal > temperatures. > > In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not > great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would never fly > one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the same > with an autozone unit as well. > > W > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2004
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwheel
While I was doing my annual, a gentleman came by and suggested what a freind of his had done on his RV-4: Bend a peice of flat stainless steel. into a U-shape with a 1/2" hole in one end. This will protect the threaded portion that hangs down. Sort of a tail skid-wheel combination. Finn H.Ivan Haecker wrote: But that all said, does anyone know of a valid criteria by which to >>determine of a tail wheel is worn out? >> >>W >> >> >> >I don't have the answer to that, but I will say that after 1120 hrs. my >angle of attack while sitting on the ground is increasing! The biggest >problem is that with the original style tail gear, the threaded portion that >hangs down sure gets caught on things a lot easier. I got hung up this >weekend on one of those cables that are used for tie downs. It stopped me >real quick(was only going a couple of mph). I guess I'm carrier qualified! >So for me, it's probably time. I'll measure the tire diameter the next time >I'm at the hangar if you are interested. >Ivan Haecker -4 1120 hrs. S. Cen. TX > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2004
From: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: Apples to oranges
Interesting numbers for sustained temps, much higher than I expected. On the CAFE web page the exit air temp on a RV-8 was 163 F. So there is your under the cowl temps for those interested. > >W, > >I agree with most of what you have said, but I wonder where you heard that >the auto ratings of alternators are not for continuous duty? Although my >experience working for Delco Electronics on their regulator program dates >back to >the 1960s, those ratings were for continuous operation. How would the >operator >of a car know to reduce the load on his electrical system? > >Alternators are self limiting in their current capacity at a given rpm. >(Generators before them had to be protected by a current limiting coil in the >voltage regulator.) That's where that amperage rating comes from. We >used 6000 >rpm as the "standard" test rpm. When loaded slightly greater than their >output >current rating, the voltage drops causing the field current to drop resulting >in a foldback, and that is all you get. Of course, the same thing happens at >other rpms, but at different output currents. Lower at lower rpm, and >slightly higher at higher rpm. Alternators are designed to have enough >cooling air >(the fan) that in the under hood environment (about 125 degrees C.) they will >not self-destruct regardless of the load. An alternator is approximately 50 >percent efficient, meaning that it dissipates about 490 watts internally when >it delivers 35 amps at 14 volts. To keep the internal temperature safe, >cooling air is required. > >Many automobile alternators turn backwards when used in an airplane. I think >that is why Van's discards the fan. The certificated airplanes that use >alternators (that I have seen) still have a fan, and I would highly >recommend one >for the above reason. Even a reversed fan would be better than none at all. >But there are some cars out there that have the right fan, I would expect. >Van's 35 amp alternator would be just fine at 35 amps if you can get enough >cooling air to it. I'm not sure a blast tube guarantees that, but it may. >Another alternative would be to sense the temperature of the diode heat >sink and >light a warning light on the panel if it overheats so that the field circuit >breaker could be turned off. This would be at about 150 degrees C. Not >too many >of us have time or resources to do this. But, this may be easier than taking >the necessary data to assure ourselves that the system is doing the job >reliably as installed in our particular airplane. > >OK, sorry folks, but I had to jump in here. Of course just IMHO. > >Regards, > >Dan Hopper >RV-7A >N766DH (Flying with Van's 60 amp alternator, even though I don't need even 35 >amps!) > > > > Folks, > > > > you can't compare the rating of an aircraft alternator with an automobile > > unit. The auto units are not rated at continous duty as are the aircraft > > units. > > > > The other factor is that the units are rated at a specific temperature. Is > > the temperature in your cowl equal to that? > > > > Having it be of a load capacity that is larger just allows for it to run > > cooler at an equal load, or at least to be better suited to handling equal > > temperatures. > > > > In my limited experience with Van's units (about ten of them) they are not > > great units and in several cases they were flat out trash. I would > never fly > > one without first overhauling it myself. But, that said, I would do the > same > > with an autozone unit as well. > > > > W > > > > > > Scott Bilinski Eng dept 305 Phone (858) 657-2536 Pager (858) 502-5190 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Subject: Re: E-Mag - knock sensing
In a message dated 12/19/04 8:46:49 PM US Eastern Standard Time, jjewell(at)telus.net writes: > Hi G, > > Am I wrong in thinking that Ping sensing would seem to be a missing > component in the current electronic ignition system designs? > I would like to think that including ping sensing as is done in automotive > electronic ignition systems might some day be incorporated into the various > ignition systems that have come on stream lately. Do you or any other > listers have ideas in this regard. > > Best of the season to everyone, > > Jim in Kelowna > Jim, For a while I worked on ion-sense ignition systems for GM. Ion sense was invented by a guy from Sweden, whom I met, who worked for Saab. I believe his name was Yon Nytompt -- probably spelled wrong. He was a very interesting guy who used to race motorcycles. As far as I know Saab still uses ion sense on their cars. Maybe GM does by now too. Ion sensing is done by looking at the waveform of current at the low potential side of the secondary of the ignition coil after the spark has ended. A special circuit supplies a voltage to the spark plug to use it as a sensor. Engine knock has a very distinct waveform which the electronics uses to retard the timing. The type of knock sensing that American cars use probably wouldn't work on air cooled engines. This is basically a microphone mounted to the engine block to acoustically listen for knock. There are filters which pass only the resonant frequency of the block which is set off by the knock. Unfortunately, other mechanical noises sound very similar because they also cause the block to resonate. One cure is to only look for the knock in a time window -- so many degrees ATDC. All this is very difficult to make work in the real world. I would imagine that the production volume is just too low in GA to have any payback. That is not to say that it can't be done. Quite the opposite. But it isn't easy. Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Erich Weaver" <erichweaver(at)cox.net>
Subject: RV-7 wing tip height?
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Greetings. I am new to this list, and am considering purchase of an RV-7A kit that has already been started. Before I commit, I want to be sure that it will fit in the hangar that Im currently sharing. Specifically, I need to know if the RV-7A wing tip wiill be able to pass under the wing tip of the adjacent plane. If there's some out there who has their the wings on and could measure the distance from the ground to the TOP of the wing tip, I would greatly appreciate it. regards, erich weaver ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Subject: Re: corrosion
From: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter(at)jpainter.org>
> My aileron and flap skins that came with the kit seem to have minor corrosion > around the edges and where the holes were punched, it looks like moisture got > under the plastic film or maybe some kind of chemical spillage. It is only > surface corrosion and I thought I'd just give it an extra good going over with > the scotchbrite and then prime. I haven't been using alodine just epoxy > primer. Does this sound okay? Greg: I'm no expert with chemicals, but the first thing I would look at would be Alumiprep. It states on the bottle that it can be used for removing 'major' corrosion, so I would think it could help you here. It will also be able to remove corrosion inside of the holes where your scotchbrite pad may not be able to reach. The only potential caveat to Alumiprep that I see is that it will obviously discolor alcad since it etches it so care must be taken with it if you plan on only alumprepping the inside of the skin. Hope this helps, Jamie -- Jamie D. Painter RV-7A wings, fuse on order N622JP (reserved) http://rv.jpainter.org ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Subject: Re: Apples to oranges
In a message dated 12/20/04 11:37:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time, bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com writes: > > > > Interesting numbers for sustained temps, much higher than I expected. On > the CAFE web page the exit air temp on a RV-8 was 163 F. So there is your > under the cowl temps for those interested. > > Yes, of course those are worst case -- like tied up in traffic in the summer with the A/C (thats air conditioning) on, etc., and those are degree C. Very hot! Dan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2004
From: Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: "experimental" engine?
A friend and fellow RV builder is having serious second thoughts about ever finishing his airplane project. Seems long hours at work and family commitments devour most of his time these days and the RV-6A project gets little attention of late. I suspect he may be going through a period of doubt that many of us experience at one time or another during the building process and will eventually overcome it. But for the rest of us, the distressing part of his story lies elsewhere. In an effort to save money early in the building process, he elected to buy a Bart LeLonde O-320 AeroSport engine. It is a beautiful piece of work. It has new Millenium cylinders and pistons, all new accessories, and a brand new crankshaft. But his initial euphoria evaporated many months later when the state became aware of the purchase and he was held liable for substantial customs fees and penalties. This one event effectively and dramatically narrowed the margin he enjoyed over buying a new OEM Ly coming engine (read domestic) through Van's. He now tells me that Nationair is balking at renewing his builders insurance because their position is they are not inclined to cover an under-construction aircraft they do not intend to cover when flying. Seems he was told by "someone" at Nationair they now consider the AeroSport to be an "experimental" engine. In addition, new policies will no longer be written to cover the insured for construction time, typically $15 an hour. Now what I have just related to this list should be considered hearsay..... that is.....only my personal interpretation of details as he related the events to me. If anyone out there has had similar untoward experiences that can substantiate these claims, particularly as it relates to insurance matters, it would be helpful for members of this list to be cognizant of any such developments. Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" N307R "finished" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JT Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Re: "experimental" engine?
Date: Dec 20, 2004
Sorry to hear about the import problem. On the insurance issue, it isn't NationAir that's taking that position. Phoenix Aviation Managers formerly insured the Aerosport Power engines after we lobbied them very hard about it. Some of the companies we're left with after Phoenix's departure do not. (Particularly... and peculiarly... the EAA's program.) However, AIG will accept that engine though (again after NationAir took the lead and got them to agree to it) for both builders risks and flying RVs.... I don't see what the problem is. It is likely that it's more expensive than what Phoenix formerly offered. Perhaps that is why your friend feels it is a problem (not availability but price). As for payment for building time, again Phoenix's program was very nice, but is no longer available. They paid $15 per hour for labor. Both the EAA's program and AIG don't mention that at all in their policy. Vagueness in insurance policies is bad for insurance companies. Without setting limits, they can get hit for a lot by the courts (i.e. they offer you $7/hour, you sue them to get $20) You are likely to win as the courts default to you since they are supposed to have lawyers and insurance experts draw up the policy, and presumably you're not a lawyer. I've gotten answers from both companies that vary from 'we don't pay for labor on a builders risk' to 'we'd negotiate on that with the insured.' I am trying to get both companies to clarify that better for your and their sake. As it stands now with both it is a negotiation. While you're not likely to get $50 or $60/hour that an FBO gets, I'd ask for $15 if it were me. In lieu of that, it may be cost effective to consider substituting QB wings for wings you built yourself (for example). John "JT" Helms Branch Manager NationAir Insurance Agency Light Aircraft Office. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RV-List: "experimental" engine? > > A friend and fellow RV builder is having serious second thoughts about ever finishing his airplane project. Seems long hours at work and family commitments devour most of his time these days and the RV-6A project gets little attention of late. I suspect he may be going through a period of doubt that many of us experience at one time or another during the building process and will eventually overcome it. But for the rest of us, the distressing part of his story lies elsewhere. In an effort to save money early in the building process, he elected to buy a Bart LeLonde O-320 AeroSport engine. It is a beautiful piece of work. It has new Millenium cylinders and pistons, all new accessories, and a brand new crankshaft. But

December 12, 2004 - December 20, 2004

RV-Archive.digest.vol-qg